April 22, 2005

In attendance: Lessie Penn, Rich Schiliro, Mary Fleetwood, Alma Mills, Melvin Magwood, Joe Board, Phyllis Mann, Laura Whitlock, Sandy Williams, Officer Lucas, Kim Peterson, Krista Newman, Holly Ventura, John Schutt, Sharon Williams, Beth McInem, Elizabeth Adams, Donald Lanier, Beth DeHart

Chairperson, Lessie Penn, called the meeting to order.

Beth DeHart provided an overview of the IOLTA grant tasks that need some attention. She explained that one of the items at issue was the development of the website. She introduced the possibility of the Association contracting with Donald Lanier as the webmaster and provided some background about his experience with website design and maintenance. Mr. Lanier discussed with the group some research he had completed regarding available web space and cost. He then gave an overview of some of his ideas about how the website could e set up. Rich Schiliro made a motion to develop a subcommittee to help Mr. Lanier with the website design and content. Elizabeth Adams, Lessie Penn, Rich Schiliro, Mary Fleetwood, Melvin Magwood, Kim Peterson, and Beth DeHart volunteered to serve on that subcommittee. Mary Fleetwood seconded the motion to develop the subcommittee and the motion passed with a unanimous vote.

A second motion was made by Rich Schiliro for the Association to hire Mr. Lanier as their contracted webmaster, at an approximate total cost of $2,500. Kim Peterson seconded the motion and the vote carried unanimously. The group approved primary website colors, gold and black. The suggested domain name would be www.scyouthcourts.org, if available.

There was a question about getting permission from student’s parents to use their pictures on the website. It was agreed that individual courts should get permission and keep that documentation on hand before they submit pictures to Mr. Lanier for inclusion on the website. Ms. Penn indicated that she has a standard permission form she has used, and would be willing to send a sample to members.

Ms. Williams recommended that the group decide on a back-up domain name, should www.scyouthcourts.org not be available. The recommended back-up name was www.scyouthcourtassociation.org.

Ms. Peterson asked for clarification that individual case information would not be on the website, and the group concurred.

Ms. DeHart suggested that once the web design was well underway, the brochures and other accompanying materials could begin to be developed as well. Posters and billboards were suggested.

Next, Holly Ventura and John Schutt from the University of South Carolina provided an overview of the youth court evaluation that was conducted in 2004. The purpose of the evaluation was to be to determine the average rate of recidivism among youth court respondents, and the cost effectiveness of the program. In consideration of cost effectiveness, there were difficulties in determining how to compare respondents with offenders who go through family court, as there is a substantial variable in the potential cost inflation should those offenders eventually become incarcerated. So, the evaluators decided to ignore that variable totally. Thus, when comparing the cost per child to go through youth court versus family court, there is a net savings per child of $166.00. The potential cost savings for avoiding family court without DJJ incarceration is $300 per child.

The average operating cost of a youth court in SC is $22,262. However, it was noted several times, that there is great variability in youth courts across the state, and this contributed to some substantial difficulty in finding reasonable comparisons among courts. There were ultimately 21 courts represented in the study.

There were a couple of strong recommendations from the evaluation: 1) Courts should follow respondents for at least 12 months after sanction completion to get a better idea of true recidivism rates; 2) a more consistent definition of recidivism needs to be determined across the state; and 3) the state should adopt a uniform way of gathering data on offenders referred to youth court.

It was noted that it would be helpful to have youth court coded as a diversion option in the DJJ records system to better track youth when they move around the state. It was mentioned that we may also want to consider including a youth court code in the SC Department of Education SASI system, and there was some positive and negative discussion about that option.

Family court judges may be a good ally in trying to get youth courts included in the DJJ tracking system. Either way, there was substantial discussion about the importance of better tracking of respondents.

Ms. Ventura explained a little about how the evaluation data was gathered: surveys, interviews, and site visits. Some volunteers were interviewed, and a few respondents were also interviewed.

From the data, it was noted that the average training for youth volunteers was 11 days/year. On average, adjudication of a respondent through youth court was 44 days, and their sanction period was on average 60 days. Average age of respondents: 14.5 years; 56% of respondents were male; 57% of volunteers were female; 62.5 % of respondents were minorities; 59% of volunteers were minorities; youth courts heard an average of 81.95 cases/year; the majority of cases were moderately severe, and the majority of sanctions were moderately severe; 90% of respondents completed their sanctions; the average number of cases courts have heard since their inception was 336; average recidivism rate was 5.5% (for the time they were tracked.)

There were identified factors that influenced the recidivism rate:

Sanction Completion

1) If the youth court trial was held at an actual court house, respondents tended to complete their sanctions more predictably.

2) Respondents tended to complete their sanctions more predictably if the youth court in which they participated was a peer jury, youth tribunal, or youth judge model.

3) Respondents tended to complete their sanctions more predictably if the youth court had sanctioning authority by the solicitor.

General items of note from the evaluation:

1) Youth courts that served minority populations tended to have better recidivism rates. This could be tied to the fact that courts that had higher concentrations of minority volunteers served populations with higher concentrations of minority respondents.

2) The longer the court operates, the higher the recidivism rates. This was possibly explained by the possibility that older courts have better tracking mechanisms in place.

3) Overall community-based courts have better recidivism rates than school based courts.

*** It was noted that as of right now, DJJ does not have a recent rate of recidivism, and thus, there is no good basis for comparison to DJJ recidivism rates for now. They will likely have that calculation within about six months.

The overall impression of the program from the evaluation was that youth court is a very viable option for first time, non-violent offenses, and even for truancy cases, and other kinds of criminal and school offenses.

It was recommended that a second study be conducted after the recommendations are implemented that should measure youth volunteer training, tracking mechanisms for respondents, formalization benefit of record keeping, and impact on youth volunteers.

The group took a break for lunch at this time.

When the group reconvened, it was recommended that the Association consider beginning to move the meetings across the state, to the different regions represented by the membership. The group agreed to do this. Krista Newman offered to host the meeting for the Pee Dee region when the meeting rotation brought it to the Pee Dee. Judge Board agreed to talk with representatives from the Greenville courts to see if they would host the next meeting.

Elizabeth Adams then presented Rich Schiliro a thank you gift for his time serving the Mount Pleasant Youth Court as their Coordinator, and the SCYCA as Chairperson for two years.

There was some discussion of the benefit of courts hosting trainings for multiple courts at once to allow students to meet with each other and discuss their different courts.

Ms. Penn then gave an overview of the national meeting of Youth Court Association representatives that she and Mr. Lanier attended. One main activity to start promoting is a national “Justice Bowl” scheduled for February 14-28. This will be a fundraising event that all courts are invited to participate in, and each court will keep its own proceeds. The national youth court center will be providing promotional support for the events. It was mentioned that courts that receive OJJDP money are not allowed to conduct fund raising events, and Ms. Whitlock was asked to check and see if an exception could be made for the Justice Bowl.

Ms. DeHart then gave an overview of the activities that need to be addressed per the 2005 IOLTA grant application. Ms. Penn recommended that as each activity gets underway, Ms. DeHart keep the entire group informed of needed assistance, etc. After each SCYCA member gets comfortable with particular projects, work groups could be formed at that time.

It was noted that one Alaska Senator secured one million dollars to support the youth courts in their state. The group talked some about potentially soliciting support from our legislature for our program, and the pros and cons of that. Should the group decide to solicit state funds, it was agreed that a strategy for use of the money be determined prior to soliciting the funds. It was noted that there are several other states whose youth courts have legislative and budgetary support. Mr. JJ Gentry might be a good ally when/if the group decides to solicit state dollars for youth courts. Ms. Penn asked Mr. Board to begin gathering information on how it might be possible to tack on a fine to traffic tickets or other fines that would go to support youth courts. Other ideas for fund raisers were mentioned including radio PSAs, a booth at local festivals, collection of ink cartridges, Bi-Lo/Publix cards, golf ball drops, or box top collection.

The idea of developing a standardized “Youth Court Bar Exam” was mentioned again and it was agreed that the group would look collectively at the Mt. Pleasant Bar Exam and begin discussing how it may be modified to fit the needs of all SC youth courts.

The rotation of meetings was mentioned again, and it was agreed that the next meeting would be held in Greenville, pending those courts’ consent. Ms. DeHart mentioned the idea of holding evening meetings to allow for more people to attend, but the group thought daytime meetings would be better. It was mentioned that Allen Rosenfeld from Ridgeview High School had indicated he could not come during the day since he teaches. Ms. Penn suggested that the SCYCA offer to pay for his substitute for the day if his school would allow him to come.

It was mentioned that a survey might be a good idea to find out what the SCYCA could do to encourage participation among all SC youth courts. Ms. Penn agreed to draft the survey, and it would include the following questions at least: 1) What agenda items would you like to see at every meeting? 2) What barriers to attending meetings do you face? The survey would be very short, and would be emailed to members and non-members.

Ms. DeHart mentioned the fact that many meeting attendees cannot stay for the meeting after lunchtime, so she suggested the group move to every-other-month meetings, from 10:00 – 12:00. The group agreed that this might be a good solution, and would try the new schedule starting in July.

The group agreed to call a special meeting in June to help Ms. Newman with the tasks necessary to get the newly-funded Kershaw youth court underway. Mark Davis from Beaufort has also indicated interest in starting a youth court, and he could also be invited.

Ms. Fleetwood mentioned that her grant funding for the Allendale youth court would be ending soon and her community has not indicated their willingness to pick up the project. Therefore, she suggested that she would most likely resign her position as secretary when her grant ends, and the SCYCA would need to elect a new secretary.

The meeting was adjourned by Ms. Penn.