03/24/2021 - Meeting Materials Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
Racial Equity in Policing Commission
Salt Lake City Utah
Wednesday,March 24,2021
5:00 p.m.
This meeting is a discussion among Commissioners and select presenters. The public is welcome. Items
scheduled may be moved or discussed during a different portion of the meeting based on circumstances or
availability of speakers.
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Core Commission determination that conducting
the meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be
present at the anchor location. The Commission Meeting will not have a physical location and all attendees
will connect remotely.
Members of the public may provide public comment by joining through Zoom (registration in advance
required): https://zoom.us/webinar/register/" d1TAnZXwRX2Vg59ZAZwG8A or by calling 1-800-
934-9182 at the time of the meeting.
You may follow along with the meeting on the SLC REP Live Commission Meeting YouTube Channel. To
engage in the listening process,please visit www.slcMpcommission.com.
I. Welcome and Public Meeting Guidelines
Confirm the determination of the Core Commissioners to meet electronically because meeting at
a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be
present at the anchor location.
2. Review of Minutes: January 28,2021
3. Public Comment(limited to 15 minutes)
• Attendees may be provided one or two minutes of time,determined by the number of
attendees and the time available determined by the Commission. Please observe the time
limit stated at the beginning of the public comment period so everyone may have a
chance to speak.
• Per the public meeting guidelines,keep comments free of discriminatory language
referring to a person or group based on their religion,ethnicity,nationality,race, color,
descent, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or other gender identity factor. Items
or comments that disrupt the meeting,intimidate other participants or that may cause
safety concerns are not allowed.
4) Commission Business
o Resignation of Commission member; Core Commission Member change; and
discussion of replacement Commission Member
• Vacancy Memorandum
1
3/23/2021 1:26 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
o Other including Scheduling Items
• Partner Pair Program: Contact Kaletta Lynch if you are interested in
participating.
• Meeting opportunities with Matrix Consulting,the budget consultant working
with the City Council on the Police Department Budget Audit
• Opportunity to attend the City Council Work Session on behalf of the
Commission(5-10 minutes overview of the work in progress); optional for 3-4
commissioners per meeting generally between 2 pm and 5 pm.
• Apri16, 13, 20
4. Discussion relating to the Fiscal Year 2022 Police Budget
The Commission may discuss goals and purposes relating to the City's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
5. Data Sharing
Facilitators and Commission Members may discuss the data resources reviewed in Subcommittee
discussions.
6. Follow-up Discussion: Best Practices
Commission members working on the Literature Review may share best practices researched.
7. Standin Items
tems
• Subcommittee Reports
o Training Subcommittee
o Policies&Practice Subcommittee
o School Safety Subcommittee
• On March 7,2021 Draft Recommendations were approved; however,
feedback received has adjusted the recommendations.The Commission
may review the adjustments.
Meeting materials: Initially Approved Recommendations, Striving for
Eguity and the Agreement between Salt Lake City School District& Salt
Lake City Corporation.
o Youth Subcommittee
8. TENTATIVE Closed Session
The Commission will consider a motion to enter into a Closed Session. A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character,professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
c. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices, or systems; and
d. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah
Code § 7813-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the
Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
2
3/23/2021 1:26 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before Tuesday,March 23,2021 4:30 pm the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does
hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was(1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created
under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and(2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune
and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISE MAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda.People with disabilities may
make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters, and
other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a
request,please contact City staff at REPCommission&slcgov.com or 801-535-7644, or relay service 711.
3
3/23/2021 1:26 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission& City Council Meeting Minutes
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Minutes
Salt Lake City Utah
Listening Session Minutes
Thursday, January 28, 2021
6:00 pm
The Racial Equity in Policing Commission met in an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation and determination of the Core Commissioners. This meeting was broadcast live
on SLCTV Channel 17. Minutes are provided in conjunction with the video/audio file.
Commission Members in Virtual Attendance: Commissioner Ka'ili, Commissioner Shifflett,
Commissioner McDonald, Commissioner Smith,Commissioner Oomen, Commissioner Ahmad,
Commissioner Prospero, Commissioner Banuri,Commissioner Kum, Commissioner Salazar-Hall,
Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Eldridge,Commissioner Anjewierden, Commissioner Johnson,
Commissioner Hawkins,Commissioner Sagato-Mauga, Commissioner Romero-Paredes, Commissioner
Tadesse, Commissioner Powell
Commission Members Absent: Commissioner Mberwa,Commissioner Solovi,Commissioner Suarez,
Commissioner Kuenihira
City Council Members in Virtual Attendance: Chris Wharton,Amy Fowler, Dan Dugan (Note: as there
was no quorum and attendance of Council members was not in official capacity for action, there are no
minutes on behalf of the City Council.)
Facilitators(Langdon Group)in Virtual Attendance: Dante James, Larry Schooler, Siobhan Locke, Josh
King
City Staff in Virtual Attendance: Katie Lewis, City Attorney; Mark Kittrell, Deputy City Attorney; Chief
Mike Brown,Police; David Litvack,Mayor's Senior Advisor; Kaletta Lynch,Mayor's Special Projects
Coordinator; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst;Kira Luke; City Council Policy Analyst; and
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Facilitator Larry Schooler.Mr. Schooler introduced the
purpose of the meeting to hear from the community on the topic of Racial Equity and to hear perspective,
experiences, and suggestions you are interested in sharing.Mr. Schooler provided the meeting contact
information in Spanish and English languages.
A poll shared via text,by phone, and online with those calling into the meeting was presented on the
screen and included the following questions:
1. What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in?
Sugarhouse(25%);Downtown/Central City(25%);Glendale/Poplar Grove(0%);Rosepark/NW Quadrant
(15%);Liberty Wells(10%);Avenues/University/East Bench(10%);I don't live in Salt Lake City(10%)
2. What is your race or ethnicity?
American Indian or Alaska native(0%);Black or African American(14%);African(3%);Hispanic,
Latino,Chicano(7%);Middle Eastern(0%);Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander(14%);Southeast
Asian(3%);White(55%);Other Race,Ethnicity(3%)
3. In general,what have your experiences been like with Police in Salt Lake City?
Great(25%);Okay(36%);Bad(14%);Haven't had any(25%)
1
3/23/2021 12:28 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission& City Council Meeting Minutes
4. SLCPD officers should have better training in which area?
Cultural competency/implicit bias(40%);Crisis intervention(47%);Community interaction(7%);
Firearms(0%);Other(7%)
5. What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds?
Stronger outreach(34%);Better pay and benefits(7%);More welcoming culture(41%);Other(17%)
Please click here to view the final poll results (same as listed above).
Mr. Schooler completed the poll information, announced the attendance of Commission Members in
attendance and introduced the Mayor,Police Chief and announced the attendance of City Council
members present.
Mr. Schooler invited Chief Brown,Mayor Mendenhall, City Council Chair Fowler, and Commission
Members to share thoughts of what they are hoping to learn from the Listening Session.
Chief Brown responded his goal was to listen and understand rather than listen and reply, so his
efforts can be directed to what the community would like to see from the SLC Police Department.
Mayor Mendenhall responded with her personal learning experience and the necessity of vulnerability
to adjust the status quo,to listen, and move forward with change. Mayor Mendenhall also noted the
work of the Commission as very important to the City and the public engagement is critical to its
efforts.
City Council Chair Fowler shared gratitude for the opportunity to be a part of the listening session
and introduced the role of the Council in the development of policy. City Council Chair Fowler stated
interest on behalf of the Council to develop good,effective policy to meets the needs of the
community.
Commission Members Shifflett,Kum, and McDonald responded to the invitation from Mr. Schooler
and expressed hope to understand what the public expects from the Commission,to listen to the
experiences of those impacted by the events which have brought the City to this space, and to
empower individuals to speak about personal experiences as those shared moments are what moves
the work of equity forward.
(22:02)Mr. Schooler introduced the comment period.
Public Comments:
Michael Fisher,resident of downtown Salt Lake City, shared discouragement of officers not taking
his reports seriously,in particularly of an experience reporting a missing girl(Elizabeth Santiago)on
the streets of Salt Lake City.His suggestion was for the Police Department to respond immediately
and take leads seriously.
Beverly Hawkins shared how impressed she has been in observing the work of the Commission,but
noted there has not been much discussion about the role of police unions,expressed concern the
balance of power has tipped too far to the benefit of union members,desired the leadership of the
police department to view the opportunity of the work to build the best police department in the
nation.
Virginia Kinloch resident of Salt Lake City, shared desire to see more reform when hiring,to inform
individuals interested in serving as police officers of the lifestyle built upon serving the people,
2
3/23/2021 12:28 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission& City Council Meeting Minutes
concerned with disconnected information between the crisis line and activity of the police, and
encouraged collaboration.
Amy Hawkins Chair of the Ballpark Community Council, commented on the "mass exodus"of
officers leaving the force, inquired about the efforts pursued to understand the departure reasoning
beyond the exit interview, suggested hiring a third party.
Diane shared appreciation for the police department on the three calls she had to make on her son,the
patience and kindness of Police was appreciated.
Commissioner Salazar-Hall proposed a visit offline with the caller to better understand what the
police officers did well and identify specific officers.
Lou (they,them)Executive Board Member of the Disability Rights Action Committee, shared three
interactions with Police Officers of concerning behavior(insensitivity,threats, and disrespect),
expressed appreciation for the female Internal Affairs supervisor who was willing to listen and
shared interest in addressing curriculum changes necessary to address equity, and they expressed
concern of intimidation tactics as part of police culture.
Andrew Riggle of the Disability Law Center shared statistics of mental health incidents and
appreciation of the focus on training and de-escalation policies, suggested more equitable language
access and review of alternative communication options,including American Sign Language,use of
pictures for those with intellectual disabilities,Braille and overall providing options besides English
and verbal responses.
Ma Black asked Chief Brown and Mayor Mendenhall to provide a response of the steps or
precautions the City is taking to secure safety of communities of color and particularly in relation to
doxing by white supremacists. Mr. Schooler responded that the question would be addressed offline
due to the mission of the meeting to receive comments.
Angela Kendah expressed appreciation to the Police and the City leadership, suggested more
accountability in the Police force as it can appear there is more protection than accountability, offered
the protocol similar to professional licensing process made public as an option to promote
accountability.
Matthew received the call and expressed appreciation for the efforts of reaching out to the
community, shared his desire to form collaboration opportunities for refugees to engage in POST and
Police Academy training to enhance policing representation be similar to the diverse communities of
Salt Lake.
Throughout the meeting comments Mr. Schooler read social media and text message comments
provided in the comment summary linked here.
Rosio (they,them)shared two points 1)personal choice as an immigrant to not obtain a drivers
license due to fear of police and 2)effort to engage in the Citizens Academy resulted in increased
terror due to the inability of the officers conducting the academy to manage inappropriate comments
and the display of videos of people of color being shot in a jovial manner, suggested more follow-up
by police,particularly as a neighbor to a recent shooting of a child in their neighborhood and the
promise of victim services without follow up.
City Council Chair Fowler requested more information about the victim services mentioned to ensure
the neighbors who witnessed the incident.
3
3/23/2021 12:28 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission& City Council Meeting Minutes
Milo asked three questions 1)what have the police done to reduce occurrences similar to that of
Darrien Hunt? 2)what purpose does increased diversity in the police force have if the police force
exists as an oppressive entity, and 3)what have the police considered changing to eliminate criminal
charges directed at the unsheltered community?
Taratunga suggested there is not enough training prior to inclusion on the police force.
Katherine Sullivan from the Ballpark area shared a personal experience of her daughter's murder,
expressed concern about the careless investigation and tainted evidence resulting in a plea bargain,
suggested re-training for officers regularly and to follow up with cases after prosecution is completed.
Jose Borjon of the Mexican Consulate Office shared a comment regarding the expectations from
the Commission to establish recommendations that are feasible,requested assistance to assure the
Hispanic business owners(particularly those on the west side of the City)who have called for Police
assistance and not received responses, and suggested the Police department policy be updated to be in
line with the State legislation relating to hate crimes.
Maggie shared experiences in the Downtown area at her place of business with unsheltered members
of the community and needing to call the Police wherein they did not respond; suggested increased,
annual training efforts including non-lethal force training.
Rebecca Jensen shared the personal value she received by attending the Citizens Academy to
increase her understanding of the Police culture and expressed desire for the City to provide
opportunities for the officers to live in the area where they serve.
Reza shared a personal experience relating to an automotive accident and the potential display of a
power move instead of discretion of an officer to issue a ticket instead of a warning.
Tosh directed a question to Mayor Mendenhall and Chief Brown regarding the use of Police force to
accompany the health department to camp abatements,which occur despite CDC guidelines due to
COVID-19 and requested the Police identify themselves upon arrival.
David suggested development and public transparency of the terms equity and not equality in
Community Policing;noting the goal of the two terms may be the same but the approach is different.
Michael expressed concern of the Police and Mayor removing possessions from unsheltered people
and the divergent thought impact between police and the citizens relating to this process, suggested
the use of more police discretion to decide in their day-to-day jobs what crimes require pursuit, and
the need for SLCPD to acknowledge the need for substantial reform.
Mr. Schooler shared with the public the goal of the evening was to listen, and therefore responses
from Chief Brown,Mayor Mendenhall or others have not been replied to in the meeting but will be
addressed at a later time. The final commenter asked how frequently the Police Department conducts
diversity training, sharing a cultural perspective from the Pacific Islander community relating to eye
contact and age.
Commissioner Davis expressed appreciation for the members of the community which contributed.
Commissioner Salazar-Hall added that a Frequently Asked Questions document will be created to
respond to the questions and expressed appreciation for the comments.
Meeting adjourned at 7:48 pm
4
3/23/2021 12:28 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission& City Council Meeting Minutes
Cindy Lou Trishman
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been
held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Racial Equity in
Policing Commission Listening Session held January 28, 2021.
5
3/23/2021 12:28 PM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Racial Equity in Policing Commission DATE: March 22,2021
FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman,City Recorder
SUBJECT: Process of Filling a Vacancy on the Commission
Commission structure:
21 Commission Members:
6 Core Commissioners
13 Commissioners
8 Youth Subcommittee members—2 Rotating Voting Members per Commission Meeting
upon establishment; adjusted to 3 Rotating Voting Members in October 2020.
Timeline:
• August 18, 2020: Racial Equity in Policing Commission created by Joint Resolution by the
Mayor and City Council
• August 26,2020: Racial Equity in Policing Commission begins Open Meetings
• September 2020: Commissioner Guzman resigned from the Commission due to a move relating
to employment
• October 2020: Commission selected to fill the vacant position by adding an additional Youth
Subcommittee member (Commissioner Oomen). The Youth Subcommittee gained third voting
position to the full Commission, filling the vacancy created by Commissioner Guzman's
resignation
• November 2020: Commissioner Batar resigned from the Commission due to work obligations
• December 2020: Commissioner Ahmad accepted the position to serve as a Core Commissioner,
filling the vacancy created by Commissioner Batar's resignation
Due to Commissioner Ahmad's movement into the Core Commission position, one vacant position
remains to the date of this memo
Vacancy process:
The Racial Equity in Policing Commission was established by the Mayor& City Council with six Core
Commissioners. The Core Commissioners selected the 13 representatives from recommendations and
created the Youth Subcommittee in the same pattern. The Core Commissioners are interested in the
Commission members' recommendations of local,cultural representation and will facilitate the process of
filling the vacant seat.
It is noted that the vacancy process as outlined is different than the general board and commission
vacancy process outlined in City Code due to the unique establishment of the Commission.
LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 415,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145515,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5515
TELEPHONE:801-535-7671 FAX:801-535-7681
SALT LADE CITY
FACIAL EQUITY IN
POLICING COMMISSION
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS
AND FIRST SET OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Continued Racial Disparity in the Students that are
interacting with School Resources Officers (SROs)
ISSUE- Despite a dramatic decrease in the overall number of citations given to students
by SROs and reduction in racial disparity in these citations (due to recent juvenile justice
reform efforts, the 2018 MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD, and School-Based Law
Enforcement Training for both SROs and school administrators), there is still some
disparity in the number of citations given to Hispanic students in some schools. For
example, high school
citations for 2013-2014 were Number of Citations
125 White Hispanics v 18
White Non-Hispanic
students. For 2019-2020, 20 2013-2014
White Hispanics v 2 White
Non-Hispanic got citations.
This reveals significant 2019-2020
reductions in amount of
citations and disparity as well, 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
but disparity is still present in Non-Hispanic ■Hispanic
2019-2020.
ASSOCIATED RECOMMENDATIONS
Early in the work of this subcommittee we were made aware of the impending
expiration of the current Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") the governs the
work of the School Resource Officers (SROs) as it expires at the end of 2020-21 school
year. However, it has since been communicated to the subcommittee that the expiration
date will be extended until the REP recommendations are complete. This subcommittee
wants to commend this adjustment and appreciates this recognition of the process
underway.
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS • March 2021
SALT LADE CITY
FACIAL EQUITY IN
POLICING COMMISSION
Additionally, two commissioners were invited to participate in the "SRO Oversight
Committee", which brings together Salt Lake City School District and Police Department
personnel to review the SRO program twice a year.
Concerns about barriers to services for at-risk youth &
the contributions to the School to Prison Pipeline
ISSUES:
■ The Promising Youth Project (PYP) - is a comprehensive crime, violence, and
gang reduction program. The purpose of the Promising Youth Project is to provide
promising youth with the opportunities and support needed to unlock their
promising potential. The project achieves this by utilizing evidence-based practices
and program to assess, case-manage, and connect youth to community resources.
In order to be successful, the Promising Youth Project designed a program
dedicated to serving the needs of Salt Lake City and its residents. The Promising
Youth Project contains two program components in order to meet the needs of
our community. The Promising Youth Project contains a (1) School-based Violence,
Crime, & Gang Reduction Program and (2) the Promising Youth Summer
Opportunity an adventure, life skills, leadership program.
■ PYP is currently housed within the SLCPD
■ The hiring protocols at the SLCPD hinder the ability to attract and onboard
youth/community advocates (practices within the backgrounds investigation
portion of hiring is off-putting to potential new-hires for several reasons including,
but not limited to long hold periods due to background checks before employment
(average 30-60 days), home-visit inspections done by an officer in the home of the
candidate (which is off-putting to candidates, especially those who identify as
people of color), and a myriad of disqualifiers that prove to weed out highly
qualified candidates at high rates.
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS • March 2021
SALT LADE CITY
FACIAL EQUITY IN
POLICING COMMISSION
■ ASSOCIATED RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to strengthen the resources available to at-risk students we recommend
the following shifts to existing programming:
■ The REP School Safety subcommittee recommends that the PYP program be
moved from the SLCPD and into the City's Youth and Family Services division.
This move is intended to allow the program to:
Improve PYP's ability to recruit qualified and passionate staff who can
most effectively bond with the students.
Reduce barriers for youth participation who require a safe space to
meet with their advocates or receive mental health services. Youth
coming into Police Department offices is a barrier.
We recommend that this program be given adequate space and
resources (computers, cell phones, desks, curricula, risk assessments,
etc.) to more effectively meet the needs of the youth they are currently
serving and to expand their program to serve more youth.
We recommend increased funding to this program to ensure
continued service to the community and to allow increased
collaboration with other City and private programs for the benefit of
the program's targeted population.
We further recommend that all (10) SROs be allowed to work with the
PYP Summer program throughout the summer.
Currently, only a few of the SROs are allowed to participate in the
summer program and selection is based on seniority. This results in a
breakdown of any rapport and relationships that SROs have developed
with at-risk youth during the school year.
This adjustment would allow continued coordination between the
youth and the SROs to reduce the number of youth who drop out of
the program for this reason, which places youth at increased risk of
involvement in delinquent behavior and referral to the juvenile justice
system. Therefore, the positive improvements that youth have gained
throughout the school year may be lost during the summer.
This adjustment would allow School Resource Officers to continue
learning, training, and collaborating with Youth Support Advocates
while engaging with youth in pro-social, healthy, and positive
environments.
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS • March 2021
SALT LAKE CITY
RACIAL EQUITY IN
POLICING COMMISSION
■ Peer Court - A restorative justice program working to combat the
disproportionate involvement of marginalized youth in the juvenile justice
system by providing all youth who commit minor offenses an alternative
opportunity to be held accountable for their actions.
We recommend that the peer court program, the promising youth
project, and the explorers program work closely together to maximize
resources and outcomes.
We recommend ongoing and increased funding to these programs
where needed to ensure they can work together to continue helping
at-risk youth to avoid the juvenile justice system and building better
outcomes for these students overall
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS • March 2021 '
C /f-�/6
RECQR�_
City Contract No. 02-1-19-1196 FEB 2 12019
Agreement between Salt Lake City School District and Salt Lake City Corporation
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION, & ADMINISTRATION OF
PROGRAMS INVOLVING POLICE OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as hereinafter set forth, is made by and between Salt Lake City
Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State, by and through the Salt Lake City Police
Department (hereinafter referred to as the "City" or the "Police Department" or "SLCPD") and
Salt Lake City School District (hereinafter referred to as "School District") (collectively referred to
as "Parties").
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a legal means for the Parties to
more efficiently and effectively manage their partnership programs involving the provision of
school resource officers ("SROs") and one (1) sergeant, assigned by the Police Department
to the School District's elementary, middle, and high schools ("SRO Partnership").
Through this Agreement, the Parties intend to accomplish the following:
a. To provide for the health, safety, and welfare of School District students, personnel, and
authorized visitors and volunteers (collectively referred to as "the School District
community");
b. To maintain a safe and secure environment in School District facilities and at School
District programs by the Parties acting swiftly and cooperatively when responding to
major disruptions and flagrant criminal offenses at school;
c. To report serious crimes that occur on campus and to ensure cooperation with the law
enforcement officials in their investigation of crimes that occur at school;
d. To foster educational programs and activities that will increase students' knowledge of
and respect for the law and the function of law enforcement agencies;
e. To improve school climate; and
f. To encourage SROs to attend extra-curricular activities held at schools, when possible,
such as PTA meetings, athletic events and concerts.
2. POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OBLIGATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES:
a. The City will pay the costs for police officers to support the SRO Partnership after the
School District has contributed its budgeted funds for SRO services, subject to annual
appropriation by the City. The City will also furnish any equipment state law requires for
the operation of the SRO Partnership, or that the Parties agree is necessary for the
success of the SRO Partnership.
b. The Chief of Police of Salt Lake City and the Superintendent of Schools will mutually
determine the working hours of the SROs supporting the SRO Partnership, taking into
account the school year calendar of the school where each SRO is assigned. The hours
of SRO availability will be during normal school hours while the school of assignment is
in session. Adjustments outside these regular hours shall be by mutual agreement in
writing between school administration and the Police Department designee.
c. It is clearly understood, acknowledged and agreed to by the Parties that SROs
supporting the SRO Partnership are City employees recruited and employed by the
Police Department. The SROs' salaries, payroll taxes, payroll-based expenses, including
worker's compensation insurance, and benefits are a shared responsibility. See
2
Reimbursement by School District section below. The City shall be responsible for all
other costs and matters associated with employing and maintaining the SROs (i.e.,
accounting, automobile, uniforms, training, equipment, etc.).
d. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all scheduling, deployment and
supervision of the SROs supporting the SRO Partnership will be the responsibility of the
Police Department.
e. The Police Department reserves the right to remove/reassign any SRO, and will provide
notification of such removal/reassignment to the School District as soon as practicable.
f. The Police Department reserves the option to substitute police officers when any
regularly scheduled SRO is not available to support the SRO Partnership. Notification of
any such changes will be provided to the School District or affected school principal(s)
as soon as practicable.
g. Special events or circumstances occur from time to time which are beyond the control of
the City. Special events may cause SROs to be removed from their assigned schools
without replacement for the duration of the special event. In such instances, the City will
respond to emergency situations or criminal acts in a reasonable manner.
h. The Police Department will ensure the SRO supervisor maintains communication with
school administrators throughout the year to evaluate the performance of services
provided by SROs.
3. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OBLIGATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES:
a. School District reserves the right to request the removal/reassignment of any SRO for
any reasonable cause the School District provides in writing to the Police Department
after other attempts to correct the problem have been explored. The Police Department
shall consider the School District's input when determining the removal or reassignment
of any SRO, but the Police Department shall have the final decision concerning the
removal or reassignment of any SRO.
b. In the unlikely event that a situation arises wherein the School District believes that a
particular SRO's presence at the School District constitutes a direct and immediate
threat to the safety and well-being of the School District community, the School District
may direct the SRO to leave the premises and not return until the School District has
resolved the issue with either the Police Department or the particular SRO.
c. The Salt Lake District School Administrators will:
i. Provide the Police Department a School District "point of contact" to facilitate SRO
partnership communication.
ii. Provide an office/storage or work space for SROs' materials and personal effects.
iii. Provide time for their school principals or designees and the assigned SROs to
attend a SRO training at the beginning of the school year, as well as other
required trainings and meetings as may be required by the Police Department.
iv. Provide students, classroom, equipment and supplies for classes taught by SROs.
V. Differentiate between disciplinary issues and criminal problems and respond
appropriately. School administrators are solely responsible for handling routine
administrative and school discipline (code of conduct) issues.
vi. Document in PowerSchool any tickets, citations, or arrests that SROs have
reported. When appropriate, discuss with the SRO whether the underlying actions
have any school based ramifications.
vii. Arrange meetings with the SROs as needed by the school administration.
viii. De-escalate school-based incidents whenever possible.
ix. Handle routine administrative and school discipline (code of conduct) issues within
the school without involving the SRO in an enforcement capacity (issuing citation)
unless the administrator determines SRO involvement is necessary to address a
3
serious and immediate threat to the physical safety of the School District
community.
X. Include SROs in school-wide trainings regarding school code of conduct and
discipline, de-escalation, and restorative justice provided to faculty at assigned
site.
xi. Request SRO assistance immediately to address the criminal conduct of persons
other than students.
xii. Assist with any SRO-initiated investigations and actions as needed.
1) In determining whether a SROs may interview a student on district property,
the administrator must follow the procedures outlined in section II of the S-7:
Administrative Procedures, Law Enforcement Access to Students and Student
Records.
xiii. Provide ongoing feedback to the Police Department designee for evaluation
purposes.
xiv. Offer opportunities for the SRO and school administration to meet with community
stakeholders throughout the school year.
xv. Notify responding SROs if any student involved has a disability and/or an
Individualized Education Program ("IEP"), and who therefore may require special
treatment or accommodations.
4. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES:
a. The Police Department and School District are jointly responsible for the decision to
select the schools that are part of the SRO Partnership. Based on current enrollment
numbers and available funding, SROs will be placed at the high schools and middle
schools.
b. The Police Department and School District understand the importance of ensuring that
each SRO embraces and works collaboratively with school and district administrators,
and understands the school culture they are a part of. Therefore, selection of SROs
assigned to the SRO Partnership will be made through a collaborative process involving
the Police Department and School District. To be assigned as an SRO, a police officer
must first meet all of the following basic qualifications:
i. S/he must be a commissioned officer and should have at least two years of law
enforcement experience;
ii. S/he must possess an even temperament and set a good example for students;
iii. S/he must possess communication skills which would enable the police officer to
function effectively within the school;
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Police Department Bureau Commander who
oversees the Police Department's SROs shall have the final decision as to the
placement of each SRO. The Police Department and the School District retain all their
respective rights and obligations.
d. The Police Department and School District are jointly responsible for ensuring that the
training required under Utah Code Ann. §53G-8-703(g) is provided and completed by
both the SRO and principal before the beginning of the academic year.
e. The Police Department and School District agree that the training described in section
4.d. above will cover the following topics:
i. childhood and adolescent development and techniques for working with youth
ii. responding age-appropriately to students
iii. working with disabled students
iv. techniques to de-escalate and resolve conflict
V. cultural awareness
vi. implicit bias
vii. problems of disproportionate minority impact
4
viii. restorative justice practices
ix. SRO responsibilities under the Fourteenth Amendment
X. identifying a student exposed to violence or trauma and referring the student to
appropriate resources
xi. student privacy rights
xii. negative consequences and stigmatization associated with youth involvement in
the juvenile and criminal justice systems
xiii. strategies to reduce juvenile justice involvement
xiv. roles of and distinctions between a school resource officer and other school staff
who help keep a school secure
f. Should additional training be required by laws, ordinances, court orders, or other
contractual agreements, the Police Department and School District shall jointly ensure
that such training is provided and occurs.
g. The Parties shall meet quarterly to discuss how the SRO Partnership is functioning in
the various schools, and any specific needs or concerns of the schools and/or SROs.
5. SRO:
a. The mission of the SRO is to provide for and maintain a safe, healthy and productive
learning environment while acting as a positive role model for students in the School
District by working in a cooperative, proactive, problem-solving partnership between the
Police Department and the School District. The following also sets forth guidelines to
ensure that the Police Department and the School District have a shared understanding
of the roles and responsibilities of each in maintaining safe schools, improving school
climate, and supporting educational opportunities for all students.
b. The SRO will:
i. Act to protect the lives and property of the School District and the School District
community.
ii. Differentiate between administrative and disciplinary (code of conduct) issues and
criminal actions.
iii. Be responsible for enforcing the law, and is not responsible for handling routine
school discipline issues. Infractions of school rules should be handled at the
school level. SROs should be available to the school for advice, assistance and
consultation.
1) Absent a real and immediate threat to an individual or public safety, student
conduct that occurs on school property involving public order offenses
including, but not limited to: disorderly conduct; disturbance/disruption of
schools or school activities; trespass; loitering; profanity; and fighting that does
not involve physical injury or a weapon (as defined in Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-
601(5)), shall be considered school discipline issues to be handled by school
administrators.
2) SROs shall confer with the principal or designated school administrator to
resolve issues related to offenses that are (1) a minor violation of the law and
(2) would not violate the law if the offense was committed by an adult. Such
offenses may include truancy, use or possession of tobacco, alcohol and or
illegal drugs.
iv. Initiate positive interaction with students in the classroom and general areas of the
school building to promote the profession of police officers and be a positive role
model. De-escalate incidents whenever possible.
V. Understand the School District has a student conduct and discipline policy that
emphasizes the use of restorative approaches to address behaviors, and is
designed to minimize the use of law enforcement intervention. The SRO will
emphasize the use of restorative approaches to address negative behavior.
5
vi. Identify problems concerning public safety issues within the schools, develop
problem-solving strategies about those identified issues with school administrators
and staff, and collaboratively develop a comprehensive school safety plan with
school administrators, staff and appropriate district personnel.
vii. Work closely with the School District to improve the social, emotional, and
behavioral skills of students in order to maximize their ability to achieve
academically and become successful, contributing community members. Such
efforts may include presentations to students and/or identification of at-risk youth
for involvement in Police Department programs. Issues that may need to be
addressed include but are not limited to substance abuse, violence reduction,
social skills, problem-solving skills, and other areas of School District and
community concern, but any law enforcement action taken by the SRO will be
constrained to addressing violations of the law.
viii. Enable outreach to school administrators, parents, students, businesses, and the
community for stakeholder involvement in problem solving and developing
solutions to identified public safety issues. This will enable the Police Department
and the School District to form valuable partnerships and promote ongoing
continued relationships that will benefit the community. The result of this collective
effort will help the Police Department to provide the best public safety services to
better protect our residents and support our officers in their law enforcement work.
ix. Be involved in incidents that would, if ignored, place an individual at risk of harm.
However, disciplining students is a School District responsibility.
X. Participate in meetings with school administration when requested by school
administration during the SROs normal shift.
xi. Use the least disruptive method to the educational environment, in consultation
with school administration, when conducting an arrest or writing a citation to a
student at school, at a school event, or in a school vehicle.
1) SROs will only arrest students on school property or at school sponsored
activities:
a) When the SRO has probable cause to believe that the student has been or
is engaged in a crime that:
i.) Poses a real or immediate threat of injury to an individual or the
public;
ii.) Constitutes property damage;
iii.) Involves possession or use of drugs, alcohol, or weapons (as defined
in Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-601(5)); or
b) When necessary to execute a warrant that cannot be effectively executed
outside of school hours.
xii. Notify parents and the applicable school administrator as soon as possible when
students are ticketed or arrested.
xiii. SROs may conduct investigatory stops or detentions of students on school
property or at school sponsored events only when the officer has reasonable
suspicion to believe that the student has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the
commission of a crime. Absent exigent circumstances, such stops and detentions
should follow the process outlined below in subsection xv.
xiv. Exigent Circumstances will be governed by SLCPD Policy 310, which states:
1) SLCPD officers may conduct an immediate, warrantless search or seizure
under emergency conditions, if there is probable cause to believe that delay
in getting a warrant would result in the loss of evidence, escape of the
suspect, or harm to the police or public.
2) SLCPD officers are allowed to enter a District school, property, or activity
when a suspect retreats into the school, property, or activity and there is
6
reasonable fear of escape, destruction of evidence, or injury to the public or
SLCPD officers.
3) When considering the matter of exigent circumstances, the following criteria
shall be considered:
a) Is the offense serious or one of violence?
b) Is the suspect armed?
c) Is the probable cause strong enough to believe the suspect committed
the crime?
d) Is there probable cause to believe the suspect is on the premises?
e) Have SLCPD officers identified themselves and given the suspect a
chance to surrender prior to entry?
f) Is there an ongoing investigation or decision to arrest prior to the suspect
fleeing into the premises?
4) Exigent circumstances also exist if SLCPD officers are responding to a
domestic violence call. Entry may be made where a person's health, welfare,
or safety is concerned.
5) Whenever practicable, officers are encouraged to contact a supervisor to
resolve questions regarding search and seizure issues prior to electing a
course of action.
xv. If an SRO or law enforcement officer wants to interview/question a student at
school during school hours, such access is governed by section II of the S-7:
Administrative Procedures, Law Enforcement Access to Students and Student
Records, and must be coordinated with the principal or designated school
administrator prior to the interview and/or removing the student from class.
1) School principals will provide SROs or law enforcement officers with
immediate access to students for interviews under the following conditions:
a) the principal is presented with a warrant, subpoena, or legal order that
cannot be effectively executed outside of school hours;
b) exigent circumstances exist; or
c) the law enforcement officer is investigating allegations of child abuse.
2) If access is denied under the provisions listed in subsections 5.b.xvi.1) a-c,
the parties shall utilize the procedures set forth in Section 5.b.xviii of this
Agreement.
3) In the absence of any of the circumstances listed in subsection 1) above, the
principal must use his/her discretion to decide if an interview should proceed.
Refer to section II of the S-7: Administrative Procedures, Law Enforcement
Access to Students and Student Records for factors to be considered in
making this decision. Such access may not be unreasonably denied. In the
event that there is a dispute between the principal and SRO/law enforcement
officer about whether access should be provided, the parties shall utilize the
procedures set forth in Section 5.b.xix of this Agreement.
4) Absent exigent circumstances, interviews of students by SROs and other law
enforcement personnel about matters unrelated to school should generally be
conducted away from school after school hours.
xvi. In any instance in which it becomes necessary for an SRO and/or SLCPD officer
to detain, question, or search a minor student on school property or at a school
sponsored activity, the SRO and/or SLCPD officer will make reasonable efforts to
ensure that an adult guardian or school administrator is present at all times,
except in the case of exigent circumstances.
xvii. Except when an emergency or exigent circumstances exist, the SRO and school
administrator should work together to determine when such questioning should
7
take place in order to ensure the least amount of disruption to the student's
learning and the educational environment.
xviii. If there is a disagreement between the principal and the SRO/law enforcement
officer regarding access to a student, the following procedure shall be followed:
1) The principal shall contact the School District's Executive Director of Policy &
Legal Services to respond to the SRO/law enforcement officer.
2) The SRO/law enforcement officer shall not argue with the principal to resolve
the issue, but will instead speak to the School District's Executive Director of
Policy & Legal Services.
3) If the situation cannot be resolved between the SRO/law enforcement officer
and the School District's Executive Director of Policy & Legal Services, then
the SRO/law enforcement officer shall contact the Deputy Chief (or his or her
designee) who oversees the SROs to facilitate resolution.
4) Notwithstanding the above process, if the District and the SLCPD are at an
impasse over access to a student, and exigent circumstances exist to lawfully
detain a student, SLCPD officers may exercise their discretion to detain the
student. Such exigent circumstances shall be clearly articulated and
documented on body camera and in a written report and shall be reviewed by
the Deputy Chief(or his or her designee) who oversees the SROs.
xix. Become familiar with the School District's student conduct and discipline policies
and administrative procedures.
xx. Notify his/her immediate supervisor, and the school principal or the principal's
designee when absent from work due to illness, training, vacation, or an agency
emergency.
xxi. Notify his/her immediate supervisor and the Chief Communications Officer of any
event that could cause media representatives to inquire about a newsworthy
incident.
xxii. Maintain communications with supervisors, school administration, and school
safety personnel, and to be responsive to messages and requests from School
District personnel.
xxiii. Provide annual training in collaboration with the SLCPD gang outreach
unit/specialist to district personnel on current gang identifiers and trends.
xxiv. Teach a vocational law enforcement class, if requested by the School District.
6. SRO ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL RECORDS AND VIDEO:
a. SRO access to student educational records, including video, is governed by the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. §1232g et seq., 34 CFR Part
99, and Utah's Student Privacy and Data Protection Act ("SPDPA"), Utah Code § 53E-9-
101 et seq. (See also, Board Policy S-7, Law Enforcement Access to Students and
Student Records, and its accompanying administrative procedures.)
b. SROs shall not be given individual accounts to access to the District's surveillance video
system; all access to surveillance video must be coordinated through a School District
administrator.
c. School administrators shall allow SROs to inspect and copy any public records, including
directory information, maintained by the schools to the extent allowed by law. The
School District will designate SROs as "school officials" in accordance with FERPA and
SPDA in order to ensure that SROs have lawful access to student schedules as well as
directory information.
d. If exigent circumstances are present (as defined in Section 5.b.xiv) and non-public
student information is needed in an emergency to protect the health or safety of the
student or other individuals school administrators shall disclose to the SRO only that
information that is needed to respond to the emergency situation based on the
8
seriousness of the threat; the need for the information to address the emergency
situation; and the extent to which time is of the essence. If there is a dispute about
access to such information, the parties shall refer to the process outlined in Section
5.b.xviii.
e. If an SRO needs confidential student record information or access to video footage, but
no emergency exists, the information may be released only as allowed by law.
f. If exigent circumstances are present (as defined in Section 5.b.xiv) and access to video
footage is needed in an emergency to protect the health or safety of the student or other
individuals, school administrators shall provide the SRO with immediate access to the
School District's video footage in order to respond to the situation . If there is a dispute
about access to specific video footage, the parties shall refer to the process outlined in
Section 5.b.xviii.
g. Records, videos or files which the SRO creates and maintains for law enforcement
purposes rather than school disciplinary purposes are not student education records and
are not protected by FERPA or SPDPA. These law enforcement unit records are within
the sole control of the Police Department, but may, in accordance with state law, be
shared in certain circumstances with the School District under Utah's Governmental
Records and Access Management Act.
h. Notwithstanding any of the above, if an SRO or SLCPD law enforcement officer presents
a warrant, subpoena, or court order for specific educational records or video recordings,
those items shall be provided to the SRO or SLCPD law enforcement officer as soon as
practicable.
7. RESPECT FOR STUDENT'S RIGHTS:
a. In the absence of exigent circumstances, the SRO shall inform school administrators
prior to conducting a probable cause search.
b. An SRO may conduct or participate in a search of a student's person, possessions, or
locker only where there is probable cause to believe that the search will turn up evidence
that the student has committed or is committing a criminal offense.
c. It is recommended that in addition to having probable cause, a SRO should obtain a
warrant to conduct the search of a student's property under her or his control.
d. The SRO shall not ask school administrators or other school employees to interview or
search a student's person, possessions, or locker in an effort to circumvent these
protections.
e. A school administrator may conduct a search of a student's person, possessions, or
locker only where there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will turn up
evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the
school, and the search is justified in scope given such suspicion.
f. Absent a real and immediate threat to an individual or public safety, a school
administrator shall not ask an SRO to be present or participate in a search conducted by
a school administrator.
g. No provision in this agreement is intended to prohibit a student from voluntarily speaking
with law enforcement. Other conversations between SROs and students will be on the
premise of building relationships to help develop a healthy learning environment and
promote prosocial behaviors.
h. If an exigent circumstance or immediate threat exists, a school administrator or SRO
may question a student about criminal conduct or conduct a search of a student's person
and possessions.
i. School administrators and SROs are prohibited from conducting strip searches of
students.
9
j. An SRO shall not use physical force or restraints on a student, including handcuffs,
tasers, mace, or other physical or chemical restraints unless the student's actions pose
an imminent threat, or the student is subject to arrest.
8. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL DISTRICT:
a. Although SROs will be working in conjunction with the school staff, they will report
directly to the Police Department assigned sergeant on any administrative matters and
will follow the Police Department command structure.
b. The School District acknowledges that SROs are required by Police Department policy
and procedures to attend mandatory trainings and/or meetings.
c. Although SROs remain employees of the Police Department, SROs are required to be
on the campus of the school(s) they are assigned to unless performing duties directly
related to the Police Department.
9. REIMBURSEMENT BY SCHOOL DISTRICT:
a. School District's Cost of SRO Partnership/Invoicing and Payments. For each school year
covered by this Agreement, the School District agrees to pay, and the City agrees to
accept, as full and complete compensation to the City for SRO Partnership, an amount
equal to 50% of the 12-month salary of the assigned SROs. For the 2018-2019 school
year, ten SROs will be provided to the School District, inclusive of the sergeant. In the
event that this number needs to be adjusted in the future, the total number of SROs to
be assigned will be determined no later than two weeks before the beginning of the
affected school year. The City agrees to invoice the School District on a prorated,
monthly basis during the school year. Invoices for the School District's portion of the
cost sharing arrangement are due and payable in full upon receipt.
Any additions to SRO staffing requested by the School District during the school year will
be billed to the School District, on a prorated monthly basis, based on 50% of the
additionally assigned officers' pay.
b. Fund Availability. The City and the School District acknowledge that: (i) neither party
irrevocably pledges present cash reserves for payment in future fiscal years, and (ii) this
Agreement is not intended to create a multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or
financial obligation of either party. The Parties understand and agree that any
expenditure of the City shall extend only to funds appropriated by the City Council for the
purpose of this Agreement, encumbered for the purpose of Agreement, and paid into the
treasury of the City.
10. SRO SCHEDULE AND ASSIGMENT.
a. The SRO Partnership will consist of having an officer in each of the District's contracted
schools for eight hours per day as per District calendar. During non-school days, SRO
schedules will be managed through the Police Department. However, the Chief of
Police and the Superintendent of Schools will mutually determine any hours and days
that SRO services will be provided to the School District outside of the regular school
year calendar.
b. The School District or school of assignment may request additional hours beyond the
regularly scheduled assignment from the Police Department. Upon approval, the SRO
will be compensated or reimbursed by the School District for the additional cost
associated with that coverage.
11. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE & COMMUNITY OUTREACH
10
a. For the purpose of joint administration of the program, an oversight committee will be
created. This committee will consist of: an appointed representative by Salt Lake City
Mayor; a School District representative; a school administrator (Principal or
Assistant/Vice Principal) from an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school;
the immediate supervisor of the SROs; and the executive commander of the Police
Department that oversees the SRO program. This committee will meet at least two times
a year (once prior to the beginning of the school year and mid-year).
b. The district's Executive Director of Educational Equity and Student Support is
responsible for coordinating the bi-annual meetings.
c. The committee will review school-based diversions, arrests and SRO interventions in
order to assess effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, and to ensure that the
Parties actions align with the goals and objectives outlined in this Agreement.
d. The committee shall provide a mechanism by which community members may raise,
and have reviewed their specific concerns about law enforcement contact with students
in School District schools.
e. School District administrators and SROs should arrange opportunities to jointly meet
with community stakeholders to discuss law enforcement and discipline as they relate to
School District students.
f. A yearly report will be published by the committee for the public. The report will include a
review of the school based diversions, arrests, and interventions, areas identified for
improvements, and intended goals for improvements in implementing goals and
objectives as outlined in this Agreement.
12. TERM/MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
a. Term: This Agreement shall be effective for three (3) school years unless it is terminated
earlier as provided herein. The initial one (1) year term of this Agreement begins in the
2018-2019 school year. Service days will be determined by the individual school
calendar where SROs are assigned. After the initial 2018-2019 school year, the cost for
SRO services for the upcoming year(s) will be mutually agreed to by the Parties in
writing.
b. Any extension of this Agreement is subject to annual appropriation of funds by both the
City and the School District.
c. Assignment: The School District shall not assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement or
any right or obligation hereunder without prior written consent of the City.
d. Termination:
i. The City may terminate this Agreement with the School District for the City's
convenience upon thirty (30) days written notice to the School District without
compensation to the School District.
ii. The School District may terminate this Agreement with the City for the School
District's convenience upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City without
compensation to the City except for services actually performed prior to the
termination or during the thirty (30) day notice period.
e. Property: No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result
of this Agreement. To the extent that a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or
personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this
Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property
of such Party.
f. Integration: This Agreement is a completely integrated agreement and contains the
entire agreement between the Parties. Any prior written or oral agreements or
representations regarding this agreement shall be of no effect and shall not be binding
on the School District or the City. Further, the School District and the City acknowledge
11
and agree that this is a negotiated text agreement, that as such no term shall be
construed against the School District as the author thereof.
g. No Third Party Beneficiary: It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of
the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such
enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Parties. Nothing contained in this
Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of action by any third person or
entity. Any third party receiving services or benefit under this Agreement shall be
deemed to be incidental beneficiaries only.
h. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties
and all other representations or statements heretofore made, verbal or written, are
merged herein, and this Agreement may be amended only in writing and executed by
duly authorized representatives of the Parties.
i. Local Concern: The Parties agree and acknowledge that the activities contained in this
Agreement are matters of local concern only, and that the Parties have mutually joined
together for the performance of the matters of local concern, and that nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed as matters of statewide concern.
j. Liability of The Parties: The provision of services under this Agreement is for the benefit
of both Parties to the Agreement. Each party agrees to be responsible for its own liability
incurred as a result of its participation in this Agreement. In the event any claim is
litigated, each party will be responsible for its own expenses of litigation or other costs
associated with enforcing this Agreement.
k. No Liability For Breach Or Termination:
i. The School District shall have no claim or action at law against the City for breach or
termination of this Agreement by the City, and the School District expressly waives
and releases the City from any claim or action at law or equity under, or resulting in
any manner from, this Agreement.
ii. The City shall have no claim or action at law against the School District for breach or
termination of this Agreement by the School District, and the City expressly waives
and releases the School District from any claim or action at law or equity under, or
resulting in any manner from, this Agreement.
iii. All questions with respect to the constructor of this Agreement and all rights and
liability of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah.
Jurisdiction and venue for the enforcement of this Agreement shall be found in the
courts of Salt Lake County, State of Utah.
I. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records: The School District consents to the use of
electronic signatures by the City. The Agreement and other documents requiring a
signature hereunder, may be signed electronically by the City in the manner specifically
by the City. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the
Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was
used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the
Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic
document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground
that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its origin form or is
not an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have
executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below.
(SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW)
12
In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunto executed this Agreement.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
//JJ�
DATED thisl7day of ,
JA QUE INE M. BISKUPSKI
MAYOR
Approved as to form this day of r'�t—f 2--t I
MARK E. KITTRELL
SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY, SALT LAKE CITY CORP.
ATTEST:
SALT LAKE ITY RECORDER
RECORDED
FEB 2 12019 i
CITY RECORDED
13
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
DATED this Iq
day of— YU _06�
PRESIDENT, ARD OF EDUCATION
SALT LAKE CIT SCHOOL DISTRICT
By
-tkll
DATED this ��day of
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: V9- .
Approved as to form this l day of via"
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY AND LEGAL SERVICES
S LT F2 CITY SCH OL DISTRICT
i
STRIVING FOR
EQUITY
I LL
IN UTAH'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
2020 DISPARITIES UPDATE
VOICES FOR
UTAH
.`chadren
This report was authored by Ciriac Alvarez Valle and Anna Thomas,
policy analysts at Voices for Utah Children.
Report design and layout by Ephraim Kum,
community engagement intern at the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs.
Released by Voices for Utah Children
with support from the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice
and the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs
July 2020
Many thanks to the following individuals for their cooperation,support,
inspiration and contributions:
Betty Sawyer
Brett Peterson
Jackie Chamberlain
Jenny Hor
Kayley Richards
Laneta Fitisemanu
Neira Siaperas
Nubia Pena
Dr. Tiffany Manuel
Dr. Van Nguyen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION.
2 Introduction
5 Section Endnotes
SECTION 2: REVISITING OUR 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS.
6 Revisiting Recommendations
13 Section Endnotes
SECTION 3: DATA UPDATES.
15 Fig. 1: Referrals to Juvenile Court 2015-19
16 Fig. 2: Petitions to Juvenile Court 2015-19
16 Fig. 3: Admissions to Locked Detention 2015-19
17 Fig. 4: Non-Judicial Adjustments 2015-19
17 Fig. 5:Youth Arrests 2014-18
18 Fig. 6:Youth Arrests by Race and Ethnicity 2014-18
19 Fig.7:Youth Population vs. New Intakes to System (2019)
20 Fig. 8: Change from 2015 to 2019:Youth Population vs. New Intakes
21 Fig. 9: Intakes to System vs. NJAs amd Petitions to Court(2019)
23 Fig. 10: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. NJAs, Petitions
24 Fig. 11: Intakes to System vs. Probation (2019)
25 Fig. 12: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. Probation
26 Fig. 13: Intakes to System vs. Community Placement, Detention,Secure Care(2019)
28 Fig. 14: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. Community Placement, Detention,Secure Care
29 Fig. 15: All Referrals, Interventions and Dispositions (2019)
30 Fig. 16: Change from 2015 to 2019: All Referrals, Interventions and Dispositions
32 Section Endnotes
SECTION 4: 2O2O RECOMMENDATIONS.
33 What Policymakers Can Do to Advance Equity
39 What Community& Family Advocates Can Do to Advance Equity
45 Section Endnotes
SECTION 5: APPENDIX
i Table 5.1: Aggregated Annual Totals, 2015-2019
ii Table 5.2:Youth Arrests Disaggregated by Race/Ethnicity, 2014-2018
iii Table 5.3: School-Aged Youth Population, 2014-2019
iv Table 5.4: Juvenile Justice System Points of Contact, Disaggregated by Race,2019
1
■ INTRODUCTION
When it comes to our juvenile justice system, Sweeping legislation in 2017 - HB239,
Utah has much to be proud of. "Juvenile Justice Amendments;' sponsored by
Rep. Lowry Snow (R-Saint George) and Todd
Ours has long been a low-incarcerating Weiler (R-Woods Cross) - dramatically re-
state, compared to others.' In recent years, envisioned the broken system uncovered by
significant system reforms have resulted in the 2016 system analysis.
a smaller population of children who spend
significant time in the formal justice system. GOALS OF HB239
More children who engage in misconduct
are diverted from the juvenile court system Promote • •
lic safety;
and are able to access supportive services Limit system costs;
without attracting a criminal record. Fewer Reduce recidivism; and
children are removed from their homes and Improveoutcomes for •
communities to be placed in "secure settings;' families andcommunities
a disposition that is now reserved for only
those children who pose the highest risk for
re-offense.2 While it is still early to assess the overall
success of HB239 at accomplishing these
This is very good news for Utah children specific aims, short-term progress is
and their families. undeniable.
As part of the state's analysis of its juvenile Utah's system is now smaller, more youth-
justice system in 2016, with technical support centered and focused on providing services
from the Pew Public Safety Performance in non-secure settings. Cost savings have
Project, state leaders discovered that already been realized by a dramatic reduction
traditional approaches to juvenile justice in youth incarceration.These savings have
were yielding poor results.Youth who were been captured and directed toward earlier,
incarcerated in detention centers and secure non-court interventions for families, schools
care facilities3 were released with a higher and communities.
risk to reoffend. The longer youth spent under
court jurisdiction, the more likely they were Utah's juvenile justice system, beginning
to fail to address and end their negative with court referral, is better coordinated, with
behaviors. increased cooperation and communication
between different state agencies.
INTRODUCTION
Youth who become involved in the juvenile We have so much working in our favor: a
justice system have better access to legal dynamic and research-driven Commission on
assistance, allowing them to more easily Criminal and Juvenile Justice; state agency
access their constitutional rights. leaders who are flexible and committed to
positive outcomes for kids; an effective and
When measured in terms of effectiveness, well-coordinated trouble-shooting reform
efficiency and legal criteria, Utah's system is oversight entity in the form of the Juvenile
definitely moving in the direction of success. Justice Oversight Commission; a political
Other states and national entities have taken commitment to effectiveness and evidence-
notice. Representative Lowry Snow has been based approaches; and a cultural amenability
invited to numerous national and regional to rehabilitation and empathy.
gatherings to talk about the political and
administrative success of the legislation, as With all of these positive factors in play,
well as its subsequent adjustments. our state is perfectly positioned to pursue
success in other reform categories, toward
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice made a the realization of a model system.
panel of representatives from Utah - including
not only Rep. Snow, but also Commission on One critical policy analysis and assessment
Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) Executive criterium is equity. In this area, Utah has
Director Kim Cordova, past president of the room for improvement.
Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ) Pam
Vickrey, and UBJJ Youth Member and Youth Equity means fairness and impartiality - both
Leader Nindy Le - a centerpiece of its 2019 important values espoused in our schools,
national conference in Washington, D.C.The court system and communities. "Unlike
Pew Charitable Trusts invited juvenile justice equality, which suggests that everyone is
advocates to a regional conference of the treated the same or gets the same share,
National Conference of State Legislatures equity focuses on equal outcomes and
to discuss successful bipartisan coalition requires that everyone gets what they need in
building in support of juvenile justice reform. order to experience well-being:'4
For all these reasons and more, Utah can be An equitable juvenile justice system would
proud of its progress in improving the justice be evidenced by, among other metrics, a
system for children in our state. We can enjoy population of justice-involved youth that is
a shared feeling of appreciation, inspiration proportional to the overall youth population
and motivation, as we continue to make in Utah. Success by equity-related metrics
Utah's system a model for the rest of the would mean that children from traditionally
country. marginalized racial and ethnic groups
would receive dispositions comparable to
those received by white children, when the
misconduct is similarly comparable. It is more likely that young people will take
accountability and acknowledge fault,
Currently, we have fallen short of this when fairness and respect are modeled by
important goal, which has been championed the very system that is demanding it from
not only by community advocacy them.7
organizations like ours, but by the committed
state leaders who have achieved our reform By thoughtfully examining where racial
successes so far. With so much progress and ethnic disparities still exist in Utah's
made toward satisfying other important juvenile justice system, and addressing those
criteria, now is the time to focus on equity, for disparities with bold and positive action, we
maximum system effectiveness. can achieve success on the critical metric of
equity. Utah's reform to this point has pushed
A system that is seen and felt to be us to the top of the pack, nationally, in terms
inequitable by the youth who become of efficiency, effectiveness, political and
involved in it - and by extension their families administrative success.
and communities - cannot realize full
success. Research shows that when young When, on top of all that, we can proudly
people sense inequity in the juvenile justice say that our juvenile justice system is
system, they are less likely to be successful demonstrably equitable in its treatment of all
in turning away from misconduct and toward children, Utah can boast that it truly has the
more positive community engagement.5 best-run juvenile justice system in the nation.
They are more likely to engage in anti-
social activities and resist intervention by
mainstream authorities in the courts and in
law enforcement.6
A system that can show its participants and
its communities that it is equitable, is one
that can better engage those participants and
communities.
SECTION I
ENDNOTES
1 - As reported by the Sentencing Project, 4 - From The Little Book of Restorative Justice
based on data from the U.S. Office of Juvenile in Education: Fostering Responsibility, Health,
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017). and Hope in Schools (page 46), by Katherine
Accessed at https://www.sentencingproject. Evans and Dorothy Vaandering, (2016).
org/the-facts/#map?dataset-option=JCR
5, 6,7 - From "Chapter 7: Accountability and
2 - Pew Charitable Trust Brief, "Utah's Fairness;' in Reforming Juvenile Justice:A
2017 Juvenile Justice Reform Shows Early Developmental Approach, edited by Richard J.
Promise;' (2019). Specifically, page 2, figure Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers
1, "Re-forms Expected to Cut Out-of-Home and Julie A. Schuck (2013).
Youth Population 47%' and page 16, figure
8 "Diversion of Juveniles From Formal Court
Proceedings Rose After HB239"Accessed at
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/issue-briefs/2019/05/utahs-2017-
juvenile-justice-reform-shows-early-promise.
3 - Detention centers are the equivalent of jail
for children; secure care facilities are more
comparable to prison. In the former, children
are detained for shorter periods and may be
held either for sanction or to await judicial
hearings. In the latter, children are held for
longer periods, often as part of a formal
disposition, and for more serious misconduct.
INTRODUCTION
2
■ REVISITING
OUR 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS
When Voices for Utah Children and its
partners published its original report on racial 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS
disparities in Utah's juvenile justice system
in 2017,' we made five recommendations to implement
address these disparities (see box this page). and
fidelity, the legislation
We are pleased to report that progress (HB239) based on the robust
has been made by state policymakers and recommendations of the
public administrators on most of these Juvenile Justice Working
recommendations, with various levels of Group.
success achieved. 2. Adopt a comprehensive,
•uth-centric vision for
juvenile justice system.
1. PASS LEGISLATION BASED unnecessary End _ . ,
ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF •• -
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORKING juvenile justice system.
GROUP (HB239) -undisclosed,- • tracking.
transparent law enforcement
H13239, "Juvenile Justice Amendments;' databases.
sponsored by Rep. Lowry Snow (R-Saint
George) and Sen.Todd Weiler (R-Woods 5. Empowerand invigorate
Cross), passed with overwhelming support Utah's Disproportio
during the 2017 general session of the Utah Minority Contact
legislature.The successful version of the bill Subcommittee.
included policy changes directed at almost
every key finding of the Juvenile Justice
Working Group (JJWG) appointed by Governor
Gary Herbert in 2016. Some of those findings
were:
2017I IA I
■ Utah youth were spending too long in Also admirable is our state's ongoing
the system, with little improvement with commitment to implementation of
regards to their risk to reoffend; HB239.The establishment of a Juvenile
Justice Uversignt committee, tocusea on
■ the system, overall, lacked a set collaboration and problem-solving, ensured
of common standards to guide that communication between agencies
dispositions;2 and and stakeholders would continue beyond
passage of the legislation.
■ there were far too many low-risk youth,
convicted only of low-level status Critical system actors - for example, private
offenses, being held in secure care.4 providers of recovery services for youth
- were able to bring their implementation
Several of the policy changes delivered via concerns to the JJOC and participate in
HB239 offered potential for improving the trouble-shooting conversations. JJOC
racial and ethnic disparities noted in our members worked together to tour the state,
February 2017 report. holding community meetings where the
legislation and its implementation could be
For example, the legislation directed discussed, questions could be answered, and
agencies to engaged in trainings regarding concerns could be voiced.
youth development, cultural competency
and implicit bias. Multiple legislative changes As of January 2020, the JJOC continues to
focused on creating more structure and meet quarterly, forming and then dissolving
guidance for decision-making processes by working groups as implementation issues
judges, probations officers and community arise and are resolved.
placement agencies; such improvements
could be expected to help mitigate implicit
bias in disposition and other decisions. 2. ADOPT A YOUTH-CENTRIC
The bold changes contained in HB239 put VISION FOR UTAH'S JUVENILE
Utah's juvenile justice reform efforts in the JUSTICE SYSTEM
national spotlight, as mentioned previously.
Passing HB239 was perhaps the most critical
recommendation made in our 2017 report, In 2017, we recommended that Utah move
We commend state policymakers and elected away from apunishment-oriented system
officials for their support of the many system that overly focuses on the question, "What
improvements driven by that legislation, is wrong with this kid?"We see greater
and for their commitment to seeking better potential in aproblem-solving system that
first asks, "What is going on with this kid?"
outcomes for our state's system-involved
youth.
2017I I ' I
There is much encouraging evidence that ■ The Utah Board of Juvenile Justice
Utah is indeed making this philosophical (UB11) has organized a series of
transition throughout its juvenile justice "Juvenile Expungement Clinics"
system. throughout the state, employing a
youth-centric approach that brings all
For example: the relevant system actors into one
space for the convenience of formerly-
■ The Utah Department of Juvenile system-involved youth. Fees can also be
Justice Services (JJS) has moved waived. By the end of 2019, successful
toward a "Youth Services" model clinics had been held in Weber, Salt
that focuses more heavily on offering Lake, Cache, Utah and Washington
pre-adjudication interventions through Counties. Uintah County, among others,
community partners, including schools will host Juvenile Expungement Clinics
and law enforcement.5 This allows youth in 2020.
and their families to access much-
needed support services without court ■ Additionally, UBJJ leadership has
involvement (and the possibility of a indicated that the Board's strategic
juvenile record). plan for 2021-2023 will center the
experiences of system-involved youth,
■ The Administrative Office of the their families and their peers who may
Courts (AOC) has reorganized be at risk for becoming system-involved.
program and service delivery to meet To that end, board members will meet
the needs of youth and their families in communities around the state during
prior to, and in lieu of, court involvement. 2020, and visit with youth currently
Early in the reform discussion, in AS custody or participating in
caseworkers and others working with community-based diversion programs.
youth expressed concern that diverting
youth from court would keep them from ■ During the 2020 legislative session,
accessing certain necessary support the Utah Sentencing Commission, in
services (such as substance use partnership with the Utah Juvenile
disorder treatment). In response, AOC, Defender Association, supported
AS and other system actors revamped legislation to further streamline
existing processes to connect early juvenile record expungements
intervention services directly to schools for youth involved in Utah's system.
and community partners. Tthe legislation allows automatic
expungement of any non-judicial
adjustment (handled by the court but
not adjudicated by a judge), and any
type of juvenile offense, charge or arrest
will be eligible for expungement.
2017I IA I
in the juvenile justice system begin in the
We are encouraged by the enthusiasm shown school setting, with such disparities seen
by the JJOC, and its numerous member in school-based responses to student
stakeholders, for moving toward more youth- misconduct.6 The passage of HB239
centric orientation in our juvenile justice offered great promise in this area, but
system. We are excited at the prospects implementation has been complicated and
for continued cross-agency and cross- challenging.
community collaboration to extend these
successes further. Many Utah youth who become system-
involved are initially referred to court by an
For example, the JJOC could play an educator, administrator or School Resource
important role in ensuring greater support for Officer (SRO), in response to misconduct in
our public schools, where youth's struggles an educational setting. Even well-meaning
and resulting misconduct are often first referrals (for example, to assist youth
manifested. Additionally, our many law in accessing counseling or maintaining
enforcement agencies statewide could use sobriety) have the potential to snowball into
support in the form of training, technical long and ultimately unsuccessful stints under
assistance and trouble-shooting related to court jurisdiction. Data collected by the
youth misconduct both within schools and in JJWG demonstrated that court interventions
the broader community. generally were ineffective (sometimes even
damaging) when used to deal with youth
Schools and law enforcement agencies, engaged in low-level offenses.
perhaps more so than Juvenile Justice
Services and the juvenile courts, experience Accordingly, HB239 directed schools to no
complex pressures and expectations and longer refer youth to juvenile court or to law
require the explicit support of their fellow enforcement for status offenses, infractions
juvenile justice stakeholders. and Class C misdemeanors committed at
school. Schools would be expected to deal
with this misconduct instead only through
3. END UNNECESSARY administrative processes and school-based
REFERRALS OF YOUTH FROM responses.
SCHOOLSINTO THE JUVENILE Most of HB239's mandates were directed
at state agencies with established central
JUSTICE SYSTEM
oversight. For example, Juvenile Justice
Services are all administered through one
We made this recommendation in 2017 division within Utah's Department of Human
in the face of a growing body of research Resources. Similarly, all juvenile courts -
suggesting that racial and ethnic disparities including juvenile judges and youth probation
2011I I ' I 9
officers -fall under the direction of the educators reported feeling somewhat
Administrative Office of the Courts. "blindsided" by the policy change regarding
Utah's education system is much larger, school-based referrals. Some school districts
by comparison, and also less centrally had come to rely on court referrals as part
controlled. In the fall of 2017, as several of their tiered responses to school-based
aspects of HB239 went into effect, there misconduct. Exacerbating the districts'
were 652,348 youth enrolled in Utah public difficulties in adjusting to this new policy
schools.' Of those, about 408,807 were directive, was the fact that no substantive
between the ages of 10 and 17,typically alternatives (or funding for the exploration
considered to be old enough to become of such alternatives) were suggested by the
potentially system-involved.$ legislative language.
By comparison, during approximately the In 2018, in response to schools' struggles
same time period, there were only about to adjust to the new policy, Rep. Lowry
6,804 referrals to court (with nearly half of Snow introduced HB132, "Juvenile Justice
those diverted before formal adjudication). Modifications"9 This legislation provided
Even if every court referral was for a different more specific guidance for schools regarding
youth (no repeat visitors), that means the non-court interventions for low-level
juvenile justice system interacted with, at misconduct, and granted a two-year reprieve
most, about 1.7% of the children, ages 10 to for implementation of HB239's school-
17, that our schools dealt with on a day-to-day based referral policy change. It also clarified
basis during the same time period. allowable interventions by SROs, when
misconduct occurs on school property, and
In addition, each school district (there are allowed schools to use alternative funding
41 in Utah) is under the direction of its sources in the development of school-based
own superintendent, who then answers to responses to truancy.
a locally-elected board. Districts are also
accountable to the state office of education, It is unclear whether, prior to the successful
which has its own superintendent, who passage of HB132, all schools were in
answers to a completely different school compliance with the new school-based
board, also elected by voters, representing referral policy. It is a monumental effort for
the entire state. Utah's many dozens of public USBE staff to collect and make sense of
charter schools, each with their own board, discipline data from all districts and charter
add yet another layer of complexity. schools; this effort is currently underway, but
as yet unrealized. Also unclear is whether the
This helps us understand why, despite the alternative discipline processes implemented
inclusion of Utah State Board of Education in school districts, in lieu of traditional
(USBE) staff representatives on the JJWG referrals to court and to law enforcement, are
in 2016, many school administrators and more effective than previous court-initiated
I2017I I I
interventions. In fact, there are no publicly- individual criminal activity. Labeling young
available reports that describe what each people as "gang-involved;' based on family
district is doing in response to low-level connections or physical appearance, can
offenses, if that misconduct was previously contribute to inappropriate and unnecessarily
referred to the court system. harsh system contact for these youth,
even when they engage in the same age-
Despite these many challenges, data show appropriate misconduct as their peers.
that referrals from schools to the juvenile
court system are down.This is good news, Aside from limited legal action in specific
but it is only part of the story. Schools need areas of the state,10 resulting in changes
meaningful technical assistance, substantial within some law enforcement agencies, we
targeted investment and - perhaps most are not aware of systemic efforts, in general,
importantly - plenty of time in order to to transform current gang intervention
accomplish the cultural changes necessary approaches in Utah, or, specifically, to end
to ensure that youth engaged in misconduct the use of"gang databases"
are getting help and support for the issues
driving their behaviors. Because these gang databases are not
transparent to the public, it is not possible
To see statewide improvement in this to say how many are in use in Utah as of
area, we need a statewide commitment to this report. We do know, however, that they
reforming and improving school discipline continue to exist and are used regularly by
practices, which must include sufficient law enforcement agencies in Utah. Gang
funding by the state to enable schools to databases have been mentioned by law
absorb these new challenges. enforcement personnel at recent iterations
of both the Metro Gang Conference and the
Northern Utah Gang Conference.
4. END THE PRACTICE OF Violence perpetrated by, and also within,
TRACKINGYOUTH IN gangs is a real threat to some Utah youth,
NON-TRANSPARENT and hence deserves an appropriate response
DATABASES from community leaders, elected officials and
law enforcement. We strongly recommend
that appropriate responses will always
This recommendation was inspired by be most heavy on prevention, with less
community stakeholder concerns that reliance on late-stage interventions that
governmental responses to gang activity carry unforeseen negative consequences
in Utah have contributed to negative (such as when youth of color, labeled
stereotypes of young people of color, as "gang involved;' are seen as less
regardless of actual gang affiliation or deserving of compassionate intervention).
2011I I ' I
There are opportunities for juvenile particularly in the context of juvenile justice
justice policymakers to partner with law reform implementation, has been stymied
enforcement agencies and their gang units to somewhat by staff turnover. As of the
cultivate a more community-centric, trauma- beginning of June 2020, the DMC/RED
informed approach to gang interdiction. Subcommittee had been without a staff
We look forward to seeing more concerted coordinator six months. In the time since
collaboration in this area. Utah's juvenile justice system analysis was
conducted in 2016,three different individuals
have held the position of DMC/RED
5. EMPOWER AND coordinator.
INVIGORATEUTAH'S Good and important work has been
DISPROPORTIONATEundertaken by the DMC/RED Subcommittee
in past years. It is capable of even more.The
MINORITYCONTACT (DMQ DMC/RED has the strong support of the Utah
SUBCOMMITTEE Board of Juvenile Justice, within the office
of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice, and includes among its members
Utah is fortunate to have an official body several engaged community leaders and
dedicated to addressing racial and ethnic public servants. It is well positioned to lead
disparities in our juvenile justice system.The state-level efforts to reduce racial and ethnic
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) disparities in our juvenile justice system.
subcommittee - recently renamed the Racial Currently, though, much of the potential of
and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Subcommittee Utah's DMC/RED Subcommittee remains
- collects and publishes annual data on unrealized.
these disparities (used as the basis for this
report), and also assists in the oversight of We believe that the DMC/RED still has
statewide DMC/RED-related projects.This the potential, with careful attention and
recommendation was rooted in our belief that deliberate action, to grow into a gathering
this entity could play a greater role in actively place for collaboration and leadership in
reducing the racial and ethnic disparities reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the
reflected in this report. With several juvenile justice system. Increasing the pay
successes under its belt, the DMC/RED and status of the DMC/RED coordinator
Subcommittee could be an even stronger position, for example, would be one way
advocate for equity in Utah's juvenile justice for the state to signal a strong commitment
system. to making progress toward the equitable
treatment of all youth within Utah's juvenile
The DMC/RED Subcommittee's efficacy justice system.
in addressing racial and ethnic disparities,
12 2017I IA I
SECTION 2
ENDNOTES
1 - "Racial Disparities in Utah's Juvenile Justice 5 - Brett Peterson, Director of the Utah
System;' (2017), Accessed at https://www. Division of Juvenile Justice Services, publicly
utahchildren.org/images/pdfs-doc/2017/ presented on the agency's new approach
Racial DisparitiesUtahJuvenileJustice.pdf, many times during 2019; specifically, this
model was shared during a Juvenile Justice
2 -"Disposition" is the term used in Utah's Oversight Committee (JJOC) meeting in July
juvenile justice system to indicate what would 2019, and again in October 2019.
be called a "sentence" in the adult criminal
justice system. 6 - For Utah-based research, see From
Fingerpaint to Fingerprints: The School-
3 - "Status offense" refers to misconduct, to-Prison Pipeline in Utah, produced
engaged in by a person under the age of by the University of Utah S.J. Quinney
18, that would not be considered a criminal College of Law's Public Policy Clinic
or civil violation if it were committed by a (2014), accessed at https://app.box.com/
legal adult. For example, chronic truancy s/7ylyziug6ims8ahuwa06; and Misbehavior
from school, running away from home, and of Misdemeanor?A Report on Utah's School
violating curfew are all status offenses. to Prison Pipeline, produced by Voices for
Utah Children and the University of Utah S.J.
4 - "Secure care" in the juvenile justice Quinney College of Law's Public Policy Clinic
system is the equivalent of prison in the adult (2017), accessed at https://www.utahchildren.
criminal justice system. Secure care is used org/images/pdfs-doc/2017/Misbehavior—or—
for youth who have been ordered by a judge Misdemeanor_-_Report_on_Utahs_School_
to spend a relatively longer time in state to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf
custody. "Detention" also involves youth being
held in locked facilities, but, by contrast, can 7 - Utah State Board of Education, "Fingertip
be used before a younger person receives a Facts;'(School Year 2017-2018). Accessed at
disposition from a judge. Detention is used https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/5e1d0ce7-
when a relatively shorter time is spent in state c96e-435c-915c-12c92f80bae7,
custody, and is the equivalent of jail in the
adult criminal justice system.
2017I I I
8 -The definition of youth, by age, who are "at
risk"for system involvement in Utah is about
to change. As of July 1, 2020, youth in Utah
under the age of 12, with some exceptions
for very serious misconduct, will no longer
be referred to juvenile court as a recourse
for antisocial behavior. Rather, they will be
served first through non-court Youth Services
programming.This new state law (HB262)
was passed during the 2020 General Session
of the Utah State Legislature, and signed
into law by Governor Gary Herbert.The full
language of HB262 is available at https://
le.utah.gov/-2020/bills/static/HB0262.html.
9 -Full language of HB132 is available at
https://Ie.utah.gov/-2018/bills/static/
HB0132,html,
10 - Specifically, Winston v, Salt Lake City
Police Department (2016), in which the ACLU
of Utah brought a lawsuit
on behalf of three high school students who
were detained and interrogated as part of a
schoolwide "gang operation" conducted by
a joint agency gang task force in Salt Lake
County (case information accessed at https://
acluutah.org/legal-work/resolved-cases/
item/332-winston-v-sa It-lake-city-police-
department-2013); and the ACLU of Utah's
multi-action efforts on behalf of plaintiffs
targeted by "gang injunctions" enacted
against hundreds of individuals in Ogden
City and Weber County (case information
accessed at https://acluutah.org/legal-work/
resolved-cases/item/887-post-conviction-
remedies-act-cases and https://acluutah.org/
legal-work/resolved-cases/item/333-weber-
co-v-ogden-trece).
14 2017I I I
3 JUVENILE JUSTICE
■
SYSTEM RACIAL &
ETHNIC DISPARITIES
IN 2019
Since reform of Utah's juvenile justice system to court dropped from 12,464 to 6,790 - an
began in earnest several years ago, the impressive decrease of nearly 46%.The
state has experienced a sizeable decrease in reason that this is good news for Utah
the number of youth who become officially youth, is that research (both generally, and
involved with the system. Even before HB239 specifically in Utah) shows that system-
was enacted in 2017, there has been a steady involvement produces dubious outcomes,
decrease in overall referrals of young people particularly for youth who are at low and
to the juvenile justice system (Fig. 1), and this moderate risk for future reoffense.2
trend - which is generally mirrored across the
United States' - has continued in recent years. Utah appears to be successful in its efforts
to hold youth accountable for misconduct,
This is good news for public safety in Utah, and to deal with any underlying issues that
and also bodes well in terms of positive may contribute to that misconduct, without
outcomes for young people who may become formal court involvement.
engaged in age- and developmentally-
appropriate antisocial experimentation.
FIGURE I.
Similarly, petitions of youth to juvenile court
for misconduct were on the wane prior to REFERRALS TO JUVENILE COURT 2015-19
systemic reform efforts. Between 2017 and 7aaa
2018, though, the drop was comparatively 19925
precipitous (Fig. 2). 19552
��aaa
From 2015 and 2016 (the year in which the
statewide juvenile justice system analysis was �aoaa
conducted), petitions to court dropped from
�oaa
18,166 to 16,477, a decrease of about 9.3%.
By comparison, between 2017 (when HB239 a 2015 2016 2017 2018
was passed into law) and 2018, petitions
DISPARITIES IN 2019
FIGURE2. FIGURE3.
PETITIONS TO JUVENILE COURT 2015-19 ADMISSIONS TO LOCKED DETENTION 2015-19
15ooD 14049 3500 3494 3114
12000 -- 12057 3000 2592
10151 2500
9000 2000
6000 6215t 1500
1000
3000
500
J
2015 2016 2017 2018 20L 0 2015 2016 2017 2018
Not quite so dramatic, but still meaningful, measures through "non-judicial adjustments;'
have been the decreases in cases resulting an alternative to formal system involvement
in secure care placements and in the number overseen by a juvenile court judge. HB239
of admissions to locked detention. Again, mandated that most youth who are referred to
the 2016 system analysis revealed that these court for low-level and first-time misconduct
expensive and often counterproductive be offered a non-judicial adjustment in lieu of
interventions were being overused with youth a formal petition to court.
who were assessed to pose only a low or
moderate risk of reoffending.3 The data show that this effort has been
successful; as formal court petitions
The introduction of a verified Detention Risk have fallen (Fig 2), the use of non-judicial
Assessment Tool (often called the "DRAT") adjustments (NJA) to facilitate interventions
has helped to substantially accelerate and accountability measures has risen
the downward trend seen since 2015 in dramatically (Fig. 4).The use of NJAs actually
admissions to locked detention (Fig. 3). decreased by approximately 16.7% between
Between 2015 and 2016, admissions fell 2015 and 2016, right before reform efforts
from 6,471 to 6,191, a decrease of about 4.3%; began in earnest.Their use increased by
by comparison, once statutory reforms nearly the same margin between 2016 and
began to take effect between 2017 and 2017, and then jumped more dramatically - by
2018, admissions fell from 5,567 to 4,516 - a approximately 35% - between 2017 and 2018.
reduction of nearly 19%.
The essential thrust of this report is that while
Another key element of Utah's juvenile Utah has been successful in shrinking the size
justice reform has been to increase youth of its juvenile justice system, while expanding
access to interventions and accountability opportunities for prevention and early
16 DISPARITIES IN 2019
intervention that offer better outcomes for FIGURE 4.
youth and their families (as well as increased NON-JUDICIAL ADJUSTMENTS 2015-19
return-on-investment for taxpayers), we have
yet to realize similar success with regards to 12000
equity and fairness in that system. 10000 10125 9612
The data consistently show that while fewer 0000 1161 ,IC"
Utah youth are arrested, petitioned to juvenile 6000
court, placed in state custody in locked 4000
facilities and removed from their families in
an attempt to ameliorate antisocial behavior, 2000
we still see significant racial and ethnic 0 ��
2018 2019
disparities within the system overall. Children
of color are still more likely to be arrested,
petitioned to court and given more serious FIGURE 5.
punishments as their white peers. At some
points of the system, these disparities have YOUTH ARRESTS 2014-18
actually worsened since we reported on them 18186
20000
in our 2017 report. 1fi402
IWO 14881 13749
While the overall size of the juvenile justice
system in Utah is shrinking, we are still 10000
seeing far too many children of color,
relative to their representation in our state, �000
enmeshed in that system.
0
Figures 5 and 6 provide a dramatic example 2014 2015 2016 9017 a'
of this reality. Between 2014 and 2018,
overall juvenile arrests in Utah fell from As stated previously,this reduction in overall
18,166 to 13,413, a drop of 26.2% (Fig. 5). youth contact with the front end of the
When we take into account that the overall juvenile justice system is good news.That
school-aged youth population in Utah grew reduction, however, has not been equitable,
during that time from 612,140 in 2014 to as it has been achieved primarily through a
659,008 in 2018, that decrease is even more reduction in white youths' contact with law
impressive.4 In 2014, the rate of juvenile enforcement. White youths' proportion of
arrest was approximately 35 arrests per 1,000 overall arrests dropped from 70% in 2014 to
youth; by comparison, in 2018, the rate was 56% in 2018 (Fig. 6).
approximately 26 arrests per 1,000 youth.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 17
FIGURE 6. UTAH YOUTH
YOUTH ARRESTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 2014-2018 POPULATION 2011
100 1.7 4.1%
2.9 14.4% 1.11.7
21.0 1.4 17.0
$0 3.3
01.4
4.5 19.6
60 5.3
70.0
40
74.7
56.0
20
U
❑WHITE ■LATIHO/HISPANIC ❑ASIAN/NATIVE HAWAHAH/PACIFIC ISLANDER
■BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN ■AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE ❑OTHER/MIXED
Accordingly, non-white youths' proportion of Note:American Indian/Alaskan Native is the
overall arrests increased from 30% in 2014 to governmental research term used for this
44% in 2018.The overall proportions of white particular racial/ethnic group;in our report,
and non-white youth in Utah's population we use "Native/indigenous"interchangeably
have not changed that dramatically, not even with the more institutional description.
close.
In 2019, Utah's general school-aged youth
To better illustrate this point, Figure 6 population was approximately 74.2%white
includes the youth population figures for and 25.8% non-white.5 Specifically, Latino/
Utah from 2017, disaggregated by race. As Hispanic children comprise 17.3% of the
we move from 2014 to 2018, the data show a overall school-aged youth population;
stark increase in racial disparities relative to multiracial children, 2.8%; Asian children,
the overall youth population. Even as juvenile 1.7%; Pacific Islander children, 1,6%; Black
arrests are decreasing, racial disparities in children, 1,4; and Native/Indigenous children,
juvenile arrests are increasing. 1.0% (Fig. 7).This represents very little change
in demographics since our initial report,
FIGURE 7. YOUTH POPULATION VS. INTAKES TO
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 2019
YOUTH POP. 2.8% NEW INTAKES 3.3%
100 1.0 2.7
1.6 2.1
1.7 2.4
1.2
80 17.3
-A 1.4 25.6
60 5.
40 -
74.2 57.7
20
0
❑ WHITE ❑ LATINO/HISPANIC ❑ ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ❑ OTHER NON-WHITE
■ BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN ❑ AMERICAN INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑ UNKNOWN
which used 2015 data (when white children Latino/Hispanic children represented
comprised 75% of the youth population, and 25.6% of new intakes to the system,
non-white children 25%). compared to their 17.3% of the general
school-aged population.This is a dramatic
The racial/ethnic makeup of the youth who overrepresentation for Latino/Hispanic
were referred to the juvenile justice system children (nearly 50% more than what would
in 2019, however, was dramatically different be expected in an equitable system), but
from the overall youth population in that same the disparities were even worse for Native/
year. White children made up only 57.7%of all Indigenous children, and especially bad for
"new intakes"to the system, and non-white Black children.
children made up 42.3% of that same group
(Fig. 7). Native/Indigenous children represented twice
as large a proportion of new intakes as of
White children made up nearly three- the general school-aged youth population
quarters (3/4) of the general school-aged (2,1%vs. 1.0%). Black children, who made
population in Utah, but less than three- up only 1.4% of Utah's general school-aged
fifths (3/5) of all new intakes to the system. youth population, represented 5.0% of all
DISPARITIES IN 2019
FIGURE 8. CHANGE IN DISPARITIES FROM 2015 TO 2019:
YOUTH POPULATION VS. NEW INTAKES
100 NEW INTAKES 3.3% 100 YOUTH POPULATION ;o%
7/0 7/o
2.1 1.6
2.4 17 1.7
1.2
8d 23 80 17.3
25.6
1 1.4
3
80 5.0 60
40 67 40 75 74.2
57.7
20 20
0 0
2015 2019 2015 2019
new system intakes (more than three times intakes to the juvenile system. White children
what we would expect to see in an equitable were underrepresented among new intakes
system). Pacific Islander children and children in 2015 (67% of new intakes vs 75% of the
of"unknown" race/ethnicity were both general population), but the disparity was
overrepresented among new intakes, as even greater in 2019 (58% of new intakes vs
well. Multiracial children were very slightly 74% of the general population.
underrepresented (2.7% of new intakes vs
2.8% of the general population), while Asian Accordingly, non-white children's proportion
youth were underrepresented to a greater of the new intake population grew from 2015
degree even than white children (1.2% of new to 2019. Unfortunately, the 2015 data made
intakes vs 1.7%of the general population). available by the Juvenile Justice Working
Group and reproduced in our 2017 report, did
Figure 8 illustrates the differences in racial not disaggregate beyond the following for
disparities between 2015 and 2019.Again, categories: white, Latino/Hispanic, Black and
while the composition of the general school- "other non-white"
aged youth population changed very little
over the course of those four years, we saw a Our 2017 report noted community
dramatic change in the composition of new stakeholders'objections to the lumping
20 DISPARITIES IN 2019
FIGURE9.
INTAKES TO JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM VS
NON-JUDICIAL ADJUSTMENTS & PETITIONS TO COURT
IaD NEW INTAKES 3.3% NIA 3.1% PETITION 3.8%
2.7 2.8 2.5
2.1 1.9 2.3
2.4 1.9 3.4
80 1.2L23.8
1.1 1.5
25.624.3
24.3
60 5.0
11g;6.9
40
57.7 61.1 51.8
29
I I I
❑ WHITE ❑ LATINO/HISPANIC ❑ ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ❑ OTHER NON-WHITE
■ BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN ❑ AMERICAN INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑ UNKNOWN
together of Native/Indigenous, Asian, Pacific of new intakes in 2015 to 25.6% in 2019),
Islander, and mixed race children, and we and the negative change has been even
were able to obtain more finely disaggregated more dramatic for Black children (3% of new
data for 2019. intakes in 2015 to 5% in 2019).
Even with the limitations these differences The 2019 data reveal that white children
create for a 2015-to-2019 comparison, there are not only less likely to be referred to
are important observations to be made. the juvenile justice system, but that, once
Non-white children comprise an even greater referred,they are more likely to be offered
proportion of new intakes in 2019 (42.3%, alternatives to official court involvement.
as compared to 33% in 2015), even as the
overall number of new intakes to the system As mentioned previously, NJAs are used
decreased (22,323 to 17,354). increasingly as part of Utah's reformed
system, to give youth more opportunity
The disparate representation of Latino/ to make amends and take accountability
Hispanic children has worsened (from 23% without going before a juvenile court
DISPARITIES IN 2019
judge and developing a record of serious as compared to their only 1.4% portion of
system involvement. Of course, government the general school-aged youth population).
prosecutors still are able to petition children Latino/Hispanic children made up 25.6% of
to appear before the court to answer for new intakes to the system, but only 24.3% of
their alleged misconduct before a judge; NJAs and up to 27.7% of court petitions.
a court petition is a more serious system Similarly, Pacific Islander children were less
"entanglement"than an NJA. likely to receive an NJA (1,9% of NJAs vs 2.4%
of new intakes) and quite a bit more likely
While state statute directs that an NJA be to receive court petitions (3.4% of petitions).
offered in several specific circumstances Native/Indigenous children were also less
(generally reflecting first-time and low-level likely to receive an NJA (2.1%of new intakes
misconduct), there is still a fair amount of but only 1.9% of NJAs), and only slightly
prosecutorial discretion involved in decisions more likely to be petitioned to court (2.3% of
to submit a formal court petition in response petitions).
to alleged youth offenses.
Multiracial children and children of unknown
Figure 9 shows that while white children ethnicity appear in relative proportionality
made up only 57.7%of new intakes to the among both NJAs and court petitions. In this
system in 2019, they accounted for 61.1%of area of the system, Asian children do not
all NJAs (the "less serious" route offered to appear to follow a similar trendline to that of
youth accused of misconduct). At the same white children, but more closely resemble
time, they represented just over one-half of all other children of color. While they represent
petitions to court (the "more serious" route). 1.2% of all new intakes to the system, they
White children make up nearly three-fourths make up 1.1% of NJAs and 1.5% of petitions to
(3/4) of the general school-aged population, court.
less than three-fifths (3/5) of referrals to
court, and barely over one-half(1/2) of all Data from 2015 (Fig. 10, next page) showed
petitions to court. a similar pattern; white children were more
likely to be offered NJAs, and less likely to be
Conversely, non-white children were less petitioned to court, when compared to their
likely to be offered an NJA,and more likely proportion of new system intakes; children
to receive a formal court petition for their of color were less likely to be offered NJAs,
misconduct. Black, Latino/Hispanic and and more likely to be petitioned to court, in
Native/Indigenous children, in particular, proportion to their representation among
were much more likely to be petitioned to new system intakes. However, the pattern has
court. become more pronounced in the 2019 figures.
Already dramatically overrepresented It appears that reform efforts to provide
among new intakes at 5%, Black children more "early off-ramps"away from system
made up 6.9% of all court petitions (again, involvement for youth charged with
22 DISPARITIES IN 2019
CHANGE IN DISPARITIES FROM 2015 TO 2019:
INTAKES TO SYSTEM VS NON-JUDICIAL ADJUSTMENTS, PETITIONS TO COURT
NEW INTAKES NJA PETITION
0 7% 3.3% 4% 3.1% 5% 3.8%
2.7 2.8 2.5
2.1 1.9 �2.3
2.4 1.9 3.4 32
2315.0
1.2 25 1.1 1.5
N325.6 3 24.3
124.3
so 3.8 5
6.9
o
67 57.7 67 61.1 58 51.8
�o
2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019
misconduct, have produced such "off- Such a placement could be a community-
ramps"with less frequency for children of based program (such as a substance abuse
color. treatment facility or a therapeutic program for
youth who commit sexually-based offenses),
Once a young person receives an official a locked detention program (for shorter stays,
petition to court, they will appear before a with increased access to community-based
juvenile court judge, who will hand down activities such as work and family visits), or
an "adjudication" - the term used in juvenile a secure care facility (for longer stays, with
court for what we would call a "sentence" in much more limited out-of-facility access).
adult criminal court.
For these reasons, we consider "probation"
Typically, a "probation" disposition is to be the least harsh of adjudications for
considered less invasive and less "punishing" petitioned youth, followed by community
than an adjudication that results in the young placement, then locked detention and finally
person being ordered to leave their home for secure care.
some sort of custodial placement.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 23
FIGURE 11. INTAKES TO JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM VS
CASES RESULTING IN PROBATIONS 2019
NEW INTAKES PROBATION
100 3.3% 1.1%
2.7 3.6
2.1 2.4
2.4 1.2
80 1.2 2.4
25.6 25.6
60 5.o
7.3
40
57.7 50.3
20
I _ I
❑ WHITE ❑ LATINO/HISPANIC ❑ ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ❑ OTHER NON-WHITE
■ BLACKIAFRICAN AMERICAN ❑ AMERICAN INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑ UNKNOWN
Data from 2019 (Fig. 11) show that as we see the same increase in disparities at this
follow this path deeper into the system, white stage when compared to new intakes, but
children comprise a smaller and smaller Pacific Islanders were still overrepresented
proportion of the population, while children of compared to the general youth school-aged
color comprise a larger and larger proportion. population.
White youth represented barely over half of all
probation dispositions (50,3%), nearly equal At this point in the system, Black youth
to the representation of non-white youth make up 7.3%of all probation dispositions
(49.7%). - five times the size of their proportion of
the general school-aged youth population
Conversely, the overrepresentation of (1.4%).
Latino/Hispanic (29,2%), Black (7,3%),
Native/Indigenous (2,4%), and multiracial Figure 12 (next page) illustrates the
children (3,6%) became more pronounced. differences in racial disparities between 2015
Asian and Pacific Islander youth didn't and 2019 among probation dispositions.
DISPARITIES IN 2019
FIGURE 12. CHANGE IN DISPARITIES FROM 2015 TO 2019:
INTAKES TO SYSTEM VS CASES RESULTING IN PROBATIONS
100 NEW INTAKES 3.3% PROBATIONS 1.1%
7% 2.7 6% 3.6
2.1 2.4
2.4 1.2
80
23 1.2 30 2.4
3 25.6 25.6
8p 5.0 7
7.3
40
20 67 57.7 56 50.3
2015 2019 2015 2019
Again, we see similar patterns in both sets of placed in a detention setting before they
data, with disparities worsening for most non- receive a formal disposition from a juvenile
white groups of youth over the course of the court judge (such as those children awaiting
four years. an initial court hearing or awaiting a formal
adjudication).
As mentioned previously, youth who do not
receive a probation disposition (another type Overall, when compared to the population
of"early off-ramp" diverting youth from more of new intakes to the system, the population
serious system engagement), typically will of youth in community placement,
receive one of three more serious, out-of- locked detention and secure care is
home dispositions: community placement, disproportionately non-white.This indicates
locked detention or secure care. that as youth become more deeply involved
in the system, children of color become more
Figure 14 illustrates the racial and ethnic and more overrepresented. White children
breakdown across these three juvenile court are more likely to move out of the system,
dispositions. Locked detention admissions while non-white children are more likely to
also include young people who may be experience "more serious" dispositions.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 25
FIGURE 13. INTAKES TO SYSTEM VS CASES RESULTING IN
COMMUNITY PLACEMENT, LOCKED DETENTION & SECURE CARE 2019
lOO 3.3% 1.3% 1.4% 0.7%
2.7 2.8 1.9 3.9
2.1 _ 2.3 3.0 2.6
2.4 1.3 2.4 2.6
OO 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.7
25.6 30.7 32.5
fiO 5.0 7.5
8.9 38.8
40 11.8
57.7 53.9 49.1
20 38.8
0
NEW INTAKES COMMUNITY DETENTION SECURE CARE
PLACEMENT
❑ WHITE ■ LATINO/HISPANIC ❑ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ■ OTHER NON-WHITE
■ BLACKIAFRICAN AMERICAN ■AMERICAN INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑ UNKNOWN
White children represented nearly 54%the White children make up nearly three-
population of young people in community fourths (3/4) of the general school-aged
placement settings, which was less than their youth population, but less than half(1/2) of
proportion of both new intakes (57.7%) and the population in locked detention and less
the general population (74.2%), but more than than two-fifths(2/5) of the population in
their occurrence in locked detention settings secure care.
(49.1%). White children are dramatically
underrepresented in secure care settings, at Latino/Hispanic children were a larger
approximately 39%of that population. White proportion of the secure care (38.8%) and
children are in the majority with regard to the locked detention (32.5%) than they were of
community placement population (a "less the community placement population (30.7%).
serious" adjudication), but in the minority of The proportion of Latino/Hispanic children
both the secure care and locked detention in locked detention was nearly double that
settings ("more serious" adjudications). in the general population (32.5%vs 17.3%);
26 DISPARITIES IN 2019
their proportion in secure care was more than Native/Indigenous youth are present in
double that in the general population (38.8% locked detention settings at three times
vs 17.3%), the rate we would expect from an equitable
representation.They were proportionately
Note that the number of Latino/Hispanic more likely to be in locked detention or
children in secure care was equal to that secure care settings,than in community
of white children,though white children placement settings.
outnumbered Latino/Hispanic children in
the general school-aged youth population The sample size of youth in community
by a factor of more than four to one. placement settings was n=469.This is good
Native/Indigenous children and multiracial news, overall, with regards to the size of
children were represented among community Utah's juvenile justice system. Only 469 youth
placement dispositions (2.4% and 2.8%, in the state of Utah in 2019 were ordered
respectively) at rates similar or slightly to participate in an out-of-home juvenile
elevated when compared to those among justice program (such as substance use
new intakes to the system (2.1% and 2.7%, disorder programs), out of more than half a
respectively), while both Asian and Pacific million school-aged youth statewide. Even
Islander children were both underrepresented more impressively, the sample size of youth
in the community placement population when in secure care settings was n=152. 6,7 This
compared to new intakes (0.2%vs 1.2%for indicates that the system is fairly efficient at
Asian youth and 1.3%vs 2.4%for Pacific administering interventions that don't require
Islander youth). a young person to be removed from their
home, school and community to receive help
The proportion of every group of non-white and to create accountability.
children (with the exception of multiracial
children and those of"unknown" race/ The sample size of locked detention
ethnicity) was larger among the locked admissions for this disaggregated data was
detention and secure care populations, n=1491,$ Again, this is good news, overall.
than among the community placement Admissions to locked detention have dropped
populations. Native/Indigenous youth, by more than 50% since 2015, largely due
in particular, were represented by stark to changes in admissions criteria (via the
disparities in this regard. Native/Indigenous DRAT). However, this validated assessment
children made up just 1.0% of the general nonetheless takes into account"static"
school-aged youth population, but over 2% or "stable"factors that can be influenced
of new system intakes; comparatively,these substantially by systemic and institutional
children made up 3% of locked detention racism (for example, the consideration of past
admissions, and nearly the same proportion of offenses as "gang-related;' or the total number
secure care admissions (2.6%), of previous interactions with the system).
This is one of several potential reasons that
DISPARITIES IN 2019 27
FIGURE14. CHANGE IN DISPARITIES FROM 2015TO2019:
INTAKES TO SYSTEM VS COMMUNITY PLACEMENT, LOCKED DETENTION & SECURE CARE
NEW INTAKES PLACEMENT DETENTION SECURE CARE
ma 3.3% 1.3% 1.4% 0.7%
7% 2.7 8°/ 2.8 6% 1.9 4% 3.9
2.1 2.3 3.0 2.6
2.4 1.3 2.4 2.6
1.2 0.2 0.8 0.7
sa123
25.6 30.7 2
36 32.5
3 47 38.8
5.0 7 5 5
6 8.9
2 11.8
57
67 57.7 50 53.9
49.1 46 38.8
J
❑ WHITE ❑ LATINOIHISPANIC ❑ ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ■ OTHER NON-WHITE
■ 6LACKIAFRICAN AMERICAN ■AMERICAN INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑ UNKNOWN
disparities in locked detention admissions However, Black children make up 8.9%of
continue to be pronounced and troubling. locked detention admissions(more than
six times their proportion in the general
Particularly troubling is the disparate population), and 11.8%of all secure care
representation of Black youth involved in placements (nearly eight-and-a-half times
the juvenile justice system. Black children their proportion in the general population).
were, among all children, most starkly Utah's juvenile justice system is producing
overrepresented in all three dispositions even less equitable outcomes for Black
when compared to both their proportion of children in 2019 than in 2015 in this regard.
new system intakes (5.0%) and of the general
school-aged youth population (1.4%). Figure 14 compares the new intakes,
community placements, locked detention
Black children make up 7.5% of all community admissions and secure care dispositions from
placement dispositions, similar to the 7.3% of 2015 to those in 2019. As previously noted,
all probation dispositions that they represent. all these overall numbers are down. Figure
28 DISPARITIES IN 019
FIGURE15.
ALL REFERRALS, INTERVENTIONS AND DISPOSITIONS
BY RACE/ETHNICITY 2019
188 2.8% 3.3% 3.1% 3.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 0.7%
1.0 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.6 2.8 1.9 3.9
1.6 �2.1 �1.9 2.3 2.4 �2.3 �3.0 �2.6
1.7 2.4 1.9 111111111111111111111113.4 1.2 1.3 2.4 _ 2.6
1.2 1.116.9
1.5IZ3
2.4 0.2 0.8 0.7
88 17.3
1.4 25.613.8
24.324.325.6
30.7 32.5
D 5.0
�f O 38.8
7.5
8.9
74.2
O 5Z7 61.1 11.8
51.8 50.3 53.9
49.1
38.8
2
POPULATION INTAKES NJA PETITIONS PROBATIONS PLACEMENT DETENTION SECURE CARE
15 makes clear, though, that the disparities Black children were substantially more
between white and non-white children inequitably represented in the populations
substantially worsened in many regards over of community placements, locked detention
those four years. and secure care in 2019 and 2015.This also
was largely true for the category of"Other
It is true that Latino/Hispanic children Non-White" children (as labeled in the 2015
represented a smaller proportion of the data),which we describe in our 2019 data as
secure care population in 2019 (38.8%) than children who are Native/Indigenous, Asian,
in 2015 (47%). However, their population in Pacific Islander, multiracial and of"unknown"
secure care was still approximately equal to race/ethnicity.
that of white children (46% in 2015 and 38.8%
in 2019), despite Latino/Hispanic children In 2015, "Other Non-White"youth represented
being outnumbered by white children in the 8% of all community placements; in 2019, the
general population by a factor of more than comparable population of children who are
four to one. Native/Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander,
DISPARITIES IN 2019 29
FIGURE 16. CHANGE IN DISPARITIES FROM 2015 TO 2019:
ALL REFERRALS, INTERVENTIONS AND DISPOSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY
2015
100 7% 7% 4% 5% 6% 8% 6% 4%
80 17 23 25
1 32 30 32
03 3 36
47
00 5 7 5
75 6
67 67
2
58 56 57
0
50
46
20
0
POPULATION INTAKES NIA PETITIONS PROBATIONS PLACEMENT DETENTION SECURE CARE
2019
100 2.8% 3.3% 3.1% 3.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 0.7%
1.0 2.713.8
2.8 2.5 3.6 2.8 1.9 3.9
1.615.0
2.11.9 2.3 ��2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6
1.72.41.9 3.4 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.6
80 17.31.21.1 1.5 2.4 0.2 0.8 0.7
1.425.624.3 24.3 25.6
30.7 32.5
0 38.8
6.9 _7.3 .5 8.9
74.2
40 51.8 61.1 11.8
57.7 5
50.3 3.9
49J
38.8
20
POPULATION INTAKES NIA PETITIONS PROBATIONS PLACEMENT DETENTION SECURE CARE
❑ WHITE ■ LATINOIHISPANIC ❑ ASIAN ❑ PACIFIC ISLANDER ■OTHER NON-WHITE
■ BLACKIAFRICAN AMERICAN ■AMERICAH INDIAN ❑ MULTIRACIAL ❑UNKNOWN
30 DISPARITIES IN 2019
multiracial and of"unknown" race/ethnicity 2017).The overall trend of children of color
remained about the same (7.9% community being overrepresented in referrals to the
placements). However, the disparities system, and among the harsher dispositions
dramatically worsened within the locked meted out by the system, persist - with a few
detention admissions population for these notable differences.
combined racial/ethnic groups (6% in 2015
vs 9.5% in 2019), as well as within the secure For example, in 2019, the pattern of white
care population (4% in 2015 vs 10.5% in 2019). children comprising a larger proportion
of"less serious"treatments is even more
Figure 15 captures the 2019 data shared in pronounced. In 2015, we saw a larger
previous figures, oriented side-by-side, to proportion of white children in locked
better explicate the fact that children of color detention (57%) than in community
generally were more likely to be captured into placements (50%); in 2019, a slightly larger
the juvenile justice system and, once there, proportion of white children were found
were more likely to attract harsh dispositions among community placements (nearly
that result in increased system monitoring 54%, an increase of 4%), and significantly
(through NJAs and probations) and/or smaller proportion among locked detention
removal from their homes and communities. admissions (slightly more than 49%, a
decrease of 8%).
We can clearly observe that children of color
were disproportionately represented among When comparing the 2015 and 2019 in this
new intakes to the system, when compared way, it becomes increasingly clear that white
to the general school-aged youth population. children comprise a smaller and smaller
This overrepresentation was maintained at portion of our shrinking juvenile justice
every level of intervention and disposition, system in Utah. Conversely, reform appears to
once youth enter into the system via referral. be providing less positive impact for youth of
color.
The disparities were either slightly smaller
or similar among the populations offered A lack of explicit focus on equity in the
"early off-ramp" interventions, including NJAs reform process resulted in little progress
and probation dispositions.The disparities with regards to racial/ethnic disparities;
were typically either similar or worse among rather,these disparities have been allowed
populations given more "serious dispositions" to worsen even as the system has been
that result in removal from home and working to improve.
communities.
Figure 16 compares this side-by-side
representation of 2019 system data to system
data collected in 2015 (and reported by us in
DISPARITIES IN 2019 31
enough to not swing widely with minor
SECTION 3
ENDNOTES
1 - See data collected and reported by the changes in placement. For example, if there
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency were 15 Black children in secure care rather
Prevention (2019), accessed at https://www, than 18, their proportion of the secure care
ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp. population would be 9.9%, rather than 11.8%;
2, 3 -From "Utah Juvenile Justice Working the former still represents a stark disparity.
Group Final Report" (2016), accessed at 7 - In contrast to data reported from other
https://justice.utah.gov/Documents/CCJJ/ inflection points in the juvenile justice system,
Justice%20Pol icy/Research/Final%20Report/ the number of youth in secure care in Utah
Utah%20JJ%20Final%20Report,pdf' has not changed dramatically between 2015
and 2019. Utah has been, and continues
4 - From Utah State Board of Education to be, a relatively low-incarcerating state,
(USBE) Enrollment statistics, SY2014 to with regards to both juvenile and adult
SY2018; see Appendix 5.3 for all underlying
populations.
population figures.
8 - There are slight differences in the locked
5 - All data in Figs. 1-4 and Figs. 6-15 reflect admission counts reported in this section;
numbers over the course of a federal this is the result of differences between how,
fiscal year (October 1 of one year through and at what times, various agencies and
September 30 of the next year).The data in entities report. As the margin of difference
Figs. 5 and 6 reflect numbers over the course is only 2.1%, we have left this discrepancy
of a calendar year (January 1 to December 31
unadjusted.
in the same year).
6 -This sample size is not insignificant, but
is small enough to warrant some caution
when assessing the relative disparities among
children of various races and ethnicities
in secure care. However, particularly for
Black and Latino children, the number of
incarcerated young people is substantial
32 DISPARITIES IN 2019
4 2020
■
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 WHAT POLICYMAKERS CAN DO TO ADVANCE EQUITY
Utah's juvenile justice system could be setting we need to not only correct problems with
an example for the rest of the nation.To implementation, but also take bold action to
realize that dream, Utah needs to make the position equitable treatment as a core value
elimination of racial and ethnicdisparities a and critical measure of success.
priority.To do so, the state should use the
strong and effective entities already in place. Fortunately, Utah has the solid organizational
structures, public and community agencies,
Leaders and administrators need to model collaborative partnerships and grassroots
the collaborative, restorative practices that leaders to make such action possible. Our
we continue to recommend to our schools: hope is that the following recommendations
bring impacted stakeholders to the table to will build upon currently existing foundations
build trusting relationships, then troubleshoot of success to allow our state to achieve a
from a place of respect and understanding. juvenile justice system that is not only efficient,
We can and should improve on aspects of effective,fiscally-responsible and research-
implementation of our original juvenile justice based but equitable as well. Such a system
reform. Juvenile justice reform proponents would be not only the envy of other states
can do a better job of reaching out to, and across our nation, but an incredible legacy to
supporting, our on-the-ground implementers: leave to future generations of Utah children.
specifically, law enforcement and educators.
Racial disparities are the result of hundreds I
R THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
of years of systemic racism that has become
entrenched in our policies and practices,
despite our best intentions. We may be coming
close, in Utah, to the limit of what success Form an Equity Working Group
"awareness" alone can inspire. Progress in to focus on system disparities
this area will require deliberate focus and petitions, dispositions, parole •
intentional action. If we want to see change, duration of court jurisdictions.
2020 ' I I
The JJOC has been meeting and working
since HB239 passed in 2017. Strong working
relationships, trust among committee BOARDFOR THE UTAH
participants, and a ceaseless commitmentJUVENILE JUSTICE AND THE
to continuous improvement are part of the
established culture of this group. RACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITIES
SUBCOMMITTEE
Various working groups have tackled a
number of intricate and complicated policy
implementation challenges, successfully and Center youth voicesthrough
efficiently. Where HB239 directed the state deliberate en' • • ' gain
to scale fees and restitution appropriately deeper insight intohow bias and
to the means of system-involved youth discrimination push Utah youth •
and their families, the Restitution Working the juvenile justice system.
Group met regularly until the particulars
of such a program could be defined and
passed along to court staff and judges. The
training requirements broadly outlined in the Generally, holding regular focus and
legislation were translated, by the Training discussion groups with youth in detention and
Working Group, into an agency- and topic- secure care settings, as well as in community
defined schedule that can be annually placements such as substance use disorder
updated. programs, would provide valuable insight into
what sorts of interventions make a difference
We recommend that the JJOC follow this for youth who are engaged in misconduct.
largely successful approach to tackle at least Focus groups with system-involved youth
some of the clear disparities noted in this played an important role in the system
report. We strongly urge that a JJOC Equity analysis undertaken in 2016, and at least one
Working Group be both bold and creative discussion group was held in 2019 with youth
in its pursuit of solutions.The Working participating in a substance use recovery
Group should be prepared for challenging facility in Salt Lake City. These efforts can and
discussions and innovative accountability should be expanded in the next several years,
methods. to help inform on-going efforts to improve
system interventions overall.
Additionally, the Board of Juvenile Justice
(UBJJ) and its Racial-Ethnic Disparities (RED) But UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee can also
Subcommittee are in excellent position to be courageous about engaging young people
gather information directly from system- directly on topics of implicit bias, perceived
involved youth about how they feel their discrimination, cultural competency within
race and ethnicity may be connected to their the system, and interest in culturally-relevant
system outcomes. interventions. We recommend that UBJJ
2020 ' I I I
and the RED visit various youth detention
and receiving centers across the state to
talk frankly with young people about their Pursue innovative grant-making
experiences with race and racism within approaches that support
Utah's juvenile justice system (including communities
school-based interactions and community- creatingproviding their own
interactions with law enforcement). appropriate culturally-
based . youth
of • •
Partner with community groups In recent years, government agencies -
. empower parents . . including those that comprise Utah's juvenile
advocates for youth to speakjustice system - have become focused on
' advocate for equity. the use of"evidence-based practices"to
ensure that public monies are being used in
effective and responsible ways. This approach
UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee have partners well with an emphasis on the use of
historically shared RED data in a fairly one- quantitative data to justify the continuation of
directional conversation, releasing annual particular policies, programs and practices.
statistics through the UBJJ website and However, the bar for what can be considered,
minimizing broader public discussion. As officially, "evidence-based" is quite high. In
we've mentioned previously in this report, addition, many smaller, grassroots efforts
"awareness" alone can only go so far. and programs lack the resources or cultural
In fact, the repeated sharing of data on inclination to prioritize the collection of
discrimination, absent action and power- quantitative data to justify their existence.
sharing, often can be defeating and even
retraumatizing, especially for communities of Hence, an inclusive philosophy has emerged
color. that includes an embrace of both evidence-
based practices and "practice-based
It is possible, in the future, to actually evidence.'The idea of"practice-based
mobilize the DMC/RED data in a way evidence" (PBE) is particularly popular in
that is not merely informational, but the fields of medicine and public health,
also empowering. In addition to sharing where cultural competency and respect
quantitative data that affirms the lived for community traditions can make an
experience of many Utah families of color, enormous difference in the efficacy of various
UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee can interventions.
work with community partnerships to hold
discussions about youth and parent rights, as The inclusion of this additional approach
well as troubleshooting for families who are allows for the use of a broader spectrum of
struggling with system involvement. interventions that, rather than structured
2020 ' I I I
around statistical efficacy for a majority Northern Utah Gang Conference has begun
population, are designed for, and trusted by, to include presenters with lived experience
traditionally marginalized communities. with gang involvement, and helpful reflections
on what can create motivation for change
"PBEs are embedded in the culture, are among young people associated with gang-
accepted as effective by local communities, related misconduct.2 Similarly, Salt Lake
and supporting healing of youth and families City's re-envisioned "Choose Gang Free"
from a cultural framework. . .These practices approach focuses resources on providing
do not have a research base as we define positive interventions for youth who may be
research today; but they do have an evidence considering or at risk for gang involvement,
base developed from multiple trials of with a stated mission to "promote
experimenting with what works best:'' change through opportunity, education,
and collaboration, and restore hope by
The UBJJ and RED Subcommittee can and empowering youth and families to choose a
should consider providing delinquency gang free lifestyle"3
prevention resources to programs and
intervention efforts that include those that are These changes stand out in a landscape of
built for high-risk youth of different cultural "gang interdiction" efforts that have included
backgrounds, as well as those that use a not only the high-school-based "gang
faith-based approach to build pro-social sweeps" and "gang injunctions" mentioned
community connections among struggling previously in this report, but also aggressive
youth. prosecutions that have sown mistrust and
resentment in some of Utah's deep-rooted
communities of color along the Wasatch
Front,4
Outreach and . •oration with Despite historical differences,there exists
the law enforcement community A plenty of common ground between law
. "gang - enforcement, community leaders and juvenile
punitiveefforts away from justice reformers, on which more productive
prosecutions and toward early gang-intervention efforts can be built. This
interventions " " " the common ground includes: a desire for safe
potential and humanity of young and peaceful neighborhoods, an interest in
people at risk for gang involvement. supporting positive and pro-social life choices
by young people, and an agreement that gang
involvement produces no enduring positive
In recent years, some positive changes outcomes for either community members or
have emerged in Utah's approach to dealing gang members.
with potential gang activity within different
communities. For example, the popular
2020 ' I I I
The UBJJ and RED Subcommittee both Disagreements over implementation
include members of law enforcement of HB239 at the community level, and
who believe in juvenile justice reform, conversations about school safety in light
as well as community leaders willing to of several high-profile school shootings,
build relationships with law enforcement have revealed a need for a new policy
leaders. These policy-building spaces offer problem-solving space. Representatives
promise for the collaborative development of of law enforcement, school districts and
interventions that challenge the traditional community advocacy groups need regular
approaches to gang interdiction (which often opportunities to discuss potential policies and
threaten to enforce rather than challenge implementation challenges regarding school
long-standing stereotypes about the relative discipline, court referrals, community-based
danger posed by misconduct engaged in youth misconduct, school safety and threat
by youth of different racial backgrounds), assessment proposals, and more.
while creating innovative and effective ways
of strengthening communities through Rather than approach these issues from a
increased social and economic opportunity. desire to avoid harm (for youth, their families,
and the community at large), those involved
in the lives of youth need a space where they
can come together to create a vision for youth
FOR THE
i BOARD
IiI I opportunity and success - and then work
backwards from that vision to determine how
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND each stakeholder can contribute to helping
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE all youth toward a path of success and
OVERSIGHT
R I happiness.
In order to create this vision and begin to put
Combine the it into action,juvenile justice stakeholders,
problem-solving task-oriented _ education stakeholders and public safety
Oversight • more stakeholders need to be at the same table.
inclusive • expansive Utah : • . •
of Juvenile Justice. Historically, the JJOC has been laser-focused
on implementation of the reforms in HB239.
By contrast, UBJJ has focused on providing
There are a number of issues that have funds to support various programs that
surfaced in recent years that exist in the comport with more general "delinquency
jurisdictional overlap between public schools, prevention" goals, in accordance with its
local law enforcement agencies and state- federal mandates under the Juvenile Justice
level juvenile justice reform representatives Delinquency Prevention Act.The JJOC is
involved in UBJJ, JJOC and DMC/RED. comprised largely of public servants working
for state and local agencies involved in
2020 ' I I
various stages of the juvenile justice system
(approximately 80%of JJOC participants
are public servants). UBJJ, on the other
hand, is required to have no more than 50%
participation by agency representatives, with
the other (at least) 50% of members coming
from community-based and private sector
affiliations. In addition, by law, at least 25% of
UBJJ members must be youth board members
who have had personal experience with the
juvenile justice system.
Both UBJJ and JJOC boast positive working
relationships between members, with
a fair amount of interpersonal trust and
assumption of good intentions. In fact, several
members of UBJJ serve also on the JJOC. We
recommend slowly merging these two entities
together, with a clear mission to provide a
constructive space for cross-community,
intergovernmental collaboration toward
building a youth-centric, evidence-based
and data-driven juvenile justice system that
provides equity and positive outcomes for all
youth.
2020 ' I I I
402020
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.2 WHAI COMMUNITY & FAMILY ADVOCATES CAN DO
TO ADVANCE WITY
BUILD
Build and maintain trusted a juvenile justice process or throughout an
relationships with youth. entire school year. Simply being a consistent
and constant presence in their life is an
Family and community advocates can play a important way to help a young person move
vital role in increasing the protective factors forward in life and learn from their mistakes.
that help young people avoid misconduct and
misbehavior that threaten their own wellbeing. Don't be afraid to share your own stories of
The foundation of positive outcomes for young struggle and triumph with the young people
people are strong relationships. Caring adults in your life. By sharing your experiences, you
can begin to build positive connections with can give young people the courage to open
the youth around them; they can make, and up about the troubles in their own lives, even
if they choose to open up to someone besides
honor, commitments to be there for these
youth, even in small ways. you.
Being a positive and trusted connection for It is important for young people to know that
youth, means being available to those youth they are not alone in facing tough times, and
when they face troubles. A loving adult is that other people (like you!) make mistakes, as
someone who does not give up on youth well. It can be through your positive example
when they engage in misconduct and act out that youth begin to learn that the difficult
in frustration, but maintains their relationship experiences they face can also be, with a
and stays with them throughout those difficult little support and reflection, opportunities for
times, while also creating boundaries that growth and personal discovery. By being open
show self-respect and self-awareness. about your own mistakes, you can show that
it is possible to move forward after even very
"Staying with" a young person can mean serious missteps.
remaining accessible to them throughout
2020 ' I I
Remember that when you make yourself You don't have to be an attorney in order to
available to young people in a supportive help a young person who is called to court;
relationship, as the adult,you are responsible you can simply remind them that having an
for doing your best to keep that relationship attorney to represent them is their right. If
consistent and meaningful. Be available they can't afford to pay a private attorney,they
without expecting appreciation or recognition; will be assigned a public juvenile defense
just be there for your young people. attorney.Their defense attorney is meant to
play an important role in negotiating with the
prosecuting attorney, and in making sure a
COMMITjuvenile defendant feels heard in court.
■
Commit to supporting young Similarly, if your young person doesn't feel
people if or when they encounter that they are getting the support they need
the juvenile justice system. to be successful at school, you can help them
ask for the assistance they have a right to
Thankfully, not every young person will receive, by law. Public school students who
formally encounter the juvenile justice system; have learning disabilities and need special
many youthful misconduct attracts only family accommodations are supposed to receive
or community consequences. However, it is them.You can accompany your young
important for you to be prepared to support person in meeting with a principal, teacher
the young people you care about when they or counselor, and support them in requesting
make mistakes or get in trouble, especially a special plan that better supports their
when that occurs in a formal setting, such as learning (such as an Individualized Education
at school or in a courthouse. Advocates like Plan, or IEP, or a "504 Plan").5
you can commit to supporting your young
person before, during, and after official As a family or community advocate, you
processes that engage some aspect of the can learn more about basic juvenile justice
juvenile justice system. proceedings - including disciplinary
processes that take place at the school
Simply knowing some basic information level, well before a court referral is made
about administrative and legal processes - by participating in a "Know Your Rights
can be a huge help to young people and Workshop" offered by a local advocacy or civil
their families. rights organization.
For example, any young person who has to You can also review helpful videos and
appear in juvenile court to answer formal how-to guides available at the Utah Courts
charges has the right to an attorney, who website.You don't need to be an expert,
is supposed to help them understand the and it's best not to try! However, it can be
process and to explain the different options very useful to a confused and scared young
available to them. person, to have the support of a concerned
go
2020 ' I I I
adult with even a little understanding of
formal government processes, and the
■
willingness to navigate those processes
alongside them. Consider how Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACES) and trauma
Once a young person has finished their affect children, rather than
involvement with the juvenile justice system, criminalizing behavior that may be
family and community advocates can support the result of childhood trauma.
youth by helping them "expunge"their
juvenile record, if and when they are eligible When we engage in supporting the youth
to do so. "Expungement" is the term for when around us, we need to consider each young
the juvenile court orders that the criminal person as an individual, with a unique life
record of a young person's involvement with story that potentially includes very difficult
the court, as well as related records of state, past and present circumstances.
county and local government agencies, be
sealed. When a young person you care about acts
out, hurts others, or engages in frustrating
Contrary to popular belief,juvenile records misconduct, it is important to ask, "What
are not"automatically"sealed.6 might be going on with you, that you are
doing this?" rather than demand to know,
Action must be taken by a young person, "What is wrong with you, that you would do
once their disposition is completed, to seal this?"
their own record through the expungement
process. It is important to remember that Using an individualized, youth-centric
sealing a record only means that the public approach to intervening with young people
cannot view or copy the expunged record by means that we consider, specifically, how
contacting a government agency. childhood trauma or Adverse Childhood
Experiences (commonly referred to as
Expungement doesn't erase history, "ACES") may be driving the behaviors of
of course; news accounts of an arrest, those young people - often without their
conviction or incident in which a young awareness or understanding. In addition
person was involved, will not be affected by to sometimes contributing to problematic
an expungement.7 Once an expungement is misbehavior, negative childhood experiences
granted by a juvenile court judge, however, are strongly linked to negative effects on
a young person can truthfully answer "NO" if health, wellbeing and opportunity.$
they are questioned as to whether they have
been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor We have learned a great deal about the
(such as on a job application, or when they substantial impact that can be caused by
are applying for a college program). childhood experiences. We now understand
that intense, frightening and destabilizing
MMM
2020 ' I I
experiences in childhood can cause both
immediate and long-term harm to the young CREATE.
people we care about. For example, being
exposed to violence in childhood can increase Create positive and culturally-
the risk of an individual being a victim or a inclusive school cultures.
perpetrator of violence in the future. Exposure
to violence also increases the risk of injury, Parents, guardians, family members, and
substance abuse, slowed brain development, other supportive adults can work with
and risk of low educational attainment, teachers, counselors, social workers,
among other consequences.9 principals and other school staff to develop
positive school culture within the schools
Recognizing that ACES and traumatic their youth attend. A positive school
experiences - both those that have happened culture exists when members of the school
in the past and those that are occurring in community - including students, staff and the
the present - can help family and community surrounding community - feel connected to
advocates understand that the vast majority and respected by one another. When students
of young people get into trouble because they feel seen, welcome, appreciated, understood
are suffering, and not because they are just and safe, we say that a school has a positive
"bad kids." culture.
A young person who is picking fights at Positive school culture can be built in many
school, may be struggling due to domestic ways, and will be unique to each different
violence incidents occurring in the home they school community, depending on its unique
have to return to at the end of the school day. strengths and challenges.Two very important
A young person who acts out sexually, may be ways to build positive school culture -
confused and upset about abuse they have particularly with regards to increasing equity -
experienced or are experiencing in a different are: supporting the development of culturally-
setting altogether. relevant pedagogy within classrooms, and
incorporating restorative justice principles.
As a supportive adult, always remember
to ask, "What's going on with this child,
that may be causing them to act out in this CU LTU RALLY-RELEVANT
way?" PEDAGOGY
Acknowledging the role of trauma helps us
look for underlying causes and potential
solutions, instead of simply leaping to the Culturally-relevant pedagogy honors and
conclusion that punishment is needed. includes the experiences of students of color,
and intentionally celebrates the contributions
of people from diverse backgrounds.
2020 ' I I I
Research shows that students who see translation services can be made easily and
themselves reflected in their educational seamlessly accessible, so that students
curricula, and whose educational and their families can fully participate in
experience includes celebrations of unique school activities. Certainly, students should
elements of their own heritage, are more be encouraged and allowed to speak their
likely to succeed in school. 10 native languages not just at school, but in the
classroom, as well.
Creating and building culturally-relevant
pedagogy takes time, but an easy way to
start is by supporting teachers and schools RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
in building their libraries with books written PRACTICES
by authors of color, and books that have
protagonists or main characters who are M"
people of color (specifically, who look like the
students of color who attend that particular Schoolwide restorative justice practices
school or classroom). can also be critical to building positive
school culture. Restorative justice is often
By allowing students to share personal misunderstood to mean, in the educational
experiences and cultural knowledge through context, an alternative method of discipline
their reading and learning, they are better when students do something perceived as
able to understand the world around them wrong. However, restorative justice is much
and how they fit into it. Their experiences, more than that.
as youth of color, are acknowledged and
recognized as valuable in their own individual When applied to the school community
education. as an overarching philosophy, restorative
justice can become a foundation for
Culturally-relevant practices can also be everyday interactions between students,
incorporated into the formal educational staff and the larger communities.
experience, allowing students and their
families to connect both within and across Restorative justice, as a philosophy, can
cultures. By adding school wide opportunities look like simple activities that strengthen
that allow for the celebration of students' relationships and build trust; for example, a
different cultures, languages and ethnic daily practice of check-ins between teacher
traditions, school communities can build and students, or a conscientious effort by all
increasingly inclusive campuses. adults in a school community to make eye
contact, and connect on a personal level, with
In addition to practices and programs, school the students regularly in their care.
policies should also reflect an appreciation
and understanding of students' unique Some restorative justice schools assign a
cultural and linguistic needs. For example, "trusted adult"to every child in the school, to
2020 ' I I I
ensure no child goes unseen. Others regularly You can encourage the use of such
practice discussion circles that give every practices in your young person's school by
child an opportunity to participate,while recommending professional development
others listen respectfully, in the tradition of opportunities for individual teachers (many
many indegenous peoples. are available through the Utah State Board
of Education, as well as through community-
Of course, restorative justice principles can based organizations such as the Restorative
work very effectively to address misconduct Justice Collaborative of Utah).
within the school community, as well, with
an emphasis on accountability and mutual You can also volunteer to help model
respect. Discipline approaches that are practices - such as restorative circles -
rooted in restorative justice principles allow during student activities and programs. Most
youth to grow and learn from their mistakes, importantly, as a supportive and caring adult,
while cultivating understanding for how their you can model key principles of restorative
behavior can impact others. justice in your interactions with young people,
and with other members of your community.
A restorative justice approach to addressing
misconduct asks questions like, "What Restorative justice is rooted in the values of
happened?What harm was caused?What respect, dignity and mutual concern.
needs to happen to repair the harm, and
to repair the relationships injured by By nurturing healthy relationships, creating
the misconduct?" Rather than stressing just and equitable learning environments,
punishment and wrongness, these practices and repairing harm and transforming conflict
create opportunities for students and other when necessary, you are helping to institute
school community members to work toward restorative justice principles in the spheres
feeling safe and successful together. you share with young people.
SECTION 4
ENDNOTES
1 - From "Evidence-Based Practices & 2019 prosecutions of accused members of
Practice-Based Evidence: What are they? "GlenMob;' a professed rap group and alleged
How do we know if we have one?" by Dr. narcotics distribution ring, apparently based
Dolores Bigfoot, PhD, and Dr.Jami Bartis, in various communities on the West side
PhD, (2010). Full article published in the of Salt Lake County. Information accessed
National Indian Health Board Edition of the from various media sources, agency press
Healthy Indian Country Initiative Promising releases, and gang conference workshop
Prevention Practices Resource Guide, descriptions.
accessed at https://www.ncuih.org/krc/D—
bigfoot—EBP—PBE. 5 - For more information about educational
plans for students with diagnosed disabilities,
2 -See agenda for 2019 Northern Utah Gang you can contact either the Disability Law
Conference, including "MS-13 How to Get Center (which offers online resources related
Out of a Gang" presentation by Mr. Gerardo to education at http://disabilitylawcenter.
Lopez of Homies Unidos and "Gangs & org/education/) or the Utah State Board of
Sex Trafficking" presentation by Ms. Allison Education (which has a department dedicated
Franklin of the National Criminal Justice to Special Education Services, or SES, with
Training Center. Presenter bios accessed at general information available at https://www.
https://ogdencity.com/1595/Northern-Utah- schools.utah.gov/specialeducation).
Gang-Conference.
6 - As described in Utah code, accessed
3 - Information about Salt Lake City's Choose at https://Ie.utah.gov/xcode/Title78A/
Gang Free efforts accessed at https://www. Chapter6/78A-6-S1105.html,
choosegangfree.com.
7 - From "Expunging Juvenile Records;' an
4 - For example: the 2010-14 Racketeer online guide provided by the Utah Courts,
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) accessed at https://www.utcourts.gov/
prosecutions of several alleged members of howto/expunge/juvenile.html.
the Tongan Crip Gang, which ended with the
courtroom shooting death of Siale Maveni
Angilau of Salt Lake City; and the 2018-
I 0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8 - Definition from the World Health
Organization; example available at https://
www.who.int/violence_inj'ury_prevention/
violence/activities/adverse childhood
experiences/en/.
9 - From the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, accessed at https://
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
chi Ida buseandneglect/aces/fastfact.htm1.
10 - For resources on the positive impacts of
culturally-relevant pedagogy, we recommend
"How to Practice Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy;" by Barbara Escudero (2019),
accessed at https://www.teachforamerica.
org/stories/how-to-engage-culturally-
relevant-pedagogy.
11 - From the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, accessed at https://
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
chi ldabuseandneglect/aces/fastfact.htm1.
12 - From The Little Book of Restorative
Justice in Education: Fostering Responsibility,
Healing and Hope in Schools, by Katherine
Evans and Dorothy Vaandering (2016).
or
2020 ' I I I
5
■ APPENDICES
5.1 AGGREGATE ANNUAL TOTALS, 2015-2019
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Referrals to 22,323 19,925 19,552 18,331 17,354
Court
Non-Judicial 7,161 6,142 7,223 10,125 9,672
Adjustments
Petitions to 14,049 12,057 10,151 6,215 5,851
Court
Admissions
to Locked 3,494 3,114 2,592 1,893 1,523
Detention
*Year refers to state fiscal year, which begins on July 1 of the preceding year and ends on June 30 of
the stated year(FY2019 runs from July 1,2018, to June 30,2019),
"Annual Referral to Court figures taken from Figure 3, under Perfomance Metrics:System Trends,in
the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report;data compiled and presented by Dr. Van Nguyen, Co-Director
of the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice(UBJJ)/Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee(JJOC),in the office
of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Full report accessible at https:lljustice.utah.govl
JuvenilelHB239/Annual%20ReportslFY 2019 HB_239 Annual Report.htmL
***Annual Non-Judicial Adjustment and Petition to Court figures taken from Figure 10, under
Performance Metrics:Non-Judicial Adjustments,in the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report.
****Annual Admissions to Locked Detention figures taken from Figure 16, under Performance
Metrics:Locked Detention,in the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report;clarification of underlying data
sought from Dr. Van Nguyen,author of 2019 HB239 Annual Report.
I
5.2 YOUTH ARRESTS DISAGGREGATED BY
RACE/ETHNICITY, 2015-2019
2014 2015 2016 2011 2018
White/ 12,719 11,258 9,454 8,265 13,413
Caucasian
Black/African- 816 768 721 664 706
American
Latinx/ 3,813 3,610 2,881 2,853 2,626
Hispanic
Asian-
American,
Native 510 467 352 364 440
Hawaiian,other
Pacific Islander
American Indian
or Alaska Native 308 297 259 221 189
/Indigenous or
Native
Other,Mixed 0 0 1,214 1,382 1,937
Race
Total Arrests 18,166 16,402 14,881 13,749 13,413
*Year refers to calendar year(January 1 to December 31 of the same year).
**Disaggregated arrest figures for 2014 and 2015 obtained from public annual reports of
Disproportionate Minority Contact(DMC)Subcommittee of UBJJ;data submitted by law enforcement
agencies throughout Utah. Full reports available at https://justice.utah.gov/Juvenile/ubjj dmc.html,
under DMC Data sidebar(DMC Summaries 2014 and 2015).
***Disaggregated arrest figures for 2016,2017 and 2018 were obtained upon request from UBJJ/
JJOC Co-Director Kayley Richards,as reported by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Utah
Department of Public Safety.
II
5.3 GENERAL SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH POPULATION,
2015-2019
2014 2015 2016 2011 2018 2019
White/ 468,378 471,853 633,526 644,061 651,864 488,844
Caucasian
Black/
African- 7,908 8,256 8,670 9,061 9,258 9,225
American
Latinx/ 97,388 101,390 104,457 108,074 110,931 113,945
Hispanic
Asian 10,277 10,355 10,517 10,776 10,907 11,062
American
Pacific 9,131 9,310 9,857 10,015 10,250 10,441
Islander
American
Indian/ 6,876 6,938 7,009 6,978 6,752 6,749
Native-
Indigenous
Multiple or 12,182 13,698 14,930 16,057 17,513 18,742
mixed race
Total K-12 612,140 621,800 633,526 644,061 651,864 659,008
Enrollment
*Year refers to school year, from August of the preceeding year through June of the state year
(SY2014 runs from August of 2013 through June of 2014).
**Disaggregated K-12 enrollment figures taken from Utah State Board of Education Fall Enrollment
Data available at https://www.schools.utah.gov/datalreports?mid=1424&tid=4.
III
5.4 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM POINTS OF CONTACT,
DISAGGREGATED BY RACE, 2019
COMMUNITY LOCKED SECURE
INTAKES N1A PETITION PROBATION PLACEMENTS DETENTION
ADMISIONS CARE
White/ 8,360 5,641 2,719 2,568 253 732 59
Caucasian
Black/
African- 717 355 362 371 35 132 18
American
Latinx/ 3,701 2,244 1,457 574 144 485 59
Hispanic
Asian 178 99 79 69 1 12 1
American
Pacific 352 172 180 103 6 36 4
Islander
American
Indian/ 299 177 122 122 11 45 4
Native-
Indigenous
Multiple or 390 260 130 322 13 28 6
mixed race
Unknown 484 282 202 58 6 21 1
Total 14,481 9,230 5,251 4,187 469 1,491 152
*Year refers to state fiscal year, which begins on July 1 of the preceding year and ends on June 30 of
the stated year(FY2019 runs from July 1,2018, to June 30,2019),
**Intake,NJA, Petition and Probation figures are received from the Administrative Office of the
Courts, with assistance from Dr. Van Nguyen, UBJJ/JJOC Co-Director.
***Community Placement, Locked Detention and Secure Care figures are received directly from the
Division of Juvenile Justice Services.
IV
Voices for Utah Children
747 E.South Temple,Suite 100
Salt Lake City,UT 84102
(801)364-1182
www.utahchildren.org
JULY 2020
VOICES FOR
UTAH
N-.-Chadren
1
CAHOOTS Overview
2021
CAHOOTS Description
CAHOOTS (Crises Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) is a 24/7 mobile crises intervention
program in the Eugene-Springfield Metro area (started in 1989).
• CAHOOTS is not housed in the police department but rather under a community
organization, White Bird Clinic.
• The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT)
and a crises worker (training and experience in mental health).
• CAHOOTS does not have law enforcement officers in the team and do not carry weapons;
their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of
crises situations.
• CAHOOTS is dispatched through the Eugene police-fire-ambulance communications center
and Springfield non-emergency number.
• Dispatchers are trained to triage calls and recognize non-violent situations with a behavioral
health component and route those calls to CAHOOTS.
• Any person who reports a crime in progress, violence, or a life-threatening emergency may
receive a response from the police or emergency medical services instead of or in addition to
CAHOOTS.
CAHOOTS provides immediate stabilization in case of urgent medical need or psychological
crisis. CAHOOTS offers other services as well, such as:
• Crises Counseling
• Suicide Prevention, Assessment, & Intervention
• Conflict Resolution & Mediation
• Grief& Loss
• Substance Abuse
• Housing Crisis
• First Aid & Non-Emergency Medical Care
• Resource Connection & Referrals
• Transportation to Services
• Advocacy
CAHOOTS Community Impact
CAHOOTS is funded by the City through the Eugene Police Department (EPD).
• CAHOOTS contract budget for July 2017- June 2018 was approximately$798,000, which
funded 31 hours of service per day (overlapping coverage), seven days a week (&2 vans).
• CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually
• Eugene & Springfield police departments are$90 million
Cost Savings
• CAHOOTS estimates program saves city of Eugene approximately$8.5 million in public
safety spending annually
• This amount probably exaggerated because uses ALL calls for service as opposed to only
call that CAHOOTS diverted calls for Police
2
Reasons for CAHOOTS Calls for Service
• Check Welfare (28%)
• Assist Public (27%)
• Transport(22%)
• Suicide Subject (7%)
• Disorderly Subject (3%)
• Intoxicated Subject (2%)
• Found Syringe (2%)
• Traffic Hazard (2%)
• Criminal Trespass (1%)
• Dispute (1%)
• Other
CAHOOTS services have significantly increased
• 2014 had 9,646 calls for service
• 2019 had 18,583 calls for service
EPD received 105,403 public calls for service in 2019.
• CAHOOTS were involved in 18% of those calls (sole response, joint response, CAHOOTS
summoned police after assess situation).
CAHOOTS Diverted 5-8% of Calls for Police
• A police officer would have been dispatched if CAHOOTS did not exist.
• CAHOOTS called backup from EPD approximately 2%
NOTE
• This year Utah legislation passed to have EMS trained in mental health conditions
• If considering this, how would this work with SLCPD CIT& HOST
EUGENE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT
300 County Club Road, Eugene, OR 97401
r�0 E
CAHOOTS Program Analysis
PURPOSE:
To gain a clear understanding of the CAHOOTS program regarding the nature and levels of activity
CAHOOTS personnel are involved with, both in conjunction with, and independent of, other emergency
services.
There has been significant visibility and discussion, even nationwide, of the CAHOOTS program in recent
months, highlighting the important role this program has in our community by offering critical crisis
intervention services. The coverage has shared a variety statistics and figures based on different
information sources. In order to provide more consistent and up to date information, EPD Crime Analysis
Unit has conducted analysis to accurately gauge the the impact the CAHOOTS program has on the Eugene
Police Department's (EPD) activity levels.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
• CAHOOTS divert rates are likely between approximately 5%to 8%of EPD Calls For Service (CFS)
• CAHOOTS called for backup from EPD in 311 instances in 2019
■ CODE 3 Cover, or an immediate police emergency response with lights and siren, was
needed in —8% of the backup calls
■ Backup rates are higher in natures of calls that are traditionally dispatched to police,like
Criminal Trespass
METHOD:
Two tools have been created by the EPD Crime Analysis Unit to help examine data from the Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.Anecdotally,these two tools are referred to as the "CAHOOTS tool," and the
"Annual Stats tool." Both are interactive and reside on a closed EPD system, they pull their data from the
Eugene CAD system.
Due to the complexities and numerous variables, every effort will be made to be as thorough as possible
when describing various filters applied to the data to better understand the nature of CAHOOTS
involvement in the public safety system.
The examined data is inclusive from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.
DISCUSSION:
CAHOOTS is a partner organization with the City of Eugene and is run through the White Bird Clinic. It is
currently dispatched via the same system as EPD and Eugene Springfield Fire (ESF) to a variety of calls,
diverting some from EPD and other emergency services, as well as handling a subset of unique calls that
wouldn't normally be responded to by law enforcement. Calls for CAHOOTS come in through either the
emergency 911 system or the non-emergency line.Additionally,there are some calls that are self-initiated,
or calls where CAHOOTS vans are flagged down by individual members of the community. The initial step
in this analysis is to look at the nature and frequency of Calls for Service (CFS) within the CAD system as
they relate to CAHOOTS.
Calls For Service (CFS):
ALL CAHOOTS ASSOCIATIONS:
Figure 1—2019 total CAHOOTS CAD associations
In 2019 CAHOOTS had some level Rank Nature Count Percent Include
of activity in 20,746 public- 1 Check welfare 5806 28.0% Q
initiated CFS. This number is not 2 Assist Public- Police 5555 26.8% Q
indicative of a response, dispatch or 3 Transport 4583 22.1% Q
arrivial, simply an association 4 Suicidal Subject 1442 6.95% Q
between a CAHOOTS unit 5 Disorderly Subject 529 2.55% Q
designator and an event in CAD. 6 Intoxicated Subject 421 2.03% Q
Figure 1 shows all CAHOOTS 7 Found Syringe 347 1.67% p
associations by call nature. This g Traffic Hazard 307 1.48% Q
chart includes calls that may also 9 Criminal Trespass 288 1.39% Q
have an association with other 10 Dispute 225 1 08% Q
emergency services 11 Other (106 Categories) 1243 5.99% Q
Total 20746
Nature
Summary Table roup�.ng. Top N from one tMcugi 115
ALL CAHOOTS DISPATCHED CFS:
In 2019 CAHOOTS was dispatched
to 17,700 public-initiated CFS. This Figure 2-2019 total CAHOOTS dispatched CFS
includes calls that are both Rank Nature Count Percent Incline
CAHOOTS only and a joint response 1 Check Welfare 5083 28.7% Q
with other emergency services. It is 2 Assist Public- Police 4547 25.7% Q
a subset of the calls in Figure 1. 3 Transport 3756 21.2% Q
Lack of dispatch can be for a variaty 4 Suicidal Subject 1389 7.85% Q
of reasons ranging from a call not 5 Disorderly Subject 457 2.58% Q
requiring a response, to a caller not G Intoxicated Subject 356 2.01% Q
providing complete informaiton, or 7 Found Syringe 310 1.75% Q
a caller calling back and canceling a 8 Traffic Hazard 298 1.68% �
call. CAHOOTS dispatch rates are
higher than EPD due to the nature of � Criminal Trespass. 215 1. 1`�� Q
the calls they receive. CAHOOTS 10 Dispute 214 1.21°la Q
calls are generally not for 11 Other (95 Categories) 1075 6.07% Q
information only or calls to report Total 17700
crimes, those types of calls, which
are common for EPD are often not Nature 10
dispatched. Summary Table Grouping. Top N rrom orre through 105
ALL CAHOOTS ARRIVED CFS:
In 2019 there were 15,879 public- — -
initiated CFS (Figure 3) where Figure 3-2019 total CAHOOTS response
t Percent C t k Nature Count Incline
CAHOOTS was both dispatched and Ran
arrived. This number is a sub-set of 1 Check Welfare 4609 29.0% Q
Figure 2 and includes CAHOOTS-only 2 Assist Public- Police 4085 25.7% Q
activity as well as CAHOOTS activity 3 Transport 3341 21.0% Q
in conjunction with other emergency 4 Suicidal Subject 1294 8.15% Q
services. A variance in dispatch and 5 Disorderly Subject 402 2.53`Ya �
arrival rates is common with service 0 Intoxicated Subject 320 2.02% Q
calls. It is often caused by the call 7 Traffic Hazard 257 1.62% Q
being canceled after dispatch and is 8 Found Syringe 254 1.60% Q
not indicative of a non-availability of 9 Criminal Trespass 190 1.20% Q
services. Due to the delay between a 10 Dispute 190 1.20% Q
call being received, dispatched, and 11 Other (92 Categories) 937 5.90`Ya Q
resources arriving on scene, a caller Total 15879
may call back and report the subject
of the call is no longer on scene.
Nature IV 110
Summary Table Grouping. Top N fToro one through 102
ALL CAHOOTS ONLY CFS ASSOCIATIONS:
Figure 4 shows all 2019 Public- Figure 4—2019 CAHOOTS only CAD associations
initiated CFS where only CAHOOTS Rank Nature Count Percent Include
has an association to the call in the
Assist Public- Police 5435 30.2`Yb
CAD system. There are no other 2 Check Welfare 5226 29 0% Q
emergency services associated to the
call. These calls are a subset of Figure � Transport 453 25.2`?a p
1 (All CAHOOTS Associations). This Suicidal Subject 982 5.46a Q
does not indicate either dispatch or 5 Intoxicated Subject 393 2.18% Q
arrival. 5 Found Syringe 328 1.82`?a Q
7 Traffic Hazard 241 1.34% Q
8 Disorderly Subject 230 1.28% Q
9 Assist Fire Department 161 0.89% �
10 Disoriented Subject 111 0.62% Q
11 Other (59 Categories) 355 1.97% �
Total 17995
Nature ff(}
Summary Table Grouping. Top N`tor„ one tn!' u ." fig
CAHOOTS ONLY ARRIVED CFS:
Figure 5 indicates 2019 public-
initiated CFS where CAHOOTS was Figure s-2019CAHOOTS only response
the only unit that was both Rank Nature Count Percent Include +
dispatched and arrived on scene. 1 Check Welfare 4220 30.5% a
There were 13,854 CFS that fit these 2 Assist Public- Police 3996 28.8% a
criteria. The difference between 3 Transport 3303 23.8% Q
dispatch (15,356) and arrival is 4 Suicidal Subject 889 6.42% Q
1,502. The ARRIVED calls are a 5 Intoxicated Subject 301 2.17`Ya Q
subset of Figure 3 (all CAHOOTS
arrived). These numbers do not 6 Fecund Syringe 252 1.82a Q
include calls where CAHOOTS called 7 Traffic Hazard 210 1.52°fa Q
for backup from other emergency 8 Disorderly Subject 196 1.41% Q
services after arriving on scene. 9 Assist Fire Department 116 0.84`Ya Q
Divert rate will be discussed later, 10 Disoriented Subject 87 0.63% Q
however 13,851 should be the base- 11 Other (48 Categories) 284 2.05% Q
line number for beginning any Total 13854
divert calculations.It indicates a call
that may have gone to emergency
services but was diverted to Nature
u'rnmary Table Orovping. Top N from one throe � 58
CAHOOTS, without intervention or p '�
support from emergency services.
Figure 6—2019 Joint EPD/CAHOOTS CFS
JOINT CAHOOTS/EPD CFS:
Rank Nature Count Percent Include
Figure 6 shows the 2,018 joint CFS 1 Suicidal Subject 405 20.1`"io �
where both CAHOOTS and EPD 2 Check Welfare 385 19.1`"io Q
dispatched and arrived at the call. 3 Disorderly Subject 206 10.2% Q
These calls are a subset of calls
figure 3 (all CAHOOTS arrived) and 4 Dispute 185 9.17% Q
include CFS where CAHOOTS 5 Criminal Trespass 128 6.34% Q
called for backup from EPD. These 6 Assist Public- Police 88 4.36% Q
gross joint CFS numbers do not 7 Suspicious Conditions 51 2.53% Q
differentiate which units arrived 8 Disorderly Juveniles 48 2.38% Q
on scene first. 9 Traffic Hazard 47 2.33% Q
10 Overdose 44 2.18% Q
11 Other (76 Categories) 431 21.4`"io Q
Total 2018
Nature
Suromary Table Group0g. Top N rrom one twough 86
CAHOOTS BACKUP CALLS:
Figure 7 illustrates 311 CFS where Figure 7 2019 CAHOOTS calls requiring backup
CAHOOTS called for backup from law
enforcement.The calls are a subset of Ranh Nature Count Percent Include
Figure 6 (joint calls). 1 Check Welfare 116 37.3% Q
2 Suicidal Subject 42 13.5% Q
To be included in the backup 3 Assist Public- Police 34 10.9% Q
category, ALL of the following 4 Criminal Trespass 23 7.40% Q
criteria had to be met:
5 Transport 20 6.43% Q
• The call was dispatched to 6 Disorderly Subject 16 5.14% Q
CAHOOTS ONLY 7 Traffic Hazard 14 4.50% Q
• CAHOOTS arrived on scene 8 Intoxicated Subject 9 2.89% Q
• EPD was dispatched and 9 Missing Person 5 1.61% �
arrived after CAHOOTS 10 Suspicious Conditions 4 1.29% Q
arrived on scene 11 Other (21 Categories) 28 9.00% Q
The percentage of calls beginning as Total 311
a CAHOOTS ONLY response and then
requiring backup was 2% overall.
Nature
However, when you look at calls
t aomary Table Grouping. Top N fro one through 31
outside of CAHOOTS normal top 4
CFS,the percentage of calls requiring
backup climbs. With "Criminal Trespass," backup was requested 23 times out of 69 CAHOOTS responses
where they arrived and located the subject. That equates to CAHOOTS requesting backup in 33% of the
CAHOOTS ONLY Criminal Trespass CFS. For the top 4 natures that make up the bulk of CAHOOTS
dispatches, the backup rate is as follows: Transport (>1%), Assist Public (1%), Check Welfare (4%), and
Suicidal Subject (5%). The term backup does not indicate an emergency response, it simply indicates that
after CAHOOTS arrived on scene it was determined additional police response was required. We were able
to isolate 25 instances (8% of backup calls) where the terms "CT' or "CODE 3"were used in the call notes,
this would indicate an immediate and emergency police response to the call.
EXPLANATION OF CAHOOTS TOP NATURES:
1. CHECK WELFARE (4,615 dispatched): The CAHOOTS Welfare Check nature is generally separate
from the EPD Welfare Check. Dispatch makes the determination at the time of the call that the
caller does not appear to require a law enforcement response, or the caller specifically requests
CAHOOTS. CAHOOTS arrived at 4,220 of the Welfare Checks. They make up 30% of the total call
volume CAHOOTS is dispatched to.
2. ASSIST PUBLIC- POLICE (4,448 dispatched): This nature is not considered a traditional police
call. It generally involves non-emergency service requests from the public, from counseling,to
injury evaluation after a person declined to be evaluated by a medic,to providing general services.
CAHOOTS arrived at 3,996 of the Assist Public calls. They make up 29% of the total call volume
that CAHOOTS is dispatched to.
3. TRANSPORT (3,712 dispatched):A CAHOOTS transport call generally involves moving an
individual, often unhoused and in need, or dealing with mental health issues, from one location to
another for non-emergency services. For example: an individual may need to get from a dusk-to-
dawn site to a hospital for non-emergency issues. CAHOOTS arrived at 3,303 of the Transport
calls. Transport calls make up 24% of the total call volume CAHOOTS is dispatched to.
To better understand the natures,the following are random samples from the calls of these natures,
which were dispatched to CAHOOTS personnel. These calls are indicative of those in the nature, although
not all inclusive.
1. Check Welfare:
• (19283789) LOC/ SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION, ON THE OVERPASS FEMALE WALKING
BAREFOOT AND NOT WEARING MUCH CLOTHING -- REQ CAHOOTS TO GO AND CHECK ON
HER LAST SEEN 5 AGO NO WEAPONS OBS
• (19250067) LOC/NE CORNER OF 2ND AND VAN BUREN. C/ADVI THERE IS POSSIBLY A
PERSON SLEEPING ON SIDEWALK, OR POSSIBLY ITEMS COVERED BY TARP. HASN'T
MOVED IN 5 HOURS. C/IS CONCERNED THE PERSON MAY NEED A WELFARE CHECK
2. Assist Public:
• (19062532) C/ REQ CAHOOTS FOR COUNSELING AND ASSISTANCE C/ HAVING SUICIDAL
THOUGHTS NO PLANS OR MEANS AT THIS TIME
• (19310041) C/ REQ TRAN FOR HERSELF AND HER SON TO A MEAL THIS MORNING
3. Transport:
• (19222410) INV/UNK, NAME NEEDS XPORT TO SERVICE STATION -WAITING IN ED LOBBY
• (19080551) LOC/ LOBBY I/ UNK, MARK WM. 57. 600. MED. BALD LSW/ UNK TRAN TO
HOURGLASS
CAHOOTS DIVERTS
Divert Criteria: For a call to be considered a divert,ALL of the following criteria must be true:
1. The call is received by dispatch
2. Police are normally dispatched to the call nature
3. The call is dispatched to, and arrived at by, an outside agency
4. No EPD resources are dispatched to the call
Dispatch versus non-dispatched calls: This is one area where CAHOOTS and EPD numbers differ
significantly. The term "dispatched" indicates that physical resources (individuals) have been sent to the
scene of activity in order to render assistance or investigate activity.
For CAHOOTS, a non-dispatched call indicates there is no activity that occurs, or no response. A typical
example of this is when a member of the public calls in,the call is placed in the queue waiting for available
resources, and due to a time lapse from the initial call, the caller calls back and states the subject is no
longer there, or no longer in need of assistance. The call is never dispatched to CAHOOTS.
For EPD a non-dispatched call often still carries a burden of activity, including the filing of reports, the
gathering of information and possible future activity. A typical example of this is a call for Theft From
Vehicle. In 2019 there were 2,559 CFS to EPD of this nature and the agency dispatched personnel to
approximately 101 (-4%) of those calls. Officers are generally not needed on scene to file a report. Despite
personnel not being physically sent to the scene, the agency still has multiple individuals and staff-hours
dedicated to these events.
The distinction between the two agency responses becomes important when calculating diverts.We must
look first at all CFS dispatched, and arrived at, by CAHOOTS only (Fig. 5: 13,854); that number must be
compared to the total CFS volume for both agencies (Fig. 8 below). In 2019 there were 105,402 Public CFS
placed to the call center.
Figure 8-ALL EPD public-initiated CFS in 2019
Calculating the divert rate of CAHOOTS for
Nature Count 9QofAll CFS Freq Pri Freq 6esig 6isp'd
EPD activity is not as simple as removing CHECK WELFARE 8469 8.0% 7 CAHOOTS 87.1%
all calls associated to CAHOOTS from the CRIMINAL TRESPASS 7007 6.6% 3 PATROL 72.1%
DISPUTE 6364 6.0% 3 PATROL 94.2%
total number of CFS received by the call ASSIST PUBLIC-POLICE 6245 5.9% 7 CAHOOTS 78.7%
center.It needs t0 be Ca able Of anSWerin TRANSPORT 4664 4.4% 7 CAHOOTS 81.6%
Y g BEAT INFORMATION 4455 4.2% 5 PATROL 82.7%
the question: "If CAHOOTS services ILLEGAL CAMPING 4313 4.1% 5 PATROL 9.8%
THEFT 4264 4.0% 4 PATROL 28.7%
weren't available, how many additional DISORDERLY SUBJECT 3832 3.6% 3 PATROL 84.1%
calls would EPD need to handle?" To THEFT FROM VEHICLE 2559 2.4% 9 CSO 3.9%
ALL OTHER(241 Cats) 53231 5C.5% 3 PATROL 52.5%
address that specific question, the four TOTAL 105403 100.Dh 3 PATROL 60.5%
divert criteria listed at the beginning of
this section must be met.
If we incorrectly assume that ALL calls associated with (Figure 1: 20,746),dispatched to (Figure 2: 17,700),
or handled by only CAHOOTS (Figure 5: 13,854) would be dispatched to police if CAHOOTS services were
not available,then we have gross divert rates of: -20%, -17%, or ^-13% respectively.
However, as discussed when examining call natures, the top 3 CAHOOTS CFS natures: Check Welfare
(4,220),Assist Public(3,996),and Transport(3,303) are not traditionally law enforcement calls and would
likely not be dispatched to police. The majority of these calls are received by the call center because of the
partnership with CAHOOTS; the public is aware that CAHOOTS services are accessed through calling 911
or the non-emergency number and it artificially inflates the total call volume to emergency services.
If all calls in the top three CFS, which are CAHOOTS-centric, are removed from the total of CAHOOTS only
responses (11,519), we are left with 2,335 CFS, which are likely diverts. This equates to an overall divert
rate of—2%
If we look only at dispatched calls for both agencies (63,738) and subtract out the removed CAHOOTS
natures (11,519) we are left with 52,219 total dispatched CFS, of which 2,335 were handled by CAHOOTS,
which would equate to —5% divert rate of dispatched calls.
The calls in the Check Welfare nature, handled solely by CAHOOTS, are the most challenging call nature to
differentiate from traditional law enforcement calls. Following further analysis of a random sample group
of 200 of these calls by dispatchers,we estimate that approximately 74% (148 of 200) of the Welfare Check
calls would likely be dispatched to police if CAHOOTS resources weren't available. If we apply this
percentage to the larger group of Check Welfare calls dispatched to CAHOOTS (4,220), we are left with
3,123 CFS that may be sent to police. Using this methodology, the number of divert calls for CAHOOTS
becomes 6,346: the overall divert rate is —6%. Additionally, this would make the divert rate of all
dispatched calls —10%.
SUMMARY:
CAHOOTS is a valued partner within the city of Eugene and provides a needed service within the
community. In examining interplay between EPD and CAHOOTS, they are partner organizations where
they both meet specific and unique needs.Additionally, CAHOOTS and EPD are often jointly dispatched to
CFS to meet those needs.
CAHOOTS does divert calls from EPD, however it is not the 17-20% reported by just looking at the total
number of CAHOOTS calls compared to EPD calls. Even with a full and comprehensive study of calls
responded to by CAHOOTS, it is not possible to find an exact divert rate for a specified time period. It is
likely that the true divert rate falls between approximately 5% - 8%.
Additionally, EPD does provide backup for some CFS where CAHOOTS was the only unit initially assigned.
EPD rates of CAHOOTS requesting backup are higher than what has previously been reported in the
news media. It should be noted that backup rates for more "traditional" CAHOOTS-centric calls: Check
Welfare,Assist Public and Transport are relatively low. It is when CAHOOTS is dispatched to a traditionally
police-centric call, like Criminal Trespass,that the instances of CAHOOTS requiring backup from the police
jumps significantly.
Compiled by: Eugene Police Crime Analysis Unit
Current as of: August 215t, 2020
Contact: Ryan Skiles, CAU Manager// rskiles@eugene-or.gov
PERSONAL. SERVICES CONTRACT
BETWEEN: The City of Eugene, an Oregon
Municipal Corporation (City)
AND: White Bird Clinic, (Contractor)
CONTRACT NO.: 2019-03240
EXPIRATION DATE: June 30, 2023
RECITALS
A. Contractor is engaged in the business of operating an emergency mental health service, a
medical clinic, and a drug abuse treatment program in Eugene, Oregon, and is certified and
in good standing with the State of Oregon.
B. City desires to engage Contractor to provide the Services described in this Agreement and
Contractor is willing to provide such Services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
C. The Contract described herein was awarded under the exemption or procedure authorized by
City of Eugene Administrative Order 44-14-08F, Public Contracting Rules 2014, Rule 137-
047-0275 Sole Source.
D. This contract supersedes all previous contracts between City and White Bird Clinic for
CAHOOTS Services.
AGREEMENT
1, Incorporation of Exhibits; Definitions; Contractor's Representations and Warranties.
1.1 Exhibits. The Contract between the parties (the "Contract')includes and incorporates
into this document (this "Agreement") all of the following:
1.1.1 Exhibit A summarizes certain federal, state and municipal laws that apply to
government contracts. The provisions of Exhibit A are statements of law and
may not be modified, and take precedence in the event of an inconsistency with
the Agreement.
1.1.2 Other Exhibits. The Contract also includes and incorporates the following
exhibits. The provisions of this Agreement will have priority over all conflicting
provisions of the following exhibits.
Exhibit B Scope of Services
Exhibit C Compensation Schedule
1.2 Definitions. With the exception of proper nouns, capitalized terms not otherwise
defined herein shall have the following meanings.
t00309601;6) Contract Number:2019-03240
1.2.1 "Agreement" means this document, entitled Personal Services Contract and
ending with the signatures of all parties.
1.2.2 "Contract" means the written statement of the parties' mutual and respective
agreements, promises, undertakings and rights as set forth in this Agreement
and all incorporated exhibits.
1.2.3 "Services" means all of the products, properties and Services to be provided
by Contractor under this Contract, as described in Exhibit B.
1.3 Contractor's Representations and Warranties. Contractor makes the following
representations and warranties to City:
1.3.1 Contractor and Contractor's personnel are, and will at all times hereunder be,
fully qualified by all necessary education, training, experience, licensure and
certification to perform the Services.
1.3.2 As of the date of execution hereof, there are no claims or suits or proceedings,
or threats thereof, seeking to enjoin the execution of the Contract by Contractor
or the effect of which could prevent Contractor from performing or having the
authority to perform the Services.
1.3.3 Neither the execution of the Contract nor the performance of the Services will
constitute a breach or violation of any other contract, agreement, or law by
which Contractor is bound or to which Contractor or any of its personnel who
will perform the Services are subject.
2. Services.
2.1 Commencement. Contractor shall begin to provide the Services on October 1, 2018,
or, if later, as soon as this Contract has been executed by all parties.
2.2 Security. If the Services will be performed on City property, Contractor will comply
with all of City's security policies and procedures.
3. Term. The initial term of the Contract shall expire, unless terminated or renewed, on the
expiration date shown in the caption of this Agreement.
4. Compensation. Subject to City's right of offset for breach, Contractor will bill City for the
Services by submitting periodic invoices that conform to the requirements of Exhibit C. City
will make payments within thirty (30) days of receipt of a properly submitted invoice.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City will have the right to withhold payment for any item which
City disputes in good faith, provided that City pays for all non-disputed items and takes
commercially reasonable action to resolve the dispute.
5. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof to the contrary, the Contract may
be terminated as follows:
5.1 Either party may terminate the Contract if the other party is in breach of any provision
hereof which breach continues for more than 30 days after a notice describing the
breach has been given unless, in the case of a breach which cannot be cured within
{00309601fl Contract Number:2019-03240
2
such 30-day period, the breaching party immediately initiates and diligently prosecutes
a plan of curative action that is acceptable to the non-breaching party. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, termination for a recurring breach may be made if the breach is uncured
within seven days after the second notice in any twelve-month period and immediately,
without opportunity for cure, in the third or any subsequent notice of breach in any
twelve-month period.
5.2 City may terminate the Contract immediately and without prior notice upon
Contractor's failure to have in force any insurance required by the Contract, if
Contractor breaches the City's security requirements, if Contractor fails to maintain
any certificate or license required for performance of the Services, or as provided in
Exhibit A.
5.3 The City may terminate the Contract on any date specified in a notice if funding for the
Services becomes unavailable or if the City determines that termination of the Contract
is required by the public interest.
6. Remedies.
6.1 In the event of a termination of the Contract by City because of a breach by Contractor,
City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons, or
any combination thereof. Contractor shall be liable to City for any costs or losses
incurred by City arising out of or related to the breach, including costs incurred in
selecting other contractors, time-delay losses, attorney fees and the like, less the
remaining unpaid balance of the consideration already provided in the Contract. City
may withhold payment of sums due Contractor for Services performed to the date of
termination until City's costs and losses have been determined, at which time City may
offset any such amount due Contractor against the costs and losses incurred by City.
6.2 The foregoing remedies provided to City for breach of the Contract by Contractor shall
not be exclusive. City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or
equitable remedies available because of Contractor's breach with or without
termination.
6.3 In the event of breach of the Contract by City, Contractor's shall be entitled to all legal
and equitable remedies allowed by law.
6.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary each party waives the right to incidental or
consequential damages against the other.
7. Record sllnspection. Contractor shall maintain records of its charges to City under the
Contract for a period of not less than three years following Contractor's completion of the
Contract. Upon reasonable advance notice, City or its authorized representatives may from
time to time inspect, audit and make copies of any Contractor's records that relate to the
Contract. If any audit by City discloses that payments to the Contractor were in excess of the
amount to which Contractor was entitled under the Contract, Contractor shall promptly pay to
City the amount of such excess. If the excess charged by Contractor for any audited period
is greater than two percent of the amount that should have been charged for that period,
Contractor shall also reimburse City its reasonable costs incurred in performing the audit.
8. Indemnification.
{00309601;6} Contract Number:2019-03240
P I3
8.1 Contractor shall indemnify and hold City, and its; officers, agents and employees,
harmless from and against all claims, actions, liabilities, costs, including reasonable
attorney fees and other costs of defense, arising out of the acts, errors or omissions,
whether alleged or actual, of Contractor, its subcontractors, agents and employees in
performing or failing to perform the Services,failing to strictly comply with any provision
of the Contract or any other actions or failures to act by Contractor and Contractor's
employees, agents, and subcontractors. In the event any such action or claim is
brought against City, Contractor shall, if City so elects and upon tender by City, defend
the same at Contractor's sole cost and expense, promptly satisfy any judgment
adverse to City or to City and Contractor, jointly, and reimburse City for any loss, cost,
damage or expense, including attorney fees, suffered or incurred by City. City shall
notify Contractor, within a reasonable time, of any claim, threat of claim or legal action.
8.2 City shall indemnify and hold Contactor, its officers, agents and employees, harmless
from and against any third-party claims, actions, liabilities, costs, including reasonable
attorney fees and other costs of defense, arising out of the negligent acts, errors or
omissions of City, its subcontractors, agents and employees in performing or failing to
perform its obligations under the Contract or arising out of Contractor's performance
of duties under ORS 430.399(1) at the direction of City.
9. Insurance. Contractor shall have and maintain the insurance policies specified below. Each
policy of insurance shall be written as a primary policy, not contributing with or in excess of
any coverage which City may carry. A copy of each policy or a certificate satisfactory to City
shall be delivered to City prior to commencement of the Services. The adequacy of all
insurance policies for compliance with this Section shall be subject to approval by City's Risk
Manager. Failure to maintain any insurance coverage required by the Contract shall be cause
for immediate termination of the Contract by City.
Unless otherwise specified, each policy shall be written on an "occurrence" form with an
admitted insurance carrier licensed to do business in the state of Oregon; and shall contain
an endorsement entitling City to not less than 30 days prior written notice of cancellation. In
the event the statutory limit of liability of a public body for claims arising out of a single accident
or occurrence is increased above the combined single limit coverage requirements specified
below, City shall have the right to require that Contractor increase the coverage limits of all
liability policies by the amount of the increase in the statutory limit.
9.1 Commercial General Liability. Contractor shall maintain a broad form commercial
general liability insurance policy reflecting limits of not less than $2,000,000 combined
single limit per occurrence, with an annual aggregate of $3,000,000 for bodily injury,
personal injury or property damage. Such policy shall contain a contractual liability
endorsement to cover Contractor's indemnification obligations under this
Contract. The policy shall also contain an endorsement naming City as an additional
insured, in a form satisfactory to City, and expressly providing that the interest of City
shall not be affected by Contractor's breach of policy provisions.
9.2 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Contractor shall comply with the Oregon
Workers' Compensation law by qualifying as a carrier-insured employer or as a self-
insured employer and shall strictly comply with all other applicable provisions of such
law. Contractor shall provide City with such further assurances as City may require
from time to time that Contractor is in compliance with these Workers' Compensation
{00309601;6} Contract Number:2019-03240
14
coverage requirements and the Workers' Compensation law. Contractor is a subject
employer that will comply with ORS 656.017..
9.3 Automobile Liability. Contractor shall maintain an automobile liability insurance
policy reflecting limits of not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per
occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage. The coverage shall
include both hired and non-owned auto liability. The policy shall also contain an
endorsement naming City as an additional insured, in a form satisfactory to City, and
expressly providing that the interest of City shall not be affected by Contractor's
breach of policy provisions.
9.4 Professional Liability. Contractor shall maintain a professional liability insurance
policy reflecting limits of not less than $2,000,000 for claims for professional acts,
errors or omissions arising from the Work. The policy may be written on a "claims
made" form. Contractor shall maintain the professional liability insurance coverage for
at least one year after the completion of the work. The policy shall contain an
endorsement entitling the City not less than 60 days prior written notice of cancellation
of such policy.
10. Subcontracting. Contractor was selected for its special knowledge, skills and expertise, and
shall not subcontract the Services, in whole or in part, without City's prior written approval,
which may be withheld for any reason. Contractor shall require any approved subcontractor
to agree, as to the portion subcontracted, to comply with all obligations of Contractor specified
in the Contract. Notwithstanding City's approval of a subcontractor, Contractor shall remain
obligated for full performance of the Contract and City shall incur no obligation to any
subcontractor. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold City harmless from all claims of
subcontractors.
11. Assignment. Contractor shall not assign the Contract, in whole or in part, or any right or
obligation hereunder, without City's prior written approval, which approval shall not be subject
to a reasonableness standard. If Contractor is a corporation or partnership, a change in
ownership of Contractor resulting from a voluntary transfer of stock or partnership interests,
or a transfer upon death or disability of any owner, shall not constitute an assignment unless
the transferor is one of the key personnel specified in Section 2.2 of this Agreement.
12. Independent Contractor. Whether Contractor is a corporation, partnership, other legal entity
or an individual, Contractor is an independent Contractor. If Contractor is an individual,
Contractor's duties will be performed with the understanding that Contractor is a self-
employed person, has special expertise as to the Services which Contractor is to perform and
is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar Services for
others. The manner in which the Services are performed shall be controlled by Contractor;
however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by City.
Contractor is not to be deemed an employee or agent of City and has no authority to make
any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of City except to the extent expressly
provided herein.
13. Confidential Information. To be considered "Confidential Information" under the Contract,
information must be clearly marked as "confidential information," in a manner that will be
obvious immediately upon access, except for protected health information of any individual
served by Contractor, which will at all times be considered Confidential Information. Each
party will limit its use of Confidential Information to the purpose for which it was disclosed by
t00309601;6) Contract Number:2019-03240
P 5
the other party and will use a reasonable level of care to prevent the intentional or inadvertent
misuse, theft or inappropriate disclosure of such information. Contractor understands that all
records held by the City are public records and subject to public disclosure under public
records law, and Contractor agrees that City shall have no liability for the disclosure of any
Confidential Information properly disclosed under the law or under a court order in response
to a public records request. Contractor also understands and agrees that the Contract
documents and all records of Contractor's fees and charges may not be considered
Confidential Information, and are public records for which no exemption to public disclosure .
applies.
14. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall in all material ways comply with all applicable
Federal, State and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations at all times and in the
performance of the Services, including all applicable provisions of Exhibit A.
15. Cooperative Planning Requirements. Contractor recognizes that planning within the City
and other state and local agencies is essential to the success of a coordinated service delivery
system. Contractor agrees to attend and participate in a reasonable number of meetings and
planning efforts initiated by City, and to provide non-confidential data already in Contractor's
possession which may be required by City and is reasonably necessary to achieve compliance
with City programmatic goals. Contractor agrees to maintain open and responsive working
relations with the Eugene Police Department (EPD).
16. Staffing Restrictions.
16.1 Contractor represents that it has employees who have experience and training to
provide the services described herein, and in the attached Exhibit B, in a reasonable
and responsible manner. City relies upon this representation in entering into this
contract. Contractor agrees to provide the employees necessary to provide the
services under this contract and to ensure such employees obtain any training
provided by the City. Prior to any employee of Contactor providing the services,
Contract shall disclose in writing to City the employee's qualifications and experience
to perform these services. All such employees of Contractor shall be subject to the
provision of service protocols and the rules of conduct specified in the attached Exhibit
B. Contractor shall facilitate a background check of prospective CAHOOTS employees
by using a background application provided by the City of Eugene. Contractor shall
also inform prospective employees that their full name, date of birth, driver's license
number, and other information needed in the security form, will be submitted to the
police department for a clearance check prior to employment. The security clearance
is required prior to using the police radio or operating a City vehicle. All CAHOOTS
personnel will be trained to operate the police radio. The prospective employee shall
sign a waiver allowing the background check to be performed by EPD. An authorized
White Bird employee shall also sign the waiver from as witness to the signing by the
prospective employee. White bird may first make a copy for their records and then
send the original form to the Contract Manager at EPD. The Contract Manager has 21
days, not including holidays or weekends, to perform the require background check.
{00309601;6) Contract Number:20 1 9-03 240
P I6
16.2 During the provision of patrol, crisis intervention and transportation services under this
contract, the City provided vans shall be staffed by at least two persons per van. At
least one person shall be currently certified as an Emergency Medical Technician, First
Responder, Registered Nurse, or Licensed Health Care Practitioner, and at least one
person shall be commissioned by the City as a Transportation Officer to perform
functions under ORS 430.399. The person commissioned by City as the
Transportation Officer shall make the final decision regarding transportation of any
person to a non-emergency medical care provider or to an alcohol, drug or mental
health treatment facility.
16.3 Except for a trainee observer actively involved in a program leading to employment by
Contractor, no person shall ride in the van except for employees of the Contractor,
City or Lane County, who are in the course of providing services under this contract
and persons being transported to a treatment facility. At no time shall more than three
persons employed by, or under training with Contractor, ride in the van. City reserves
the right to reject any employee of Contractor and/or its trainee observer from riding in
the van or participating in Contractor's provision of services under this contract, on the
basis of the individual's driving record or criminal history record.
17. Use of Equipment.
17.1 City agrees to provide Contractor with two (2) modified passenger vans and portable
radios for use during the duration of this contract. Equipment shall be provided in good
working order, and Contractor agrees to return the vans, radios and any other
equipment the City agrees to provide Contractor for program use, in good working
order and general condition at the completion of the contract. City shall provide
necessary fuel, maintenance and repairs of equipment, except Contractor shall bear
any costs of any equipment repair necessary due to deliberate,,repetitive or grossly
negligent acts by Contractor's employees. City shall provide ongoing maintenance for
the equipment according to the standard maintenance schedule. Contractor shall
maintain the vans so that it is free of all hazards to inebriated occupants. All vehicle
backing requires the use of a spotter to avoid vehicle damage.
17.2 White Bird will provide a secure area for the police radios, which will be approved by
the EPD Contract Manager. All CAHOOTS personnel will keep their radios on and at
a volume to hear the dispatcher. If a call dictates a quiet environment, one radio must
be kept on and at a volume so that CAHOOTS personnel can hear dispatch. If they
have only one radio, it must be kept on and at a volume so they can hear dispatch. If
a radio does not work properly, the Contractor will make immediate arrangements to
have the radio fixed by City of Eugene technicians. The Contractor will notify, by email,
when a radio or vehicle is out of service for maintenance. They will include the item
number so the Contract Manager can log a history of maintenance
{00309601;61 Contract Number:2019-03240
a I7
18. Training. City shall provide the state-certified Defensive Driver Training course to all of the
Contractor's drivers within six-months of date of hire. City shall provide the hands-on vehicle
operation, placement and collision avoidance portion of the training. The remainder of the
classroom work shall be provided within the aforementioned six-month period. City shall also
provide Contractor with applicable training in use of City vehicle and radio procedures and
other training deemed relevant to the provision of services under this contract. Contractor
agrees that its employees providing the services under this contract will have successfully
completed any of the City-required training in a reasonable period of time and subject to City
approval.
19. Disposition of Contraband. All drugs, drug paraphernalia and alcohol discovered by
Contractor during the course of Contractor's duties shall be removed from patients by
Contractor prior to transport. Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to discover and
remove weapons and other objects capable of being used to inflict injury prior to
transportation. Contractor shall ensure security of these materials in the van and shall
inventory each item as it is secured. At the conclusion of the workday, Contractor shall deposit
with EPD any contraband collected and reconcile items against the inventory list maintained.
20. Ownership of Work product. Not applicable.
21. Notices. Any notice permitted or required by the Contract shall be deemed given when
personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified,
and with return receipt requested, to the persons and addresses shown below. In addition, if -
directions for telephonic or electronic.transmission (fax or email) are set forth below, notices
may be delivered by fax or email. Notices sent by certified mail will be deemed delivered
three business days after placement in the mail and notices sent by fax or email will be
deemed delivered when successful transmission is electronically confirmed. Except as
expressly provided in the Contract, required notices must be signed by the person designated
to receive notices, or that person's designee or attorney.
Contractor: Benjamin Brubaker
White Bird Administrative Coordinator
341 E 1211 Ave
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Email: Benjah@whitebirdclinic.org
City: Finance Manager
Eugene Police Department
300 Country Club Road
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Email: EPDFinanceQ)ci.eugene.or.us
Each party shall notify the other of any change in the name, address or fax or email
instructions to be used for delivery of notices.
(00309601;6) Contract Number:2019-03240
22. Dispute Resolution.
22.1 Continued Performance. Unless the Contract is terminated, neither party shall
suspend performance of its obligations hereunder pending the resolution of a dispute.
22.2 Negotiation/Mediation. The parties shall use all reasonable attempts to resolve
disputes informally through conferral and negotiation. In the event such efforts are
unsuccessful, the parties may mutually agree to voluntary mediation. The parties
shall share equally in all common costs of mediation.
22.3 Construction of Contract. This Contract shall not be construed against either party
regardless of which party drafted it. This Contract shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of
conflict of laws.
22.4 Forum. Any litigation between the City and the Contractor that arises from or relates
to this Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Lane
County Circuit Court; provided, however, if a dispute must be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division. In no event shall this
Subsection be construed as a waiver by the City of Eugene of any form of defense or
immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity or otherwise, from any
claim or from the jurisdiction of any court. CONTRACTOR, BY EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACT HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF THE
COURTS REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION,
23. Integration. The Contract embodies the entire agreement of the parties concerning the
Services. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained
herein. The Contract shall supersede all prior communications, representations or
agreements, either oral or written, between the parties. The Contract shall not be amended
except in writing, signed by both parties.
24. Survival. Any duty, liability or obligation of a party which arises under this Contract, including
without limitation, obligations with respect to indemnification, shall survive the termination or
expiration of this Contract and shall be legally enforceable until satisfied by performance or
payment, or until enforcement is legally precluded by lapse of time.
(00309601;6} contract Number:2019-03241)
25. No Third-party Beneficiaries. There are no third-party beneficiaries of this Contract. The
parties agree and intend that this Contract shall be enforceable only by the parties and their
duly authorized representatives.
In witness wher parties have, through their duly authorized representatives, executed this
Agreement o to n set forth below.
City of Eugen
Signature: Date:
Print Name: 9tv
Title: ? /yq�20r-rjGlr
Certifications of Contractor: Pursuant to ORS 305.385, Contractor hereby certifies that it
is not in violation of any tax laws as defined in ORS 305.380. If Contractor is other than
one or more individuals who have signed below, the individual(s) signing on behalf of
Contractor hereby further certifies and swears under penalty of perjury and warrants to
City that: (a) the full legal name and status of Contractor are as set forth in the caption to
this Agreement, and (b) s/he is authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement and the
Contract to City of behalf of, and as the act of Contractor,
Signature: Date: I o�
Print Name: _ _Ci L _r -�- c 4
Title: ��✓! d 7-��s_�`, ___.___-_
(00309001:6) Contract Number:2019-03240
�10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF EUGENE-STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS
Contracts Subject to ORS Chapter 279B
Goods and Services including Personal Services
OTHER THAN Architects,Engineers,Land Surveyors on Public Improvements
The following provisions,if applicable,are hereby included in and made a part of the attached contract between the City
of Eugene and the Contractor named thereon as provided for in the Eugene Code, 1971,the Eugene Public Contracting
Rules,the revised statutes of the State of Oregon,and Federal laws,rules,regulations,and guidelines. The Contractor
AND EVERY SUBCONTRACTOR shall include these provisions in every subcontract SO THAT THESE PROVISIONS
WILL APPLY TO,AND BE BINDING ON FVERY SUBCONTRACTOR. Failure to comply with any of the applicable
provisions below shall be a material breach of the contract and may result in debarment of the Contractor or subcontractor
from City contracts for up to three(3)years.
1. Fair Employment Practice Provisions(Eugene Code, 1971,Section 4.625 and Eugene Public Contracting
Rule 137-046.0500(2))
1.1 Non-Discrimination Requirements. During the performance of this contract,the Contractor and each
subcontractor agrees to comply with sections 4.613 to 4.655 of the Eugene Code, 1971,and as follows:
(a) Fhe Contractor and each subcontractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of an individual's race,religion,color,sex,national origin,maritai
status,familial status,age,sexual orientation or source of income,a juvenile record that has been
expunged pursuant to ORS 419A.260 and 419A.262,or because an individual is a person with a
disability which,with reasonable accommodation by the employer does not prevent the performance
of the work involved,unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary
to the normal operation of the employer's business.
(b) 'rho Contractor and all subcontractors employing 15 or more individuals will develop and implement
an affirmative action plan to insure that applicants are employed,and that employees are treated
during employment,without regard to their race,color,sex,age or national origin. Such plan shall
include,but not be limited to the following: employment,upgrading,demotion,transfer,recruitment,
recruitment advertising,layoff or termination,rates of pay or other forms of compensation and
selection for training,including apprenticeship.
(c) The Contractor and each subcontractor agrees to post in conspicuous places,available to employees
and applicants for employment,notices to be provided by the Human Rights Commission setting forth
the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
1.2 Reporting, The Contractor and each subcontractor will,prior to commencement and during the term of the
contract,provide to the City such documentation,and permit any inspection of records as may be required
or authorized by rules adopted by the city manager to determine compliance with subsection 1.1 above.
1.3 Violations. If upon an investigation conducted pursuant to rules adopted by the city manager in
accordance with section 2,019 of the Eugene Code, 1971 there is reasonable cause to believe that the
Contractor or any subcontractors of the Contractor have failed to comply with any of the terms of
subsections 1.1 or 1.2,a determination thereof shall be made by the city manager. Such determination
may result in the suspension,cancellation or termination of the principal contract in whole or in part and/or
the withholding of any funds due or to become due to the Contractor,pending compliance by the
Contractor and/or its subcontractors,with the terms of subsections 1.1 and 1.2. Such determination may
further result in debarment of the Contractor in accordance with the adopted rules.
1.4 Failure to Comply. Failure to comply with any terms of subsections 1.1 and 1.2 above shall be a material
breach of the contract.
1.5 Inclusion of Fair Employment Practices Provisions in Contracts with Subcontractors. The contractor shall
include the provisions of subsections 1.1 through 1.4 above in contracts with subcontractors so that the
provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor.
1.6 Contractor Defined. As used in this section 1,"contractor"means all persons,wherever situated,but
excluding local,state or federal units of government or their officials,from whom the City purchases Goods
and/or Services costing$2,500 or more in any fiscal year.
2. ORS 279A.120 Nonresident Contractors.
2.1 As used in this section,"nonresident contractor"means a contractor that: (A)has not paid unemployment
taxes or income taxes in the state of Oregon during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding
submission of the bid for the contract,(B)does not have a business address in this state and(C)stated in
the bid for the contract that it was not a"resident bidder"under ORS 279A.120,
(00309601;6)
Contract Number:2019-03240
2.2 If the Contractor is a nonresident contractor and the contract price exceeds$10,000,the Contractor shall
promptly report to the Department of Revenue on forms'to be provided by the Department of Revenue the
total contract price,terms of payment,length of contract and such other information as the Department of
Revenue may require before the Contractor may receive final payment on the public contract.The City
may not award a Public improvement Contract or a Public Works Contract to a nonresident bidder that is
an educational service district.The City shall satisfy itself that the requirement of this subsection has been
complied with before the City issues a final payment on a public contract.
3. ORS 2793.220 and Eugene Rule 137-046-0500(5)Conditions concerning payment,contributions,liens,
withholding. The Contractor shall:
(a) Make payment promptly,as due,to all persons supplying to the contractor labor or material for
the performance of the work provided for in the contract.
(b) Pay all contributions or amounts due the Industrial Accident Fund from the contractor or
subcontractor incurred in the performance of the contract.
(c) Not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against the state or a county,school district,
municipality,municipal corporation or subdivision thereof,on account of any labor or material
furnished.
(d) Pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld from employees under ORS 316.167,
4. ORS 27913.225 Condition concerning salvaging,recycling,composting or mulching yard waste material. if
the contract will include lawn and landscape maintenance the Contractor shall salvage,recycle,compost or mulch
yard waste material at an approved site,if feasible and cost-effective.
5. ORS 279B.230 and Eugene Rule 137-046-0500(6)Condition concerning payment for medical care and
providing workers'compensation.
5.1 The Contractor shall promptly,as due,make payment to any person,copartnership,association or
corporation furnishing medical,surgical and hospital care services or other needed care and attention,
incident to sickness or injury,to the employees of the contractor,of all sums that the contractor agrees to
pay for the services and all moneys and sums that the contractor collected or deducted from the wages of
employees under any law,contract or agreement for the purpose of providing or paying for the services.
5.2 All subject employers working under the contract are either employers that will comply with ORS 656.017
or employers that are exempt under ORS 656.126.
6. ORS 279B,235 and Eugene Rule 137-046.0500(7)Condition concerning hours of labor. The contractor shall
pay employees for overtime work performed under the public contract in accordance with ORS 653,010 to 65.3,261
and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938(29 U.S.C.201 et seq.).
6.1 Personal Services Contracts. In the case of Personal Services Contracts,the employee shall be paid at
least time and a half for all overtime worked in excess of forty(40)hours in any one(1)week,except for
individuals under Personal Services Contracts who are excluded under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under
29 U.S.C.201 et seq.from receiving overtime.
6.2 Contracts for Services. In the case of contracts for services, persons employed under the contracts shall
receive at least time and a half pay for work performed on the legal holidays specified in a collective
bargaining agreement,in ORS 279B.020(1)(b)(B)to(G),or in ORS 279C.540(1)(b)(B)to(G)and for all
time worked in excess of ten(10)hours in any one(1)day or in excess of forty(40)hours in any one(1)
week,whichever is greater.
7, ORS 27913.240 Exclusion of recycled oils prohibited. Lubricating oil and industrial oil may include recycled
oils or oils that are not manufactured from virgin materials.
8. ORS 279A.110 Discrimination in subcontracting prohibited;remedies.
8.1 The Contractor may not discriminate against a subcontractor in the awarding of a subcontract because the
subcontractor is a minority,women or emerging small business enterprise certified under ORS 200-055.
8.2 By entering into the contract,the Contractor certifies that it has not discriminated and will not discriminate,
in violation of subsection 8.1,against any minority,women or emerging small business enterprise in
obtaining any required subcontract.
9. Eugene Rule 137-046-0500(1)Right to Audit Records.
9.1 Cost or Pricing Data.The Purchasing Agent may,at reasonable times and places,audit the books and
records of any Person who has submitted cost or pricing data in connection with a contract to the extent
that such books and records relate to such cost or pricing data. Any Person who receives a contract for
(00309601;6)
Contract Number:2 0 1 9-0324 0 j 12
which cost or pricing data are required,shall maintain the books and records that relate to the cost or
pricing data for three(3)years from the date of final payment under the contract,unless a shorter period is
authorized by the Purchasing Agent in writing.
9.2 Contract Audit. l'he Purchasing Agent shall be entitled to audit the books and records of the contractor or
any subcontractor to the extent that the books and records relate to the performance of the contract. The
contractor and each subcontractor shall maintain books and records for a period of three(3)years from the
date of final payment under the contract or subcontract,as applicable,unless a shorter period is
authorized by the Purchasing Agent in writing.
10. Eugene Rule 137-046-0500(3)Right to Inspect Plant.
10.1 1'ime for Inspection. The Purchasing Agent may,at reasonable times,inspect the part of the plant or place
of business of the contractor or any subcontractor that is related to the performance of any contract
awarded.
10.2 Contractual Provisions. The City may inspect supplies and Services at the contractors or subcontractor's
facility and perform tests to determine whether they conform to the contract requirements.
10.3 Procedures for Trial Use and Testing. The Purchasing Agent may establish operational procedures
governing the testing and trial use of equipment,materials,and the application of resulting information and
data to Specifications or Procurement.
10.4 L-ocation. When an inspection is made in the plant or place of business of a contractor or subcontractor,
such contractor or subcontractor shall provide without charge all reasonable facilities and assistance for
the safety and convenience of the person performing the inspection or testing.
10.5 Time of Testing or Inspection. Inspection or testing of supplies and Services performed at the plant or
place of business of any contractor or subcontractor shall be performed at reasonable times during normal
business hours.
10.6 Inspection of Construction Projects. Onsite inspection of construction shall be performed in accordance
with the provisions of the contract.
11. Eugene Rule 137-046-0500(4)Termination in the Public Interest.
11.1 Termination Provisions. The City may terminate the contract for any reason considered by the City to be in
the public interest. Reasons for termination in the public interest include but are not limited to:
(a) The contractor cannot complete the work for reasons beyond the control of either the contractor
or the City;
(b) Necessary materials are not available;
(c) A lack of funds;
(d) A phenomenon of nature of catastrophic proportions or intensity;
(e) Executive orders of the President related to national defense;
(f) Congressional or state acts related to funding or changes in applicable laws;or
(g) The presence of other circumstances or conditions such that it is impracticable within a
reasonable time to complete the work.
11.2 Payment When Contract Is Terminated. When the contract,or any portion thereof,is terminated before
completion of all items of work in the contract,payment will be made for the actual items of work
completed under the contract,or by mutual agreement,for items of work partially completed. No claim for
loss of anticipated profits wilt be allowed.
11.3 Payment for Construction Services. The City may provide in a contract for construction services,detailed
provisions under which the contractor shall be entitled,as a matter of right,to compensation upon
termination of the contract on account of any reason considered to be in the public interest.
12. Eugene Rule 137.046-0500(8) Governing Law;Jurisdiction
12..1 Governing Law. This contract shall be governed,construed,and enforced in accordance with the laws of
the state of Oregon,unless otherwise approved by the City Attorney or designee.
12.2 Jurisdiction. Contractor agrees and consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the state of
Oregon for all purposes regarding the contract and further agrees and consents that venue of any action
brought under the contract shall be exclusively in Lane County,Oregon,unless otherwise approved by the
City Attorney or designee.
13. ORS 305.385,ORS 305,620,ORS chapters 316,317 and 318 and Chapter 539 Oregon Laws 2015(SB 675)
Compliance with Tax Laws. Contractor certifies its compliance with all applicable state and local tax laws,
(00309601;6)
Contract Number:2019-03240 P::F:;E ;; 13
including but not limited to ORS 305.385,ORS 3D5.620,ORS chapters 316,317 and 318 and Chapter 539 Oregon
Laws 2015(SB 675).Contractor certifies it will continue to comply with all such tax laws during the term of this
contract.Contractor's failure to comply with such state and local tax laws prior to executing this contract or during the
term of this contract constitutes a default for which City may terminate this contract and seek damages and other
relief available under the terms of this contract or applicable law.
{00309601;6}
Contract Number:2019-0324D j 14
Exhibit B
Scope of Services
Contact Lt. Tinseth for program questions
CAHOOTS Contract Executive Summary
• Operate within the City of Eugene and may only leave with permission from
dispatch, Patrol Supervisor or Watch Commander(should be very rare).
• Focus patrols in the downtown area.
• Counsel or transport intoxicated persons to open treatment facility within the
City of Eugene.
• Counsel or transport mentally ill subjects to Whitebird, UDH, or other open
treatment facilities within the City of Eugene or transport to and from other
open social services agencies within the City of Eugene.
• Transport for necessary chronic,medical care within the City of Eugene.
• Follow directions from dispatch or Eugene Police Department (EPD)
personnel.
• Report all vehicle crashes and damage.
i-A chronic condition is a human health condition or disease that is persistent or otherwise long-lasting in its effects or a
disease that comes with time.The term chronic is often applied when the course of the disease lasts for more than three
months.Common chronic diseases include arthritis,asthma,cancer,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,diabetes and
some viral diseases such as hepatitis C and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Hours of Service
Contractor to provide a crew for one van in service 24 hours per day. A second van
crew will be in service from 1000-1200 hours and 1700-2200 hours. The services will
be provided 365 days a year.
Upon request by the EPD Contract Manager, Contractor will provide, if their staffing
allows, additional hours a year, not to exceed 80 hours, to cover extra CAHOOTS
assignments on New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, MILK Day, St. Patrick's Day, Fourth of
July, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, U of 0 home football games, or any
other day considered by EPD to need the services of a two-person CAHOOTS unit. The
requests shall be in four-hour increments. The EPD Contract Manager shall give a thirty
(30)-day notice of request for additional services prior to the event. The Contractor shall
have fourteen (14) days to advise if they can fulfill the request. After the Contractor has
completed the extra assignment they will send a notice billing the Contract Manger for
payment of the hours performed. If the time billed is over the hours requested, the
Contractor shall delineate the reasons for the overage in the request, The City shall pay
the hourly rate of 2,89% of.the total contract amount divided by 160, which is the total
hours budgeted for additional special function requests within the two-year contract life.
The payment will be made to the Contractor within 60 days of the billing notice.
Area of Patrol and Transportation Services
{00309601;6}
Contract Number:2019-03240 }., t l 16
Contractor shall provide patrol, crisis intervention and transportation services within the
geographic corporate boundaries of the City of Eugene. CAHOOTS vehicle shall
maintain an emphasis in patrolling, servicing and preventative services in the core
downtown area.
Types of Services to be Provided
Contractor shall observe, and question any person, while in a public place, that meets
any of the criteria referenced below.
Persons Intoxicated/Under Influence of Controlled Substances
If the person is unconscious, Contractor shall request an ambulance from the
EPD dispatcher, and stand by to assist the responding emergency medical
personnel as necessary.
Under the following conditions if the person is willing, Contractor shall transport
him/her to the appropriate licensed or certified open treatment facility within
the City; 1) The person is conscious but appears mentally ill or intoxicated; 2)
Contractor has reasonable cause to believe that the person is dangerous to
themselves.
If the person is unwilling to be transported to a treatment center, but appears to
be in any of the above state slconditions, or Contractor has reasonable cause to
believe the person is dangerous to others, Contractor shall immediately notify the
EPD dispatcher to have Police Officers respond, and stand by to assist the
officers as necessary.
Contractor has reasonable cause to believe the person is intoxicated or under
the influence of a controlled substance while in a public place, Contractor may
counsel the person on treatment and detoxification options, and if the person is
willing, may transport them to White Bird Clinic, Buckley or other appropriate
open facility for further assistance.
Person Needing Non-Medical Care or Treatment for Mental Illness
If a person appears to be in need of care or treatment for mental illness, but not
dangerous to themselves or others, Contractor may counsel the person on
treatment options and, if the person is willing, transport them to White Bird Clinic,
Sacred Heart Hospital — University District or other appropriate open facility
within the City of Eugene for further assistance.
If Contractor has probable cause to believe that the person is dangerous to
themselves or others, Contractor shall immediately notify the EPD dispatcher to
have Police officers respond and stand by to assist as necessary.
Persons in Need of Immediate Shelter
When requested by an EPD dispatcher, Police supervisor or officer, Contractor
shall provide transportation to mentally ill or disorientated persons in need of
immediate transport to an appropriate open shelter or treatment center, or
{00304601;6)
Contract Number:2019-03240 1 116
provide such persons transportation to and from other open social services
agencies or publicly organized and sponsored shelters, such as dusk to dawn
sites, within the City of Eugene.
Provision of Services at Direction of the City
All Contractor provided patrol, crisis intervention and transportation services shall
be subject to the direction and control of the City. Contractor shall respond to all
EPD radio dispatches and contacts from Police personnel requesting
Contractor's assistance. Contractor shall immediately suspend the provision of
services under this contract when notified tb do so by the EPD Program Manager
or by an EPD Police supervisor or officer. While providing services under this
contract, Contractor shall obey all_!_awful commands and directions received from
Police_personnel.
First Aid/Chronic Care/Basic Life Support
Although the City is not contracting for medical services, we recognize the
Contractor provides this service through other non-profit programs to the
community and it is part White Bird's mission. The City will allow dispatch to first
aid, chronic medical aid, and basic life support as the lowest priority. CAHOOTS
staff will not provide diagnostic care.
For the purpose of this contract the term "transport" means to provide a courtesy
ride to a willing, self-ambulatory person who requires no medical attention or
treatment during transport.
Rules of Conduct
While providing services in accordance with this contract, Contractor shall observe the
following rules:
Contractor shall not use force while observing, contacting, detaining or
transporting persons unless such force is necessary for the protection of a
person from bodily harm, and a Police Officer cannot be summoned or cannot
respond quickly enough to provide protection.
Contractor shall summon a Police Officer when a dangerous situation appears to
exist. Contractor shall request the EPD dispatcher to have an ambulance
respond whenever it appears the person(s) contacted need emergency medical
treatment.
Contractor shall not provide emergency medical transportation to injured or ill
persons except at the express direction of the Eugene Springfield Fire
Department emergency medical personnel., However, Contractor may provide
first aid and/or basic life support to person(s) in need before the arrival of the
Eugene Springfield Fire Department emergency medical personnel.
Under no circumstances shall the vehicles be used by Contractor for personal
use or for the transportation of intoxicated person to their place of residence, nor
shall it be driven outside the geographic corporate boundaries of the City of
{00309601;6)
Contract Number:2019-03240 P p 117
Eugene except at the direction of an EPD dispatcher, Patrol Supervisor or Watch
Commander. The vehicles shall be parked at the White Bird Clinic property or
City Fleet shop.
Vehicular Accident Reporting
If an employee is involved in a motor vehicle accident in a City vehicle, the following
steps should be taken:
If the accident involves an injury, contact 9-1-1 as quickly as possible. If the
accident does not involve an injury but does involve a traffic violation, another
vehicle, or damage to private property, call the Police non-emergency business
number, 682-5111, your immediate supervisor, and Fleet Services. If the
accident does not involve an injury, a major traffic violation, another vehicle or
damage to private property, call only your immediate supervisor and Fleet
Services.
Do not leave the scene of the accident until instructed to do so by your
supervisor or Fleet Services. If another vehicle is involved, remain at the scene
and obtain all necessary insurance information. A police sergeant must_be
notified and respond to enter a Blue Team vehicle accident module. Failure to
notify a sergeant immediately after an accident and/or any negligent damage
may result in damages being repaired at Contractor's expense.
Contact Fleet Services for instructions regarding the transportation and repair of
the damaged vehicle. Any damage to a City vehicle should be reported to a
supervisor and the Fleet shop supervisor immediately.
Complete a City of Eugene Vehicular Accident Report Form at the accident
scene and returned to Risk Services as soon as possible. A supply of these
forms is located in the glove compartment of all City vehicles and can also be
obtained from Fleet Services.
Complete a standard Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Traffic Accident
and Insurance Report form and send to Risk Services if the accident involves
another vehicle, regardless of the dollar amount of damage or extent of injury.
DMV forms can be obtained from Public Works'Maintenance, EPD, or at any
DMV field office. Risk Services will submit the motor vehicle accident report form
to the DMV if the accident meets the reporting criteria established by the State of
Oregon. The City Prosecutor's office will be asked to review the circumstances of
any accident for the possible issuance of a citation when a police report is taken.
Contractor agrees to use the City vehicles only when they are in service as
CAHOOTS service vehicles, or when they are transporting the vehicles to and
from maintenance. When the CAHOOTS vehicles are being used for these
functions listed above, they shall notify dispatch of their service type, beginning
of their shift, to and from calls, at the end of their shift, and to and from
maintenance. Any use of the vehicles outside of its CAHOOTS intended purpose
is prohibited.
{D0309601;6}
Contract Number:2019-03240 118
Use of drugs and/or alcohol by Contractor's employees, observer trainees,
officers or agents while on duty to provide the services under this contract, and/or
reporting to duty with a noticeable presence or effects of alcohol or drugs is
prohibited.
Statistical Reporting
Each month, Contractor will provide the City a summary of calls. The report will
include if the activity was an EPD or ESFD divert (CAHOOTS handling instead of
City personnel) or if it's a joint response; time on call; disposition; and if transport
— pick up location, client problem, time, estimated age of client, sex of client,
destination of transport, and any pertinent history/treatment
Medical Protocols
Contractor shall provide current medical protocols to the City. If medical protocols
are updated, contractor must provide updated protocols within 7 days of
updating.
{00309601;6}
Contract Number:2019-03244) 119
Exhibit C .
Compensation Schedule
Compensation Base
City will compensate contractor up to $778,176 for services provided July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2019:
Payment Schedule:
• July 1, 2018 —June 30, 2019 Not to exceed $778,176
• July 1, 2019 —June 30, 2020 Not to exceed $785,371
• July 1, 2020 —June 30, 2021 Not to exceed $802,137
• July 1, 2021 —June 30, 2022 Not to exceed $819,270
• July 1, 2022 —June 30, 2023 Not to exceed $835,656
City will make payments within thirty (30) days of receipt of a properly submitted invoice.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City will have the right to withhold payment for any item
which City disputes in good faith, provided that City pays for all non-disputed items and
takes commercially reasonable action to resolve the dispute.
Contractor will submit invoices monthly by the 1011 of each month following the services
provided.
Invoices
Contractor to send invoices by mail or email (preferred) to the following:
City of Eugene
PO Box 11110
Eugene, OR 97440
AP@ci.eugene.or.us
After the Agreement has been executed by both parties, City may provide Contractor with
a Purchase Order number.
Contractor must include the Purchase Order number on invoices.
{00309601;6}
Contract Number:2019-03240 i 20
White Bird Clinic
CAHOOTS Operating EPD Allocated
Budget Actual Actual Portion 4%COLA 2%COLA 2%COLA 7%COtA _ 2%COLA
Personnel Category FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19.20 FY 20-21 FY21.22 FY 22-23 _
Salaries $ 745,465 $ 999,861 $ 490,903 $ 510,539 $ 520,750 $ 531,165 $ 541,788 $ 552,524
Taxes 5 90,332 $ 104,597 $ 51,354 $ 53,408 $ 54,476 5 55,566 $ 56,677 $ 57,811
_ Fringe $_� 177,219 $ 191,302 $ 93,924 $ 97,631 $ 99,634 $ 101,627 $ 103,660 5 105,733
Personnel Subtotal $ 963,037 $ 1,295,760 $ 636,181 $ 661,629 $ 674,860 $ 688,358 $ 702,125 $ 716,167
Materials_andSe"ices
PROGRAM SUPPLIES $ 40,094 5 41,271 $ 20,263 $ 20,871 $ 21,497 $ 22,142 $ 22.806 5 23.762
PROGRAM SERVICES $ W 3,331 $ 4,600 $ 2,256 1 5 2,326 5 21396 S 2,469 $ 2,542 $ 2,593
CONTRACT SERVICES $ 6,677 5 45,656 $ 22,416 $ 11,186 $ 5,761 $ 5,933 $ 6,111 $_ _6,234
LEGAL SERVICES $ 2,715 $ 3,238 $ 1,590 $ 1,637 $ 1,687 $ 1,737 $ 1,799 $ 1,825
AUDIT AND CONSULTING $ 8,211 $ 22,566 $ 11,079 $ 11,412 $ 11,754 $ 12,107 S 12470 $ 12.719
UTILITIES $ 8,696 $ 9,520 $ 4,674 $ 4,814 $ 4,959 $ 5,107 5 5,261 $ 5.366
BLDG MAINTENANCE $ 14,806 $ 12,386 $ 6,081 $ 6,264 $ 6,452 $ 6,645 S 6,844 $ 6,981
COMMUNICATIONS $ 11,245 $ 8,75B $ 4,300 $ 4,429 $ 4,562 $ 4,699 $ 4,840 $ 4,936
ADVERTISEMENT&PR $ 971 $ 528 $ 259 $ 267 $ 275 $ 283 $ 297 $_ 298
OFFICE SUPPLIES&POSTAGE $ 6,143 $ 8,807 $ 4,324 $ 4,454 $ 4,587 $ 4,725 $ 4,867 $ 4,964
PRINTING©ING $ 685 $ 2,073 $ 1,018 $ 1,048 $ 1,080 $ 2,112 $ 1,146 $ 1,168
COMPUTER EXPENSE $ 19,928 $ 25,494 $ 12,517 $ 12,892 $ 9,279 $ 9,557 $ 9,844 $ 10,041
SMALL EQUIP&FURNFFURE $ 1,710 $ 1,703 $ 836 $ 861 $ 867 $ 914 $ 941 $ 960
TRAVEL&TRANSPORTATION $ 1.010 $ _ 6,555 S_3,218 $ 3,315 $ 3,414 $ 3,517 $ 3,622 $_ 3,695
TRAINING&MEETINGS $ 8,175 $ �10,022 $ 4,921 $ 5,068 $ 5,220 $ 5,377 $ 5,538 $_ 5,649
LICENSES/FEESJSUBSCRIPTIONS $ 1,240 $ 2,930 $ 1,439 $ _ 1,482 $ 1,526 $ 1,572 S 1,619 $ 1.651
INSURANCE MALPRACTICE $ 2,408 $ v 12,837 $ 6,303 $ 6,492 5 6,696 S 6,887 $ 7, 94 $ 7,235
INSURANCE $ 5,316 $ 4J2.3 $ 2,319 $ 2,388 $ 2,460 $ 2,534 5 2,610 $ 2,662
INSURANCE OTHER $ 1,443 $ 1,985 $ 975 $ 1,004 $ 1,034 $ 1,065 $ ._ 1,097 $ _ 1,119
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $ 4,565 $ 17,310 $ 8,499 $ 8,754 $ 91016 $ 9,287 $ 9,565 $ 9,757
FUNDRAISING $ 6,754 $ 2,005 $ 994 $ 1,014 $ 1,044 $ 1,076 $ 1,108 $ 1,130
FACILITIES _ $ 10 $ 523 $ 257 $ 264 $ 272 $ 281 $ 289 $ 295
M&S Subtotal $�� 156,133 $ 245,490 $ 120,528 $ 111,977 $ 105,343 $ 109,024 $ 112,295 $ 114,540
Nan-Operational W
Interest Expense $ 10,363 S 9,039 5 4,438 $ 4,571 5 4,662 $ 4,756 5 4,851 $ 4,948
_ Non-Op Subtotal y J $ 10,383 $ 9,039 $ 4,438 $� 4,571 $ 4,662 $ 4,756 $ 4,951 $ 4,948
Total Expenses _� Y�� $ 1,129,553 $ 1,550,299 $ 761,147 $ 778,176 $ 785,371 $ 802,137 $ 819,270 $ 835,656