COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BUDGET - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DANIEL SAVAGE BILLS 070114, 070115 and 070116 RESOLUTION 070128 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. I regret the delay. However, we're ready to get started. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call up the first department to testify. MR. McPHERSON: The First Judicial District.
Good morning, Your Honor. Welcome. JUDGE JONES: Good morning.
I can assure, Madam President, I will not read the entire --
Please, but we will give the stenographer a copy of your testimony and it will be transcribed in full. 3 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and Councilmembers of the Committee of the Whole. I'm David C. Lawrence, Court Administrator of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, and with me today is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative Governing Board, C. Darnell Jones, and Kevin A. Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services. We're here to submit testimony in support of FJD's Fiscal Year 2008 General Fund and Grants Revenue budget request. This testimony and budget request differs from recent years in terms of our requested budget increase and our ability to forge an agreement with the Administration for Fiscal Year 4 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. '08. The requested increases are detailed in the tables in our written testimony. Current budgetary constraints, as detailed in this testimony, dictate the FJD depart from its past practice of not seeking additional funding for grant revenue shortfalls, operating expense increases, technology advances and facilities management, as the savings the Judiciary generates is no longer sufficient to support these ongoing, escalating and unavoidable increases and shortfalls. Perhaps the most dire shortfall we face right now is in the child support funding area. The Child Support Program of the Philadelphia Family Court Division, Domestic Relations branch is funded with Federal Title IV-D funds appropriated in the Grants Revenue Fund. As noted in our testimony before City Council last year, this program will experience severe funding problems in 5 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. 8 million. The primary function of the Child Support Program is to identify and locate absent parents, establish paternity through court order and genetic testing, and establish and enforce court-ordered support payments. Child Support helps families escape poverty, improve self-sufficiency and obtain medical benefits. 2 million in foster care was paid to the City of Philadelphia through DHS. The caseload of the Child Support Program is 169,000 children who are either eligible or receiving support from the non-custodial parent. S. census estimates for Philadelphia, the Child Support caseload represents 46 percent of the children in Philadelphia. The Domestic Relations branch located at 34 South 11th Street receives approximately 6 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. 2,500 client visits daily for child support, custody and divorce matters, with a majority coming in for child support. The funding reduction currently proposed will reduce the services available to Philadelphia children through the layoff of approximately 200 employees. And I'd like to amend the testimony downward somewhat. It could be about 150 employees or slightly less than one half of the current workforce. The Philadelphia Child Support Program is unique to other support programs throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of the 67 counties in the Commonwealth, 66 counties provide direct local funding to their child support programs. Philadelphia is the only county statewide that does not provide direct local funding for its program, which had relied solely on reimbursement and incentive revenue from the federal government. The reimbursement is provided through the state and federal 7 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. government for 66 percent of eligible program expenses and, until recently, incentive funds made up the difference. All other child support programs are directly county funded with the county receiving the reimbursement and the incentive funds. The Philadelphia program can no longer be self-sufficient relying on reimbursement funding and declining federal incentive payments. Direct City funding is needed to support the program. Two changes in federal statutes for the calculation of incentive payments have decreased the amount of incentives which previously made up the difference between total program costs and reimbursement revenue. 2 million.
The two federal statutes are the Child Support Performance Incentive Act of 1998 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Prior to the Child Support Performance 8 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Incentive Act of 1998, incentives were received by local authorities based on increased collections. Until this change, the Philadelphia program maintained a positive balance and was self-sufficient. Since passage of the 1998 act, incentives are now determined based on the performance of the caseload, with no recognition of the unique barriers faced by a large urban city. The Deficit Reduction Act, effective October 1, 2007, will further reduced funding to the program by excluding incentive funding from federal reimbursement. 5 million during FY08. 98 for every dollar spent during the federal fiscal year. The Child Support Program is included in the City's Grant Revenue Fund and is solely responsible for its fringe 9 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. benefit costs as opposed to General Fund employees whose benefits are paid directly by the City. Fringe benefit costs, including pension and medical costs, have increased in the last five years and have hampered the program's ability to provide service to its youngest citizens in Philadelphia. 2 million annually. Medical costs have increased percent over the last four 13 years and have, up until now, been 14 absorbed by the program. 15 The court has cooperated with 16 the City's initiative to reduce its 17 positions through DROP rightsizing and 18 General Fund positions. Since January 19 '05, the Judiciary, in recognition of its 20 responsibility to work cooperatively with 21 our government partners, has reduced its 22 workforce from 2,038 to an authorized 23 position level of 1,965. Furthermore, in 24 enforcing delays in filling critical 25 vacancies, the District has been able to 10 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. further reduce the network force by an additional 53 positions to 1,912. 3 million. The FJD suggests that the savings it has voluntarily generated over the past two years is equivalent to that of the IV-D shortfall. Without adequate funding for the Child Support Program, the jobs of somewhat less than 200 people are at risk. Layoffs of this magnitude would substantially impact the program and the Philadelphia children and families it serves. I'll paraphrase the rest of the written testimony, Madam President.
In Class 200, 300 and 400, the court has not had an increase in those budget classes for 11 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. many, many years. Nonetheless, we face increasingly rising costs as it relates to our lease payments. Court interpreter costs have skyrocketed to roughly $800,000 this year. The cost of providing mental health services has skyrocketed, and up until now, we've been able to absorb those costs within our budget. Going into FY08, we don't feel that we will have the ability to fund those costs, which are basically uncontrollable by the court. They're driven by the population we serve. We're also seeking an enhancement in the salaries paid to our probation staff. Currently, social workers for the City at their highest level top out at roughly $5,000 to $6,000 per person per year higher than our probation officers. Being a probation officer is a demanding and difficult chore and we have some difficulty in, A, motivating and, B, retaining our senior people. We would love to be able to 12 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. compensate them at a rate that's equivalent to their counterparts in other areas of the City government. Our testimony goes on on 6, and it's something I'm sure you're well aware of, as are other members of the Council, that, yes, we've requested 126.4 million, but the Judiciary does generate a substantial amount of revenue for the City to offset that. As it relates to the General Fund, revenues generated by the Judiciary and related offices offset our General Fund budget by 46 percent and, when you include the Grants Revenue budget, by 61 percent. One thing I need to point out to the Council is, there's been a lot of discussion on increasing the number of police officers, which is well and good, but I would encourage the Council to also consider the increase in other areas, cost increases in other areas that that will precipitate. Courtroom costs, case processing costs, probation supervision 13 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. costs are all going to result if there are more police officers on the street. We have been asked by PICA to present some very rough cost estimates of what a thousand police officers would cost. I believe for the Judiciary that would result in an additional $9.7 million.
9.7 million. These are in terms of increased probation staff, increased DAs, increased defenders, increased clerks, increased court reporters, everything that goes in to running the criminal justice system. We understand that we are asking for a lot, and we do not do so cavalierly. The issues being faced in funding the Child Support Program in particular are dire. This is not anything anybody in the court wants to do in seeing a cutback in these services, but unless we receive some help from somewhere, whether it be the state or the City, we simply won't be able to sustain 14 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. this program at the level at which it needs to be sustained. I thank the Council for their consideration and would gladly entertain any questions.
Thank you so much. On of your testimony, Table 2 identifies your requested increases by item. For the record, can you give us a breakdown by item by class?
Certainly. Specifically, the items, child support funding shortfall is $6.6 million. The operating expense of Classes 200, 300 and 400 would amount to $4.3 million.
In other words, in Class 100, we would ask for $7.1 million. 15 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. MR. McPHERSON: Specifically, child support, what classes do you need the 6.6 in? Is it all Class 100?
That's 100. Let me just double-check that, Charlie. It's predominately 100. There is a portion of the rent. MR. McPHERSON: Can you give us a breakdown by class for the specific titles so we know what we would have per class?
Yes. We can give you a breakout by line item for Class 100, 200, 300 and 400 for each line item. It's in our budget submission, but we'll provide that to Council.
Do you have a shortage of probation officers? If so, how many?
We can always use more probation officers. It's been shown that the more intense the supervision provided to offenders is, the lower the recidivism rate and the greater 16 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. our degree of success. There's been a lot of talk about increasing our probation staff, the goal being to reduce caseload sizes. There's several -- there are two primary ways to do that. The obvious way is to increase POs. Could we use an additional 100 probation officers? Absolutely.
How many cases does a probation officer have as a rule?
It varies across the board, but a probation officer in general supervision carries a caseload of approximately 180 cases.
Yes, ma'am. That leaves them time to do paperwork, conduct some cursory interviews with their clients and go to court, and that's about it. Now, we do have specialized units, such as YVRP and special offenders 17 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. and whatnot, where the caseloads are substantially lower, but in the final analysis, once you get past the specialized caseloads, there's everybody else that has to be supervised. One area that has been suggested, which has been used successfully in New York City and which we have under exploration, is the use of an electronic reporting system. It's a kiosk type of system. A great many of the people who are in this caseload of 180 are marginal-risk offenders. They don't need a lot of supervision. They're going to be one and done in the justice system hopefully, and the idea is to divert them away from requiring the services of a probation officer, who is just going to ask them some perfunctory questions - are you working, where do you live, has anything changed - and allow them to do that electronically, and any aberrational answers would, of course, be reported to 18 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. a probation officer. As I said, this has been used in New York City successfully. We have begun exploring the use of that type of technology to divert our lowest-risk offenders, thereby freeing up our POs to handle the higher-risk folks who need the services more.
Do you have any indication as to what the cost of that new process would be?
The kiosks I'm told cost about $15,000 a piece. That's for the equipment. There are then programming costs that have to go into it to integrate the software of the kiosk with our probation case management system. So I'll take a guess and say, when all is said and done, it's probably going to run in the $20,000 to $25,000 per unit cost. This has been discussed at a group called Probe Stat, where a lot of the justice partners meet and talk about 19 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. the various issues related to probation and parole services. The Police Department is at the table. But we would have to work out the mechanics of where they're going to be placed, who could safely be moved to these types of systems and whatnot. We did not intentionally put additional probation staff into our budget request. In our transmittal letter of the budget to the Budget Bureau, we recognized that this is an issue that's been under discussion at the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission and we did not want to appear to be demanding, if you will, funding for X number of probation officers when we see this more as a cooperative agreement between the court, the City, the Council to look at our various options and see the best route to go to providing these more intensive services, especially in the areas of the City that need it most.
What 20 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. is the status of the state assuming the funding of the First Judicial District, as required, as required, by the state Supreme Court? Since they rendered that decision, how many court employees have been transferred over to --
Madam President, as far as I know, there are no 15 discussions with the Governor's office at this point for the state to assume the responsibilities outlined in the various Allegheny decisions. It's been a dormant issue for quite some time. The only people who have been transferred to the state payroll are myself and -- I'm sorry; there's 13 of us -- 12 deputies.
Oh, that makes a big difference. 21 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. So I can assume that no one from the courts have spoken to the state regarding the shortfalls that you're presently facing?
Actually, Justice Baer -- and this is a little bit of hearsay, but I'm told Justice Baer had a conversation with the Governor. DHS submitted an $11 million line item in their budget to the Governor to cover these shortfalls, which are statewide, and that $11 million line item was not contained in the final version of the Governor's budget.
If the City does not provide the additional funding for child support of $6.6 million, what would the operational impact to the families being served be?
It would be delay. We would continue to do that which we had to do, which is to accept petitions, assign cases to hearing officers, conduct conferences, and where 22 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. there were the need to assign them to judges, it would lengthen greatly the amount of time it took to do that, because we would have fewer hearing officers to deal with these issues and fewer clerical personnel to process all the paperwork that would be required.
And I assume it's not only a delay, but don't you also accumulate a backlog?
Well, delay equals backlog. You get into an area where X amount of time is acceptable. Anything in excess of that time is a backlog. JUDGE JONES: Madam President, if I may, I think it goes without saying that in addition --
I'm sorry, Your Honor. Would you identify yourself for the stenographer, please. JUDGE JONES: Certainly. I apologize. President Judge C. Darnell Jones. 23 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. In addition to the delay, I think it's pretty evident that it's going to also cause the kind of potentially delinquent problems, additional dependent problems, additional problems that our City is currently undergoing. It's a ripple effect. It just doesn't happen in an isolated fashion within the court system. It's going to cause, I think, a wave that's going to affect negatively and impact negatively across the Commonwealth, across the City of Philadelphia in particular.
I totally agree with you. If you do not receive the additional funds, will the First Judicial District mandamus the City for the additional funds?
I don't know that we're prepared at this point to answer that one way or the other. That would be a decision that would have to be reached by the Administrative Governing 24 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Board. We don't, again, cavalierly enter into mandamus actions. We would exhaust every possible avenue we could before we went there.
You're talking about something that's truly very disturbing to me.
And I'm sure it has to be to every member sitting here. If the City doesn't come up with the additional money, what happens?
How about the state, who are supposed to have the responsibility of funding the courts?
Well, I can't argue the mechanics of the Allegheny decision because it's not happening. In a real sense, we are looking to the state. The Congress in Washington is debating repealing portions of the Budget 25 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Reduction Act that would possibly mitigate this situation. And this situation is nationwide in every big city. But I can't at this point say if the City doesn't fund us, we will sue. That's an agenda item with the Administrative Governing Board. It would probably involve consultation with the Supreme Court and the AOPC before we were in a position to do that. One of the sad things is that until there's a budget passed, we couldn't mandamus anyway, because there would be no action against which to mandamus until the City budget is finalized.
Ms. Reed, would you please approach the witness table. 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Ms. Reed, can you explain what the Administration's rationale was for not granting any of the First Judicial District's request?
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. For Fiscal '08, the First Judicial District was one of the few departments that we held harmless from the 2.5 percent General Fund Class 100 cut. We are sympathetic to the issue of IV-D. We have talked additionally to state officials to try to get that funded. We had to make the Five-Year Plan balance. Now, one of the issues that we have with the Five-Year Plan is, we need a balanced approach. We have huge cuts, wage tax cuts, in the out years, $50 million in '11, $50 million in '12, and right outside the framework of this Plan is another $68 million for the Cohen cut. So we have to either decrease the amount of cuts in those out years or cut other 27 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. people's budgets if we're going to accommodate the First Judicial District's need, which we agree is a critical one. But we have no play in this Five-Year Plan, given the requirements of PICA and our fixed costs and all the other priorities and choices that have been made.
Well, I'm sure you were here to hear the testimony.
I am strongly going to recommend that the Administration and the First Judicial District sit down and certainly try to work out a compromise, because I just think that this is such an important issue. It is such an important issue that I just can't imagine that we, in good conscience, can sit back and do absolutely nothing. And I am urging the Administration to start working with the state more closely. I don't care where 28 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. we have to go. And I believe, sir, that you said that they are trying to do something in Washington?
That's correct, Madam President, but my fear is whatever may come out of Congress, whenever it comes out of Congress, and then will the President sign it and when will it be effective.
Truly sad. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. First, I just certainly want to echo all the concerns that the Council President raised. I mean, these are obviously very important programs that we 29 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. need funded, the child support, the additional help and just the fairness for the probation officers. And I also echo her concern that it doesn't seem like the state is living up to their responsibility in this. But I just had one other question, I guess of a smaller nature. The interpreters in the court system, how many do you have and, in your opinion, are there sufficient numbers? I guess you could always use more, just like anything else.
We use a combination of services for interpreting services. By and large, our Spanish interpreting services are provided by staff interpreters. I believe we have eight on staff now. The majority of them are fully certified, in that they have taken the New Jersey certification test, which we encourage our interpreters to do. Aside from Spanish, we provide 30 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. interpreting services in 60 different dialects and languages. These are provided by contract interpreters who work for various agencies. We feel most of them are proficient at what they do. Do we occasionally get some folks who may not be up to snuff on their interpreting skills? Yes. There is a move -- well, there's not a move. There's been legislation passed in Harrisburg that empowers the administrative office of Pennsylvania courts to carry out an interpreter orientation and certification program. That is in its formative stages right now. The certification process will probably only be extended to a very limited number of languages just because of the complexity of it, and I would guess it would be languages that we use heavily, such as Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian and whatnot. When you look at -- we provided 31 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. interpreter services on over 3,000 occurrences during FY06 in, to be quite honest with you, Councilman, languages that I have never heard of and many of which I can't pronounce, but it is -- it's a concern to the court because it involves access to justice and basic fairness for people who are non-English speaking and also for the hearing impaired. So that do we have enough interpreters, staff interpreters? Yeah, I think we're okay.
Yes. Yes. Most of those are fully certified. When you look at where our heaviest utilization is in our contract interpreters, it's Cambodian, it's Korean, it's Mandarin.
Excuse me. Are those people sort of on call when it's learned that they're needed?
Yeah. The way 32 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. it works is, when one of the, I'll say, actors, partners, becomes aware that an interpreter is needed, they will contact our Office of Interpreting Services. We have contracts with several agencies, and we then contact the agency and tell them when and where we need the interpreter. That's one of those uncontrollable costs that because of the expanding diversity of our population has just exploded over the past several years.
What is the cost on that? Maybe you said that and I missed it.
It will be in excess of $800,000 this year, and that's exclusive of our staff interpreters.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage.
I have a couple of questions for you. First question refers back to kind of the dialogue you had with Council President Ann Verna referring to the kiosk system. You talked about how much the cost would be. What would the savings be over the long term?
We haven't calculated that, Councilman. We can work it up. It depends on how many people are put on the system, how many people are diverted away from traditional supervision modalities. So we'd have to 34 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. project over several years exactly what the savings in that might be.
And, secondly, you talked about -- you didn't really discuss recruiting more probation officers. What do you think the ideal mix would be with electronic monitoring; i.e., bracelets, kiosk systems, mixed with probation officers?
It's funny because it's an individual case decision. Electronic monitoring, whether it's static monitoring or now we're looking at GPS monitoring, doesn't necessarily rule out being under the supervision of a PO or being required to report to a kiosk, although I would imagine as I've done some thinking about this, I would imagine if we have you on EM, you're probably a little higher risk and you're going to need to see a PO. I don't know that for those people who truly need it there's anything better than a professional probation officer to deal with their 35 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. case. It's those folks who are deemed to be low risk -- and there's a lot of them -- where they don't need those intensive supervision services of a PO where we can divert them to a kiosk type reporting system. But I don't know if I could sit here and say, Well, we'll do 45 percent of the population supervised by POs. Of that, percent will be on EM and 12 another X number of percent would be on 13 electronic -- or kiosk reporting. 14 As I said, we're just starting 15 to look at this. We've had conversations with New York City, and we're going back and forth to see how they went about doing this, what their criteria were, how successful they were. If we put somebody on kiosk reporting and they go out and stick a gun in somebody's face, well, what will then the criticism be? Well, kiosk reporting doesn't work and you should have had them under closer supervision. 36 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. So there's a lot of issues that go into exactly how that might work. You might step down people who are being supervised by a probation officer and then over time move them to an electronic reporting as their needs diminish, as whatever problems they have, whether it's employment, drug addiction, whatever, you start to take care of those problems, and then maybe they don't need the services of a probation officer to the extent that they did when they were first put on probation.
You would classify a low-risk offender as generally a non-violent crime, generally not an extensive record, a person who perhaps has a job, a person who has a home or someplace to live, a person with ties to the community. Things of that nature we would probably consider as the low-risk offender, in converse to the violent 37 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. crime, the extensive criminal record, the type of person who obviously needs some watching.
Sure. Referring to high-risk offenders, I'm familiar with the SAV-U unit with the APPD. Is there any money that is allotted in the budget for the SAV-U unit?
That money, I believe, comes through the University of Pennsylvania, and they are funding, I believe, five positions at this point in time. It's just getting underway. As I'm sure you know, they're using a new technique to identify the highest risk offenders, a data-mining aspect of it. That's the type of service you'd love to provide for your highest risk offenders, scientific identification of those most likely to kill or be killed and then providing those type of people with intensive services. We're very optimistic and look forward to working 38 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. with Penn on that project.
I think it's a great program. I actually met Carrinnia Woodson. She's one of the SAV-U probation officers. I think it's a great program. So just to follow up, what would be the specific exact number of probation officers to meet the need to reduce the recidivism and how much would that cost and how long would it take to meet that?
Well, if you consider an ideal caseload, I don't know, 40 people, 50 people, we can go back and calculate that cost for you. It's going to be extremely high. A hundred probation officers -- and I don't think that would get us to the level we need to get to -- is going to run roughly $5.3 million a year. Five hundred probation officers is going to be $28 million a year. So, I mean, it's an expensive proposition. 39 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. JUDGE JONES: And if I might add, that does not include the Class 200, 400 categories, desks, computers and facilities and things like that that go with all of those.
I agree with you, Your Honor. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. How many probation officers do you have? JUDGE JONES: Four hundred fifty-one, I believe, at this point in time. That would be the adult and juvenile.
And at this point, is there 55,000 people on 40 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. probation or parole in Philadelphia?
There are 55,000 adults under supervision. There's another, I believe, 2,300 juveniles -- 5,700 juveniles under supervision.
So your 451 includes adults and juvenile probation officers?
So their ratio, probation officer to number of clients, is very high, I would assume?
Yeah. Keep in mind that the way you supervise juvenile offenders and the way you can supervise adult offenders are very different. Juvenile probation officers will generally have much lower caseloads than adult offenders, and that's because of standards set by the Juvenile Act and the 41 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. JCJC, the need -- or the requirement to make frequent home visits and things of that nature. So, in a sense, juveniles will get closer supervision than similarly situated adults.
Did you say earlier that you right now have about 180 low-risk offenders that would use if you had the kiosk system?
No. The 180 I referred to, Councilwoman, was the average caseload per probation officer in adult probation. And these caseloads are people who are broken up into general geographic districts, whether it's north or west or east, south. Probation officers in those districts will have about 180 cases.
Oh, okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that, because I thought out of 55,000, there was only 180 low-risk offenders.
No, no, no. 25 There are thousands of low-risk 42 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. offenders.
Okay. Good. I just want to ask a couple questions regarding outcomes of some of the projects that you've listed in your testimony. On , the Parent Project, which is a project I think that's probably pretty good. I wasn't aware that you had it, but I know it's needed just based on questions and things that come up in community meetings when parents say they have a hard time dealing with their children. The Parent Project, are people court ordered, are parents court ordered to attend this project?
I have with us today Administrative Judge Kevin Dougherty from the Family Court. If I can defer to him for this.
They're both court ordered and volunteer for the 43 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. program.
So what's the outcome? Is it helping? Is it working? Kevin, you might as well come on up.
If you don't mind, he has the specifics. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Good morning. Kevin Dougherty, Administrative Judge of Philadelphia's Family Court.
Thank you. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Councilwoman, the Parenting Project, the former Administrative Judge did not keep statistics. We have a new Director of Children and Youth, Carol Carson, and she and I are in the process of reorganizing the Parenting Program so that we can achieve and obtain better outcomes. But the program anecdotally is very successful. We just would like to have the figures and facts to show the public. 44 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC.
So when you get those figures and facts, can you forward them to the Council President? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Absolutely. I'd love to make that public information.
And this is a project, I guess, that a parent would know about, we wouldn't need to say, "Well, why don't you talk to your child's probation officer" to get? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Yes. The Parenting Project is made known through faith-based organizations, all community-based organizations of providers contracted through the Department of Human Services, as well as the Family Court generating notice court-wide.
Okay. Thank you. And the other program I actually wanted to find a little bit about their outcomes is Treatment Court. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Treatment 45 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Court has been very successful in the last year, and I'm proud of that as being the first year of my administration. This year we had 45 applicants, and I believe 35 of them graduated. The rest are remaining as a result of recidivism in the sense that they've used drugs again. We have received additional monies and we're expanding the program. Initially it was only centered to West Philadelphia youth. We're currently in the process of contracting and providing this service of diversion for those children who have been charged with felonies with substance abuse issues to go through our treatment program to avoid them from being adjudicated delinquent, which in fact if the child is 14 years or older judge delinquent of a felony, he or she would be a convicted felon the rest of his or her life, because our prisons are so overcrowded we have to give out numbers for those individuals to get into 46 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. our county jails. The most points you could get would be six points. A conviction for possession with the intent to deliver, that being a felony drug charge, would be two. Therefore, we would be creating a path for our children to go to State Road as opposed to State College. So Family Court has instituted this treatment program to divert those children and get them the necessary rehabilitation so that they become productive individuals, drug free, and it creates a safer community. So we're in the process of expanding that to make that citywide to effect all the population.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 47 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. The question I have -- and I don't know who I should direct it to -- is the electronic monitoring program. Is there someone that can talk about that?
Terrific. Have we stayed current with the technology? I understand the electronic monitoring program has kind of moved to a new level where GPS is actually being utilized. And also the costs of electronic monitoring, what it costs 48 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. today versus the cost if we would go to the GPS, if we haven't already. Again, I don't know what technology we use, but I was asked the question about electronic monitoring and how effective it is and are you going to grow it and are we going to move from one technology to the other and the approximate costs to do that.
Let me give you some background. We currently have 769 persons on electronic monitoring, and this is the traditional ankle bracelet, static electronic monitoring. As of a few days ago, we had 96 units available to utilize for this function. We will shortly receive an additional 65 units as a result of grants for the Domestic Violence Program and the DUI Program. The cost of providing electronic monitoring in the traditional sense is roughly $8 a day. We computed this cost about two, three years ago. At that time, it was $5.48. Since that 49 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. time, the price of the equipment has gone up a little bit. So it's about $8 a day. We are currently testing, through our Pre-Trial Services Division, GPS monitoring systems. We have five vendors that we've been testing their equipment. I expect a report from them shortly as to which product works best under what circumstances. The major problem you have with GPS units is, you lose contact. You can't track where the offender is, because I guess, in a way, they're like cell phones, you lose the signal. So what we're doing is working through the process as to seeing which of the products has the most consistent delivery of a signal with the most accuracy. The way we're doing this is, we are having employees who are volunteers be tracked in their comings and goings throughout the City using the unit and then calculate what the dead zone ratios are and whatnot. GPS 50 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. monitoring will run between $13 and $15 a day per person.
Okay. I guess I need to understand. Are there some people that wear these devices that are allowed to roam, go to work throughout the City, but they're contained to the County of Philadelphia? I'm most familiar with the persons that are under house arrest where they're not allowed to leave their home. So I assume the GPS would be reliable in that particular environment unless it's --
I don't know if it would track them from the living room 18 to the dining room, but other than that, we'd probably be able to tell that they're in the house.
So there are folks that wear these devices that are not just kept in their home?
Are you referring to GPS devices? 51 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC.
Sure. There are people who were on -- if they're not restricted to their home, they are very restricted about where they can go.
So then if the technology worked well, am I hearing that maybe there would be more flexibility in allowing a person that is sentenced to wear one of these devices that possibly could go to work?
Where they really work well, Councilman, is in domestic violence cases, where there's an order to stay away or don't be within a thousand feet of this location. You program the computer. If they go within a thousand feet of that location, it's beep, beep, beep.
At that point, we'd send a warrant team out to make the apprehension and just process them on a 52 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. violation.
Terrific. Well, it's good to hear that you're staying current with the technology, because I have information where some of the GPS providers of this technology are suggesting that the cost could be less than we currently pay.
Councilman, if they can give me a number that's below what I'm paying now for traditional, I'm more than happy to talk to them.
Thank you. And, again, it's good that you are staying with this technology.
53 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. In Fiscal Year '06, the City amended its budget and increased the First Judicial District's budget by $3.3 million, and this current budget was significantly lower and this year there is no increase, but you'll be declared harmless, meaning that you won't have any requests for any cutbacks in your staffing and so forth. But when you come here and you tell us that we're going to have to make up a $6 million plus hole, that puts us in a hole of how do we make this happen within our limitations with the budget as the budget has been presented to Council. I just don't know how we can do that. As I have stated many, many times since early this year, because of the crisis of violence, crime and drug 54 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. trafficking in our city, that it is my objective during this budget cycle -- and I'm quite sure many of my colleagues here on Council concur -- that we should make funding available to all those programs, to all those departments, to the courts that will help us win this fight against violence in our city, and that's the way I have approached this budget. We have to make sure that our number one priority, at least in my view, is to be able to allocate the resource that is needed for us to win this battle against violence, crime and drug trafficking. So I really don't know how we're going to handle that one. I'll look towards the President's statement earlier for how we're going to be able to be of help to you, particularly our concern about the increase of homicides in the City and the significant role that the courts play in this battle against violence and crime. I see that apart from the $6 55 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. million plus, that there is a request for an increase. I believe you're referring to it as pay parity or someone is referring to it as pay parity, that instead of hiring more probation officers, that you believe that incentivizing our parole officers, probation officers would be the way to go. Can you explain that? Because I saw this a few years ago when we had deployment of police officers in areas of growing crime and we were giving police officers the chance to do overtime, but I know that down the stretch in that program, we had police officers that were definitely stressed. They were just -- they couldn't hack. And I've been there. I know how good it is when it is announced that you can do overtime and you're gung-ho until you run into a project where the overtime is needed, needed, needed and then you're just tired, tired, tired. 56 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. I want you to explain to me how you think that the pay parity is in fact the way to go versus hiring more probation officers.
I don't know that it is versus the way to go. There are two separate problems we need to address. One is the size of the caseloads our POs are carrying. That is a huge problem. I believe it's directly related, to some degree, to the gun violence issue, because we're unable to provide a level of services to those people who need it most, and these are the people who, in some instances, are shooting up the streets. The other is a basic issue of fairness to those who are already doing the job and have been doing the job for a long time. There's been this issue with our probation officers and it's been a demoralizing issue, if you will, when they look at their counterparts who are 57 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. similarly situated with the City government who are able to basically make more money than they do. I don't know that we're looking at this as either pay the guys we have $6,000 more a year or we'll hire more POs. The $1 million for the parity is just a drop in the bucket of what it would cost to hire more POs. So I think when we're looking at this, we're looking at two separate issues that we're trying to address. I understand this Council cannot address everything that we come here looking for. These are issues which need to be brought to the Council's attention in our IV-D testimony or our testimony last year. We made reference to looming problems in this arena. And then with the explosion of violence in the City, it's the Council, it's the court, it's the Mayor's Office, the Police Department just struggling to find solutions to these very complex problems, and we haven't 58 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. even begun to talk about prison overcrowding. Arresting our way out of this problem, there's no place to put these people. So I just need to stress to the Council that we recognize this as an extraordinarily complex societal problem, and stress that we as the court are a willing and anxious partner to try and seek some sort of resolution that's going to have some permanent and lasting impact.
Going back to the specific budget, a concern of mine -- and I understand and I concur with you on the broader issue of the root of this problem with crime and violence in our street. And I can accept and I believe in pay parity, and I know there's a big difference between spreading a million dollars to incentivize our probation officers versus using a million dollars to hire, which will probably get you, I don't know, probably maybe 12 to 59 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. 15, 18 new probation officers. That can make a difference. What I don't want us to do or I think that will be a bit of concern to me is that we do the pay parity -- 1$ million is a big difference from $6.6 million, so that might be something doable there, from my perspective, but what I don't want is for probation officers then to say, This caseload is so big that although you did pay parity, you did meet justice -- and I believe it is an issue of justice -- but that it is still too much, and here we're back to should we have hired more probation officers.
I understand the dilemma, Councilman, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I mean, I understand that money is a disincentive. It's good for a while. There's motivators and de-motivators. Money is basically a de-motivator. It's good for a little while, but it doesn't have a 60 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. lasting impression on the quality of somebody's work life. A great deal of -- I was never a probation officer, but I would imagine if I was and I had a caseload of 180 people and if I could make a difference in five of them, I'd say that's a win. I'd feel good about what I did. If I had a caseload of 100 and I could make a difference in 30 of them, I mean, think about the psychological payoff and the motivation that that would provide for a probation officer.
And I'm willing as a member of this Council to take a look at this pay parity and take a look at this one million sum, see if there's -- but we don't want to get caught later on having good probation officers say, This is just killing me now, I cannot handle this caseload, and then it becomes an issue. Though I'm getting paid better, but I'm all stressed out and I'm trying to meet my obligations 61 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. on my job.
The issue of Gun Court. I saw last night, late last night I saw, I think it was, the President of Australia. He said that the problem -- and it was in response to the tragedy at the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech -- that the problem with America was that we were a gun culture. And I concur with him, that this is not -- this is something that since the dawn of television, we've been turning on and seeing cartoons of Quick Draw McGraw shooting it out, and the culture has just gone haywire, and I think that has a lot to do -- it's probably not the only thing, but nevertheless, how is our Gun Court coming along? Is it fully staffed? 62 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. What are we doing in Gun Court? What's the volume over there?
The preliminary results of Gun Court are interesting. Gun Court probationers are rearrested at a lower rate than similar offenders from prior years, people charged with the same offense. In the first year after their probation starts, percent of the 2001 17 gun offenders were rearrested, while 12 18 percent of the Gun Court offenders were 19 rearrested. So 12 percent were 20 rearrested, but that's down from 20 percent. When you compare similarly situated individuals from prior years, county prison sentences are up, guilty verdicts are down -- I'm sorry; guilty 63 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. verdicts are up as well. So when you look at what the kind of primary indicators of the success of a program are, recidivism has improved, jail sentences have gone up, guilty pleas have gone up substantially. So the indications are that at least to date -- and this is roughly a year and a half into it or two years -- that Gun Court appears to be working. We intend to continue it. We have no plans to discontinue it. There's a funding stream in place through the civil fee bill to keep it going. So we are somewhat optimistic about the Gun Court model.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you so much for your responses.
Thank you, Madam President. 64 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Let me thank all the gentlemen, especially President Judge C. Darnell Jones, with whom I work regularly. I wanted to raise two issues. One, I know that we got the Mayor to -- we co-founded the Mayor's Commission on African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs, and they have cards out dealing with all the languages. They do have languages. And I'm involved with that organization regularly and we meet monthly. But they even have cards available so that people can get to 9-1-1 no matter what language they speak. It's very, very important. So we certainly offer the -- and all of the groups are virtually -- say, all of the groups from Africa and on that Diaspora are in touch with this Commission meeting. We meet on, I guess it's, the second Wednesday of every month. So we certainly would make that available, and I'll send that information just so you have it. JUDGE JONES: Please do. Thank 65 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. you.
The other thing is just a question for, I guess it's, probation officers within schools. I know we have them in some schools, high schools, which I think is a good idea so that kids don't lose time leaving school and not being in school because they have to see their probation officer. How do we determine which schools have them, or do the schools apply? Do the courts deal with them? Do we need to expand service? I think it's a great service to keep kids in school.
If I may call upon Judge Dougherty once again to explain the school-based probation program.
And I think I asked him before, but I forgot his answer, probably last year. And thank you for all that you do. 66 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Thank you. For the record, Kevin Dougherty, Administrative Judge of Philadelphia Family Court. Madam President, Councilwoman Blackwell, as we sit here today, we have school-based probation officers, which 9 means they were assigned to 15 high 10 schools. The concern and question that I 11 had was that each individual school 12 dictated how our probation officers were 13 to operate. In essence, in certain 14 schools, some probation officers were 15 permitted to walk through the school building; others were relegated to a particular location. It defeated the concept and the purpose of having contact with our children in their educational environment. In May, I anticipate revealing what we're calling our community-based probation reorganization. While we currently are short-staffed on probation officers, I have hired a certain number. 67 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. We're anticipating taking approximately 65 probation officers and assigning them to what we're calling community-based probation, geographically assigned. So that every probation officer will have contact with every middle school and high school. I've met with the City. I met with Mr. Vic Richards, Department of Rec. I met with Mr. Vallas. We've met with the regional superintendents and we're meeting with the school principals to share and to start having a dialogue with what is going to be required of the School District to partner and assist the court in making sure that we are achieving rehabilitation, treatment and supervision for our kids. So, in essence, we will now not be restricted to only 15. We're going into every school that every one of our children on probation will have. We've created a resource manual so that I know who the principal is, who the counselor 68 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. is, who the medical person is. Same thing with our recreation centers. In essence, our desire and hope is that we'll have flexible work hours such that if I have three individuals, hypothetically, in the 19148 area code, I know that there's a particular rec center, I will be able to have my probation officer dispatched to that rec center so that we could see the children in their environment. In essence, it will also create a sense of protection for the community, knowing that while our probation officers are law enforcement in nature in juvenile, they're also very much part of our social work and the fabric of making sure that our kids who are at risk are better protected. So we're trying to do a dual purpose here, make sure the community is safe, get to see our kids in the environment, make sure that they're involved and enrolled in activity, but 69 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. make sure that we are also in the classroom so that they're attending and getting the education that is required. So it's exciting. It's innovative, and it should take place come May. We are just working out the details.
Well, thank you very much, and I'm sure I speak -- I see the President nodding -- for all the members of Council who support what you're trying to do, look forward to it and certainly want to proceed as partners with you on this venture. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Thank you. We welcome your friendship and your partnership.
Can you tell us what the present backlog of cases are? 70 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC.
That's a very difficult term to describe. JUDGE JONES: If I may, at least in the civil side of the court, there is no backlog.
The criminal side is in relatively good shape. There's roughly 16,000 Common Pleas Court cases. That's an acceptable number. There are roughly 60,000 Municipal Court cases that come through the system, criminal cases that come through the system every year.
I'm sorry. Do you mind repeating that figure again?
Sixty thousand. Again, that's a reasonable figure. When it gets into the areas of the Family Courts, because the cases go on forever, it's extraordinarily difficult to tell you what a backlog is. 71 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. Are we able to afford timely hearings to folks? Yes, we are. People are not waiting inordinate amount of time to get their hearings. So that I would say that the backlog when thought of in the traditional sense is marginal, if any. There's always that amount of delay which is expected and acceptable when you process a case, and I believe we are within reasonable parameters of how long it takes us to get our various cases through the system.
I'm sorry. With the detainees that we have incarcerated that are awaiting trial, what is the time period before they get 72 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. to court?
It depends on the nature of the case and the nature of the hold. Under the Rules of Procedure in Pennsylvania, there are time standards that are set for --
It's 180 days for incarcerated individuals, unless there are delays occasioned by the defense. So you will have people being held longer than that, but in many cases, they're defense-related requests. The biggest problem we have in the prison population is that nobody -- very few people are up there on one case. The nature of the population today is such that there are multiple holds on virtually everybody. There are no non-violent first-time offenders in jail. I can assure you of that. People who are up 73 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. there today have multiple holds on them for new charges for various probation violations, and just sorting through the process of getting these things squared away takes a long time. You can't begin to deal with the probation violation detainers that are holding them until the new arrest is taken care of. So you want to get the new arrest taken care of as quickly as possible. Then you can go on to address those secondary holds. We've been working with the Municipal Court, the District Attorney's Office, the Defender Association to modify our scheduling practices that are going to expedite this entire process by perhaps having the new arrest case scheduled in front of the judge right away that has the defendant on probation so it's one-stop shopping. You don't have to wait to get all these different types of holds resolved. You can do it all at one time. The prison overcrowding problem 74 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. is a significant issue. It's dealt with at every meeting of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission. In Common Pleas Court, we embarked on a program where cases were scheduled, for the sake of simplicity, too far out. They're scheduled months out. Judge Keogh, who at that time was a supervising judge, he's now the Administrative Judge of the division, brought all those cases back in front of himself and, where he could, he rescheduled everything, he took some pleas, he consolidated cases. So we're trying to be as proactive as possible in working with the City Administration and our justice partners in trying to resolve this difficult issue. Prison overcrowding isn't something that the court can cure by itself. It's a systemic problem that we need the cooperation of the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the police working cooperatively to develop systems that are going to help us cut 75 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. down the time of pretrial detention.
Okay. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you all so very much for your testimony. JUDGE JONES: Thank you, Madam President.
But I will tell you, it's been very depressing to hear.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: The next department is the Clerk of Quarter Sessions.
Ms. Miller, I just want you to know that we're presently distributing the information that you forwarded to me. 76 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. We're sending it to each Councilperson. It's under date of March 7th regarding your budget. Vivian, this (indicating).
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and other members of Council. My name is Vivian Miller and I am the current Clerk of Quarter Session. I have with me my First Deputy, Robin Jones, and also Tom Christmann, my Budget Manager. May I take a moment just to talk to you about the ripple effect of the crime wave? I am not going to read the testimony, because you have that. I'm just going to read a synopsis. Is that okay?
Just as the Police Department fights to stem this tide, just as the county prisons struggle to --
I'm sorry. Can you pull the microphone closer to you, please.
May I take a moment to talk to you about the ripple effects of the crime wave? Just as the Police Department fights to stem this tide, just as the county prisons struggle to contain the overflow, the judiciary system battles daily to maintain control over the entire process. The state has recognized this problem by assigning additional new judges to address this problem. However, no one at the state county level provided for the additional clerks needed to process their work. I come to you today to ask you for the ability to support these jurists. We need 12 new court clerks. There are 133 judges total. However, we service 86. Today, eight more came over from the 78 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. civil. That means there are 94 sitting judges today. But, remember, there are eight more coming after election. So eight more, 86 plus 8, plus six will give you 100. We have 80 clerks, 80 clerks working these courtrooms. So if you do the math, you know it's not enough. There is no room for no one to take a sick day. There's no room for no 11 one to take a vacation day. I mean, it's just so unfair. And if you look to my right, this is the volume of work that each clerk do on a daily basis. In these files, there are numerous cases. This is just not one case. There are numerous cases in this file. So think about what's happening with the judge as opposed to our clerks. I say it's inhuman. Right now there are courtrooms where I must assign two clerks to handle the paperwork generated by certain judges. There are four courtrooms where we need two clerks. So you also add that 79 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. to your numbers. These clerks --
I hate to interrupt you. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think you should state why we need two clerks in some courtrooms.
Yes. My name is Robin Jones. I'm the First Deputy of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. We presented a packet today, and in that packet you'll see that we've given you a breakdown of every courtroom that we staff in the Criminal Justice Center, and the particular rooms that we are identifying two clerks are in there. If you would like to look through it at the moment, we can, or you can do it later. I don't know if you have time. If you look at , it 80 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. speaks to the prison where we need two clerks in that particular place, where it talks about bench warrants. There's 80 cases daily. Also, if you turn to 5, you'll see Courtroom 501, which is motion, traffic violations, probation, average of 110 cases.
They aren't? In the back of the book -- I'm sorry. After the address and after the numbers, it says at the top the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and it has the courtroom breakdown right after the budget numbers. It's in the very back, the last packet that's presented. You see them at the very bottom, , 5. We thought it would be best to give you the detail of each courtroom and what happens in that courtroom, why we need the additional clerks. In most of the rooms, you're going to see that there's one, but in those two pages, you see the 81 4/18/07 - WHOLE - BILL 070114, ETC. two. If that answers your question, President.
I thought it should be explained for the record. Thank you.