Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2023-10-09 Item 4 - Presentation - Annual State of the Court AddressOUTREACH `� ° OPERATIONS a 1 � 111111 IF, 4 eiR Irak TUKWILA MUNICIPAL COURT w'0412022/23 STATE OF THE COURT CASES FILED 5100 (+]0Ojo) HEARINGS HELD 6125 (+11%) • CASES FILED 3483 • Several hearing options • Fine considerations • Drug possession- unconstitutional • Convictions qualify to be vacated • Money paid may be reimbursed i AIM I ;#" 4 MI I1 t' 1 Eligibility = case scheduled Court's motion - vacate convictions • Order refunds Approximately 1150 cases State funds local work LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE OPERATIONS • COURTROOM • COURT RECEPTION • JURY MANAGEMENT • CASESCH[DUUNG • LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (LFO) • 40 different languages • 45Ocases • State reimbursement • Local forms 00 WEEKLY LFO CALENDARS tukwila_court STRUGGLING TO P COURT FINES/COS Relief may be available! Contact the court for reconsideration, reduction, extended payments, community service, & other options setting people up foruccess 120 NEW CASES ADDED $216K COLLECTED $1,900 Collected by Tukwila in UP Program fees $8,245 Collected by Tukwila in past LFO's Nessa nil King County Universal Payment Program em■gyaq ur 143 reed setting people up for success WHITE PAPER Dr. Alexes Harris University of Washington, Professor of Sociology Author: A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as 1,II 0 King County Universal Payment Program srn�ng you uv tnwerxed JAIL LIERNATIVE CO "OR : tIICES • CASE MANAGEMENT • JAIL ALTERNATIVES • DV MRT • RESOURCE CENTER DV M RT RESOURCES JAIL ALTERNATIVES ACCOUNTABILITY & PROPORTIONALITY Remote alcohol detection Electronic home monitoring (EHM) GPS - Defendant location monitoring 180K+ SAVINGS 1 AI 1 II_ 401111 DVMRT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MORAL RECONATION THERAPY • Affordable • In demand -14 jurisdictions • 58 graduates • It works! "Where basic human needs and the well-being of , people are priorities, rather than after thoughts" - Mindy Breiner, Court Support Services Manager Referrals • Community connections • Emergency supplies TUKWILA JUSTICE CENTER COMMUNITY UTREACH 15005 '1500 5 HEALTH FAIR C4K et_ 1.1 71 LEADERSHIP LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS • EDUCATIO urviva essentia s • Treatment providers • Benefits assistance • COVID vaccines • Basic health check • Civil legal aid • Driver licensing/Commuter he r 11 • DOC reporting • Job search/resources • Peer mentors COURT FOR KIDS - C4K Mock tria • Tours • Presentations • Externships • Community service • Local partnerships a = MMEsk.. adership roles Committee memberships • Courts Helping Courts • Race equity • Academy planning/1216ga hi Hails... Training the Guardians of Democracy. 141. - 1-7 - =- T. . - THE AWARD FOR "DISTINGUISHED SERVICE" GOES TO... ruKwILA MUNICIPAL COURT iFLP White Paper The United Payment (UP) Program and Washington State Drivers' License Suspension Laws Prepared by Tyler Smith and Alexes Harris September 9th, 2023 University of Washington 21 Executive Summary In 2017, the Tukwila Municipal Court in Washington state (a small urban city located south of Seattle) developed the "Unified Payment Program" for individuals with outstanding legal debt related to non -criminal traffic offenses. This program developed three sets of reforms for people carrying penal debt. First, it centralized information and payments across jurisdictions within a unified payment system. Second, it allowed individuals to reverse the consequences of non-payment. By participating in the program, individuals have their legal debts removed from collections and their driver's licenses reinstated. Finally, it established a realistic payment plan with a minimum monthly payment as low as $25 a month. The payments are then applied equally across all outstanding tickets, allowing individuals to pay off all of their cases at once. This paper summarizes research conducted to explore the current status and impact of the UP program. Since one of the key concerns of the UP program is to help individuals reinstate their driver's licenses, our report reviews current and previous Washington state laws regarding driver's license suspensions related to non-payment of traffic citations. A new law went into effect in January 2023 that eliminated suspensions for non-payment of monetary sanctions. These changes to the law open up new questions about the current status of driver's licenses for program participants. We then examine the characteristics of UP participants between 2020-2023 to assess their demographic, program status, and payment information. Following this, we highlight emergent themes from a sample of interviews conducted with thirty UP participants to better understand their experiences with legal debt, the impact of losing their driver's license, and their involvement with the UP program. Many described living in a cycle of debt where their inability to afford payments led to them losing their ability to drive, which made it difficult to earn a reliable income. Some noted that they chose to drive even with a suspended driver's license because of the need to work or fulfill other important obligations. A common issue raised in interviews was the difficulty in getting information about how much they owed, to what jurisdictions they owed, and why their license had been suspended. For most interviewed, they felt the UP program was immensely helpful and addressed many of these issues. They cited key benefits of the program such as the centralized online portal, a realistic minimum monthly payment amount, and assistance in license reinstatement. Those interviewed felt that the program helped them move forward in their lives in a productive way. We end our report with suggestions on how the UP program can be improved according to our interviewees. We believe that the testimonies and suggestions of actual participants demonstrates the importance of the UP program and provides a set of considerations for program administrators and state policy makers for expanding and innovating upon it. 22 I. Unified Payment (UP) Program Description The Unified Payment (UP) Program' was established in 2017 within Tukwila municipal court2 to provide a centralized location for individuals to pay court -ordered fines across court jurisdictions in King County, Washington. The program originated as a collaborative effort between the district and municipal courts in King County. The program has since expanded to include several courts outside of King County and currently covers cases from 35 different cities and municipalities in Washington State. To be eligible for the program, individuals must have outstanding debt related to non -criminal traffic citations in one or more participating courts and have no outstanding bench warrants.' Individuals who apply for the program can have their non -criminal traffic fines from participating jurisdictions consolidated into a single payment system. Individuals must pay a $35 application fee to enroll in the program. Once enrolled in the program, UP administrators enter outstanding tickets into the system and participants can see the amounts owed for each of their tickets through the program's online portal. Participating courts and the Department of Licensing are then notified that the tickets have been entered into the program. This triggers courts to pull any tickets that are currently being held by private collection companies and the DOL to remove driver's license holds related to non-payment of these tickets. As long as the participant continues to make their regular minimum payment to the UP program, they will remain eligible for their driver's license. Participants in the program are put on a monthly payment plan, with a minimum payment of $25, although participants may choose to pay as much as they want in a given month. From these payments, $7 is taken as a program fee and the remaining balance of the payment is split up and applied equally to all of the individual's open cases. Participants who miss their monthly payments are given a 60 day grace period to restart payments. If they do not make a payment within 60 days of a missed payment, they are considered in default of the program. They must then pay a $100 reinstatement fee to re -enroll. After three defaults, individuals are revoked from the program and must make a special request to the judge in order to be reinstated. The UP program is unique in many ways from other relicensing programs in the state by offering the ability to address multiple tickets across different courts in one central location. The cross jurisdictional nature of the program helps individuals get full information on where their tickets are located and how much they owe across them. It is also unique in allowing individuals to address consequences for non-payment (such as driver's license suspensions) across multiple court systems at once. Finally, it offers a centralized place to begin payments on legal debts with a relatively low monthly payment amount. 1 https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/municipal-court/unified-payment-program/. It is important to note that the program was envisioned, designed and has been advocated for by Judicial Branch Administrator, Trish Kinlow, within the Tukwila Municipal Court. We thank Ms. Kinlow for her support of this research and the insight she has shared. z Located within the city of Tukwila in King County, Washington. 3 It is up to each individual jurisdiction whether to enter into a cooperative agreement with the UP program. 4 23 VI. Recommendations and Improvements Clear policy recommendations emerged from the examination of the UP program in response to the questions: "How could the program be improved?" and "What might help you moving forward?" Four key themes emerged from those interviewed. These recommendations include (1) making UP statewide, (2) increasing awareness of the program for others to participate, (3) developing a more robust notification system for upcoming payment dates, and (4) reducing default penalties. Make UP Statewide The primary recommendation made by our interviewees was to make the UP program statewide. While participants were grateful for being able to centralize their tickets from the King County metro area, many of them told us that they had tickets outside of participating counties. This often meant that even though they signed up for a gradual payment plan through the UP program, they still had to pay large lump sums to other courts in order to reinstate their driver's licenses. This often led to confusion over the process that individuals had to go through. Although inaccurate, some participants were told by jurisdictions not in the UP system that they would have to "pay off" their debts to these courts prior to enrolling in the UP program.16 Some individuals were also unsure whether they still had other outstanding debts in non -participating counties. As one participant said, "If there were more courts that were involved in it, it would've made it a lot easier, a lot less stressful. I don't know why the courts wouldn't want to be a part of it." Our recommendation would be to make the UP program a state -funded system in which all state, county, and municipal courts would be required to participate. By centralizing the payment of court ordered fines and fees, individuals within the system would be able to easily know what their outstanding tickets are, how much they owed, and how much they would be required to pay each month. Furthermore, we believe that this centralization would greatly benefit the courts themselves by increasing the amounts of monetary sanctions actually paid. As we have discussed, the main barriers for paying monetary sanctions are the inability to pay large lump sums or large monthly payments and difficulty in getting information about citations. The UP program helps to alleviate both of these issues. This kind of system should be made available to all drivers in Washington State regardless of which court holds their tickets. Increase Awareness of UP Program Another key recommendation would be to increase the awareness of the program. Many respondents told us that they wished they had learned of the program sooner or through a more formal route. As one respondent told us, "It should be a little bit widely known for people though. That's the only thing I think should be. Because if I knew about that a long time ago, I would have done it and paid everything when I had it." 16 This demonstrates the confusion created by having separate and disjointed systems. It appears that some actors in other jurisdictions are not aware of the requirements for joining the UP program and misinformed potential participants. 22 24 Individuals heard about the program from a variety of sources including friends or family who were involved with the program, various court personnel, internet searches, and even police at the county jail. Several individuals told us that they wished that information about the program had been provided to them as they interacted with the legal system, either when receiving their tickets or during court appearances. Such formalization would go a long way towards informing people of their options for centralizing the payment of their tickets. This would involve outreach and education for participating court systems. Making court officials more aware of the program and its requirements would allow them to pass this information to the court -involved individuals that they interact with. Court clerks should have pamphlets and flyers at all of their collection windows notifying people of the program. Ideally, a more formalized information -giving process could be established in which individuals are provided UP program information during the course of police or court interaction. Of course, mandating the program to be state-wide would alleviate the need for such outreach. However, while the UP program remains a voluntary program, increased awareness of the program will be vital to its overall success. Payment Reminders Another key recommendation is to improve the infrastructure around payment notifications and reminders. Participants told us that they would often forget when their payments were due and would only receive notifications for missed payments. The suggestion would be to provide more frequent and robust reminders to participants as their payment date approached. An effective system would likely use a variety of communication avenues, including email and text notifications. As one participant described their difficulty in timing payments, "On the payment reminder- like a text to be sent out. Because it was hard for me to remember what day it was that I had to pay because it changed days every single month because of the way the days went... Yeah, because it was like the third day or the third Friday every month, and then it would be the fourth because there's four weeks in a month and all that." A few users even suggested developing an app that would allow individuals to see their case information, set up payments, and be provided with push notifications directly on their phone. One person described it being difficult to find the exact website for the program and that being in the program would be easier if they could use an app to manage their participation. Reinstatement Fee One related, and relatively common, complaint was regarding missed payments. Individuals who had defaulted on their missed payments felt that the reinstatement fee of $100 associated with default was too high. While they understood the need for a penalty, they told us that the steep price for reinstatement was preventing them from re-entering the program. One participant expressed their sense of unfairness in the process, especially given their previous consistency in payments: "If you skip a whole month and the next one you go like, 'Oh my God. I forgot to pay, ' you're inactive. You got to pay $100 just to get back in the program. Just for missing a payment of $27... I feel like it's an unfair process... We're trying to get back on our feet. We're trying to do everything we can. So because we missed a month, maybe look at our track record- has this 23 25 person been paying this whole time and they just had an accident or just they forgot? And now we're going to kick them out and we're going to turn around and say, `Okay. Well we need another $100. '" Some indicated they would like a longer grace period prior to having to pay the re -enrollment fee. Individuals told us that they had mitigating circumstances that impacted their ability to pay for a few months, and that it was unfair to be kicked out because of these issues. They wished that court officials had more discretion in allowing them to stay on the program without paying the reinstatement fee if they were able to demonstrate hardship or if they had a previously good record of payment: "There was a month there I was delinquent and I had to pay $100 to reapply or something, or re -enroll. So that was really annoying only because there was some hardship going on at that time and homelessness and stuff. And what made me upset is that nobody ever contacted me by phone and the only thing they sent me was an email giving me a warning that my account was going to be in delinquent. And I didn't have a phone for almost a month at that time, so I told them." Of course, we recognize the importance of balancing leniency with accountability. Program administrators told us that previous experiences in the program had demonstrated the need for some kind of accountability mechanism. Thus, program administrators told us that they felt like a consequence for dropping out was necessary. Regardless, we share the testimonies of participants to show how participants feel about these reinstatement policies. We hope that doing so will help the program achieve a balance between program and participant needs. 24 26 2021-2022 Judicial Officer Survey for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction King County Bar Association Every four years, a survey is conducted of attorneys practicing in the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. The survey provides information to the public prior to elections by presenting assessments of judicial officers so voters and appointment authorities may make informed decisions by considering the assessments of the lawyers who practice before these judges. The survey includes the 60 judges from the King County District Courts, Seattle Municipal Court, and all the King County Municipal Courts. Specifically, attorneys were asked to rate judges using the following scale: 5 - Excellent, 4 - Very good, 3 - Acceptable, 2 - Below expectations, and 1- Unacceptable. The five categories are: 1. Virtual Appearances • Understands the issues before them to provide a clear ruling consistent with the facts and law, • Treats all individuals equally without bias based on race, gender, or any extralegal personal characteristic, • Pays attention to the proceedings, • Maintains control of the courtroom, 2. Legal Decision Making • Preparedness for court, • Ability to capably identify and analyze legal and factual issues, • Ability to capably apply rules of evidence and procedure, • Ability to articulate rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner, • Ability to base their rulings on the facts and the law, 3. Integrity and Impartiality • Displays a neutral presence on the bench, • Avoids impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, • Treats all people equally without bias based on race, gender, or any other extralegal personal characteristic, • Displays sensitivity towards the individuals before them who are members of communities that have historically faced discrimination, • Improves access to justice and works to eliminate bias within their courtroom for persons of all backgrounds and life experiences in a culturally competent and trauma -responsive manner (ex: utilizing remote appearances, flexibility on hearing times, identifying, and resolving language and communication barriers, providing resources for obtaining legal help, accommodating participants with physical or cognitive disabilities), 4. Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication • Treats people with courtesy and respect, • Pays attention to the proceedings, • Acts with patience and self-control, • Uses clear and logical communication while in court, 5. Administrative Skills • Maintains control of the courtroom, • Appropriately manages cases and enforces court rules and deadlines, • Is prompt and timely in making decisions and rulings, • Uses the court's time efficiently, 27 Judge Kimberly Walden, Tukwila Municipal Court Virtual Appearances Legal Decision Making Integrity and Impartiality Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Administrative Skills 4.13 4.77 3.91 4.8 4.04 4.81 4.09 4.82 4.06 4.82 0 1 2 3 4 Overall Survey Average • Walden Score Additionally, Judge Walden's individual scores were the highest amongst all judges in every category published. Anonymous comments by attorney evaluators submitted to the survey and not previously made available to the public: • Kim is a model judge that everyone can learn from • Probably the best judge I have ever been in front of • Sometimes more concerned about form than substance which bothers me. Overall, a good judge • Judge Walden is incredibly good at interacting with defendants. She always appears calm and prepared for every case. She provides defendants and counsel with resources and individualized attention that sets them up for success. 28