THE NEW REALITY · • Resume outreach to limited-English proficient communities in San Francisco; and • Reduce the backlog of hearings in Probate for elderly and disabled adults

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT

THE NEW REALITY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BIENNIAL REPORT FISCAL YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13

2 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WELCOMEPresiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee.......................................................................4

INTRODUCTIONCourt Executive Officer T. Michael Yuen.....................................................................6

JUDGES ...................................................................................................................8

COMMISSIONER/HEARING OFFICERS ....................................................... 11

GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................... 12

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................................................. 14

FACILITIES ........................................................................................................... 16

IN THE SPOTLIGHT - FEATURESCollaborative Courts ........................................................................................................ 18Electronic Information Management ......................................................................... 28Realignment ....................................................................................................................... 29Mandatory Settlement Conference ........................................................................... 30

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT .......................................... 33

TRIALS & TRIBULATIONS - CUTSBudget at a Glance .......................................................................................................... 34Impact of State Budget Cuts ....................................................................................... 35

ACCESS .................................................................................................................36

ADMINISTRATIONExecutive ............................................................................................................................ 38Fiscal Services .................................................................................................................. 38Administrative Services Division ................................................................................ 39Managing Attorney ..........................................................................................................40 Jury Services ......................................................................................................................41Human Resources ............................................................................................................ 42Information Technology Group ................................................................................... 43Communications ..............................................................................................................44

CIVIL OPERATIONMaster Calender ............................................................................................................... 45e-Filing ................................................................................................................................. 47Probate ................................................................................................................................50

CRIMINAL OPERATIONMaster Misdemeanor Department .............................................................................. 52Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 53Court Reporters ............................................................................................................... 53Interpreters ........................................................................................................................ 54Comprehensive Collections Unit ................................................................................ 54

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTFamily Court Services .................................................................................................... 55Juvenile Dependency ......................................................................................................57Juvenile Delinquency...................................................................................................... 58Juvenile Traffic .................................................................................................................. 58

STATISTICSCourt Filings ..................................................................................................................... 60Court Dispositions ........................................................................................................... 61

Dependency Attorneys discuss cases on the 4th floor of the Civic Center Courthouse.

4 5SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT

These have been dismal years for those of us working to preserve access to justice in San Francisco. Shuttered courtrooms; long lines to get a court date or file case documents; staff layoffs – these are the enduring impacts after the Court has absorbed $22.3 million in state budget cuts since 2008.

The economic challenges show no signs of abating. Under a new trial court funding methodology that took effect in 2013, San Francisco is essentially a “donor” court – that while underfunded – forfeits money to more severely underfunded courts. In the current fiscal year, the formula reduced the Court’s funding by $1.5 million – and projections indicate that the Court will lose a total of $7.8 million through 2018. What makes this new formula and its ultimate outcome even more difficult to manage is the simultaneous prohibition in state law that forbids trial courts – effective June 30, 2014 – from saving more than 1 percent of their operating budgets in reserve. In San Francisco, we are allowed to bank just $760,000 – which is not even enough to cover one payroll for employees. This ill-conceived requirement has led Court leaders to use part of our $12 million fund balance to cover one-time costs. For example, judicial leaders have designated reserve funds to pay for future retiree healthcare.

The challenge for our Court is to achieve efficient practices and leverage our resources innovatively and creatively to deliver justice – without sacrificing the Court’s mission. We aim to achieve better service for the public and greater efficiency in operations through technology upgrades. The Court has mandatory e-Filing in Asbestos and Complex Litigation, and in July 2013, we extended e-Filing to Probate Trust cases. The expansion of e-Filing – which is one of my chief priorities – is part of the Court’s Electronic Information Management (EIM) project. We also are researching the purchase of new technology products to replace antiquated traffic and criminal case management systems.

Amid the protracted period of austerity, there has been some good news. With $400,000 the Court received as a result of a $60 million statewide restoration to trial courts in the current fiscal year, we restored access to justice to the most vulnerable San Franciscans – foster children, elders and self-represented litigants, many of whom are not English speakers. Specifically, the Court re-opened – on a part-time basis – a second dependency department that had closed in 2011; rehired a Probate examiner to assist elderly clients with conservatorships and guardianships; and rehired a Spanish-speaking staff attorney in the ACCESS center, which allowed the Court to restore previously suspended services for self-represented litigants seeking help with second-parent adoptions, guardianships and conservatorships of the person, small claims, and family law cases.

The restored state funds were used to:

• Ensure timely Dependency hearings to reduce delays in decision-making issues that deeply affect the lives of children who rely on permanency and stability;

• Restore services to self-represented litigants seeking help with guardianships of the person; conservatorships of the person; small claims; second-parent adoptions, family law, and other matters;

WELCOME

OVERCOMING ADVERSITY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD

• Resume outreach to limited-English proficient communities in San Francisco; and

• Reduce the backlog of hearings in Probate for elderly and disabled adults who need Court decisions affecting issues of housing and personal care.

With budget cuts causing upheaval and historic changes in the court system, collaboration and creativity have combined to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges. As the Presiding Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court, one of my core goals since my 2-year term began in January 2013 was to work with City and federal partners to open a pilot Veterans Justice Court (VJC) to serve the influx of veterans returning home from Afghanistan. With the help of resources from the San Francisco VA Medical Center, we were able to leverage our existing collaborative structure at the Community Justice Center in the Tenderloin to hold a one-calendar-per-week pilot program for veterans facing non-violent criminal charges. Since its launch in March 2013, the VJC has served 76 veterans without costing the Court a penny. It is my goal to expand the VJC to a full-fledged, standalone Court able to serve San Francisco veterans from more areas of the City.

Teamwork, collaboration and support for one another have proven essential to persevere. We are fortunate in San Francisco to have proactive, creative attorneys to partner with for the benefit of San Franciscans. Likewise, the San Francisco Bench is filled with talented, energetic, smart Judges with diverse backgrounds. I am proud to call them colleagues, and I thank them for their support, strength and leadership.

In some ways, this cascade of change holds great promise. Notably, there is a new generation of Judges thriving among our legion of older, experienced judicial leaders. In the past six years, the Bench has seen an influx of 16 new Judges, and two vacancies remain – a number which could increase at any time given the potential for retirements of veteran judicial officers.

In an institution historically resistant to change, Judges and staff have proven their resiliency and ability to overcome daunting challenges together. While the state budget forecast is not as bleak as six years ago, there is no doubt that adversity will remain constant for trial courts.

This is The New Reality.

Cynthia Ming-mei LeePresiding Judge

Cynthia Ming-mei LeePresiding Judge


Before I assumed the duties as Court Executive Officer in August 2010, I served as the Court’s Chief Financial Officer, and as a result, I have been immersed in the budget crisis that has gripped our Court since 2008. While the crisis has abated, the damage has been done. Many challenges – known and unknown – remain for California’s 58 trial courts.

The Great Recession led to a judicial branch meltdown after Sacramento siphoned $1.1 billion from the world’s largest state court system. In San Francisco, the impacts have been dramatic and historic. Here is a look by the numbers:

• $22.3 million reduction in state funding in five years

• $7.8 million additional cut between FY 2013-14 – FY 2017-18 under a new trial court funding formula

• 69 staff laid off in October 2011, including Commissioners, Court Reporters, Staff Attorneys, Clerks, etc.

• 11 Civil courtrooms closed

• 1 hour daily reduction in clerks’ office hours, routinely causing lengthy lines

• 2 self-help centers (one for family law; one for other civil cases) merged into one center serving all unrepresented litigants

• 591 authorized non-judicial employees reduced to 450 employees

• 3 football fields – civil filings not yet placed in file folders would cover this space at the height of the backlog due to staff shortages

Given the magnitude of these changes, the Court operates today in an environment of austerity that I refer to as “The New Reality.” It is unlikely that the Court will be restored to its pre-Great Recession funding and staff levels. Employees generally recognize that significant trial court funding restorations are unlikely. The public has been forced to adjust to waiting in long lines. They have come to expect delays in civil case resolution.

Despite these challenges, we will not waiver from our mission to “assure equal access, fair treatment, and the just and efficient resolution of disputes for all people asserting their rights under the law.” However, the budget crisis has forced us to change how we work to save money and time to improve service to the public. One way we are accomplishing this goal is through the use of technology, including a civil e-Filing expansion project to reduce staff, document storage and paper costs.

In the following pages, you will find more examples of ways the Court is seeking to save money through more efficient court operations and technology solutions. I am extremely proud of the resilience and dedication of staff during these turbulent times. It has been difficult and painful. But as we forge ahead, it is important to chronicle

HISTORIC JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET CUTS AND THE NEW REALITY FOR TRIAL COURTS

T. Michael YuenCourt Executive Officer

INTRODUCTION

the changes stemming from this crisis because it will continue to impact and shape the Court for years to come. The New Reality means that we must be creative and focused on delivery of core mandated services to San Franciscans.

T. Michael YuenCourt Executive Officer

“Given the magnitude of these changes, the Court operates today in an environment of austerity that I refer to as “The New Reality.”

−T. Michael Yuen

Court Executive Officer, T. Michael Yuen speaks at the National Adoption Day celebration in the Unified Family Court.


JUDGES

Ron Albers Ernest H. Goldsmith

Curtis E.A. Karnow Kathleen Kelly

Charlene Padovani Kiesselbach

Newton Lam

Charles F. Haines

Teri L. Jackson Harold E. KahnTracie L. Brown

Linda H. Colfax

Harry M. Dorfman Rochelle C. East

Samuel K. Feng Loretta Giorgi

John E. Munter Ronald Evans Quidachay

James P. Collins Brendan P. Conroy

Gail DekreonNancy L. Davis

Cynthia Ming-mei Lee Anne-Christine Massullo

James J. McBride Marla J. Miller

Peter J. Busch Bruce E. Chan

Andrew Y.S. Cheng

Michael I. Begert Suzanne Ramos Bolanos Angela Bradstreet

Susan M. Breall


COMMISSIONER/HEARING OFFICERS

Gerardo Sandoval

Donald J. Sullivan

Mary E. Wiss

Abby AbinantiHearing Officer

Garrett L. Wong

Cheryl FrankHearing Officer

Braden Woods

Rebecca WightmanCommissioner

Charlotte Walter Woolard

Kay Tsenin

Julie Tang

Richard B. Ulmer Jr. Monica F. Wiley

Ethan P. Schulman

Lillian K. Sing John K. Stewart

JUDGES

Jeffrey S. Ross

NOT PICTURED:Richard A. KramerDonald MitchellCarol Yaggy

NOT PICTURED:

Catherine LyonsHearing Officer

Julian SapirsteinHearing Officer

A. James Robertson II

12 SAN FRANCISCO 13SUPERIOR COURT

GOVERNANCE

WORKING TOGETHER TO SERVE THE PUBLIC

JudicialThe Judges are “responsible both for discharging their judicial duties in individual decision-making and for all aspects of the administration of justice including governance of the Court,” according to the Court’s Governance Policy. The Bench is comprised of 52 Judges, but it is common to have multiple vacancies due to retirements.

Presiding Judge2-Year Term(Elected by the Full Bench)The Presiding Judge serves as the Chair of the Executive Committee and exercises all of the authority and duties specified in California Rules of Court, rule 10.603.

Assistant Presiding Judge 2-Year Term

(Elected by the Full Bench)

Executive CommitteeThe Executive Committee serves as a board of directors for the Court. It is comprised of 11 voting Judge members:

Presiding Judge

Assistant Presiding Judge

Immediate Past Presiding Judge

Supervising Judge, Criminal

Supervising Judge, Unified Family Court

Chair of the Personnel Committee

Five At-Large Judges(Elected by the Full Bench)

Administration

Court Executive OfficerThe CEO is the chief executive of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, who is responsible for managing approximately 450 employees, overseeing a $76 million budget and implementing Court policies and procedures.(Appointed by the Bench)

Photo right: Judge Linda H. Colfax, Commissioner Rebecca Wightman, Judge Michael I. Begert and Judge Nancy L. Davis observe and wait to preside over adoption hearings in the Unified Family Court.

14 15

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

PRESIDING JUDGE

COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER52 JUDGES

1 COURT COMMISSIONER

4 HEARING OFFICERS

FISCAL SERVICES DIRECTOR1 Principal Management Analyst

2 Fiscal Services Supervisors

1 Administrative Analyst III

1 Administrative Analyst II

6 Senior Fiscal Technicians

6 Fiscal Technicians

HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR1 Principal HR Analyst

2 Senior HR Analyst

3 Personnel/Payroll Representatives

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR3 Computer Systems Managers

3 Applications Programmers

2 Applications Analysts

3 Systems Engineers II

1 Administrative Secretary

2 Deputy Court Clerk I/II

JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR3 Training Specialists

1 Training Technician

2 Business Services Technicians

1 Court Supervisor II

1 Administrative Secretary



MANAGING ATTORNEYLEGAL SERVICES/GENERAL COUNSEL3 Senior Court Staff Attorneys

1 Civil Case Settlement Specialist

9 Court Staff Attorneys I/II

17 Legal Research Assistants

2 Court Paralegals

1 Deputy Court Clerk III


COURT ADMINISTRATOR CIVIL AND FAMILY OPERATIONS3 Court Managers

1 Manager, Unified FCS

1 Director Probate

1 Representative Director, Probate

1 Court Staff Attorney I/II

7 Family Court Mediators

4 Probate Examiners

6 Probate Investigators

10 Court Supervisors II

1 Court Assistant Senior

52 Deputy Court Clerks III

96 Deputy Court Clerks I/II

COURT ADMINISTRATOR CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS4 Court Managers

1 Managing Court Reporter

41 Court Reporters

1 Court Interpreter Supervisor

6 Court Supervisors II

2 Administrative Analyst III

0.75 Administrative Analyst I

12.8 Court Interpreters

45.3 Deputy Court Clerks III

66 Deputy Court Clerks I/II

TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS DIRECTOR

The organizational structure of the San Francisco Superior Court consists of 459.35

full-time equivalent authorized non-judicial positions headed by the Court Executive

Officer (CEO). The largest segment of the Court consists of three major operations:

• Civil and Family, including the Probate Office and the Jury Office;

• Criminal and Traffic, including the Collaborative Courts and Court Reporter

and Court Interpreter Services; and

• Legal Services, including Legal Research and the Self-Help Center.

Supporting these operations of the Court and also reporting directly to the CEO

are the Administrative Directors of Fiscal Services, Human Resources, Information

Technology, Judicial and Administrative Services, and Communications.

Also included in the total position number are Subordinate Judicial Officers

who report directly to the Presiding Judge.

All numbers shown reflect full-time equivalent (FTE) authorized positions, whether filled or unfilled, as of 1/1/2014. For example, 2 half-time positions (0.5 FTE each) in the same job title and unit would show as the total of 1 FTE on this chart.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT


The Hall of Justice (HOJ) is shared by the Court, San Francisco Police Department, Adult Probation Department, District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department, the Medical Examiner’s Office, and other CCSF operations. The building also is the site of a County jail.

The Court’s HOJ operations include the Criminal courts, Criminal Clerk’s office, Traffic courts, Traffic Clerk’s Office, Behavioral Health Court, Drug Court, Jury Assembly Room, Information Technology Group, and the Community Justice Center’s in-custody defendants.

Court space in the 850 Bryant St. building is confined to the first three floors. The building is more than 50 years old and does not comply with seismic safety standards. Physical safety standards are inadequate, requiring Judges and staff to co-mingle with in-custody defendants in the same hallways. The building also has a bevy of structural and mechanical issues. The HOJ has outgrown its useful life span and is in dire need of replacement.

The Court has coped repeatedly with flooding of courtrooms and Judges’ chambers caused by a failing plumbing system. Constant roof leaks with an unknown origin continue to damage the walls and carpets, leading to mold and mildew problems. Overflowing toilets and clogged pipes have led to raw sewage flowing into courtrooms and Judges’ chambers. Construction projects to remedy these problems are plagued by budget overruns because of the need for asbestos abatement in the floors, ceiling and walls of the failing structure.

Despite the urgent need for the Court to ultimately move into a new structure, facilities staff continued to make improvements to increase security and functionality for the public, staff and Judges. Security tinting was added to the windows in Judges’ chambers. Traffic Departments A and B were renovated to comply with Americans with Disability Act requirements and to create a more secure space for litigants, staff and Judges. Chambers with a more secure entry and exit were added to accommodate Traffic Judges, who previously walked through the courtroom gallery to access their offices. Industrial strength disposals were added to ensure that jail plumbing backups would not again flood court space and disrupt court operations.

FACILITIES

The 7-story Civic Center Courthouse (CCC) is comprised of 233,000 square feet and serves as the headquarters for the Court’s Civil Operations, Unified Family Court, Administration and Jury Services. There are 38 courtrooms and hearing rooms in the building, which is located at 400 McAllister St. CCC was opened in 1998 as a replacement facility for court operations, which were displaced from City Hall following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

In 2011, the Court’s reorganization led to the consolidation of the Court’s self-help services, which were located in the CCC’s Lower Level and the Polk Street Annex at 575 Polk St. The consolidated self-help center, known as ACCESS, was reopened in early 2012 in Room 509, a former courtroom also used as conference and training space.

New security and screening equipment was installed in 2012, including a new X-ray machine and metal detector. Additional security cameras were added to improve surveillance of the courthouse and its surroundings.

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE400 McAllister Street

The Community Justice Center, which includes a co-located courtroom and service center, operates in leased space at the Polk Street Annex facility, located at 555-575 Polk St.

In Spring 2013, a Veterans Justice Court pilot program was launched as part of the CJC to provide services to San Francisco veterans with involvement in the criminal justice system.

The Court’s October 2011 reorganization led to the departure of self-help operations from this facility. The space was re-designated as training and conference space.

POLK STREET ANNEX575 Polk Street

HALL OF JUSTICE850 Bryant Street

The Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) is a post-World War II structure located in Twin Peaks at 375 Woodside Ave. It is riddled with structural and mechanical problems that interfere with safe and secure Court operations.

The Court holds its Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Traffic hearings in this building. The Court shares this dilapidated space with Juvenile Probation, the Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office.

The JJC, which was formerly known as the Youth Guidance Center, is maintained by City & County of San Francisco.

JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER375 Woodside Avenue

In December 2009, the Judicial Council assumed responsibility for all court facilities statewide as a final step in the funding and unification of California’s trial courts.

18 SAN FRANCISCO 19SUPERIOR COURT

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

INTRODUCTION TO COLLABORATIVE COURTS

The San Francisco Superior Court is well-recognized nationally for its Collaborative Courts, also known as “problem-solving” courts. These voluntary court programs, the majority of which handle non-violent felony cases, are an alternative to regular criminal adjudication and work with adults, youth and families in the criminal justice system that are challenged by substance abuse, mental illness and other social welfare concerns. The goal of collaborative courts is to improve individual and family outcomes, minimize incarceration, reduce criminal recidivism and improve public safety.

Collaborative court programs are united, in part, with the goals, mission and proposed outcomes of the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (AB 109), which made significant changes to the sentencing and supervision of persons convicted of felony offenses (See page 29). By enacting realignment legislation, the Legislature shifted its emphasis from operating more prisons to supporting community-based supervision and treatment – a practice long undertaken by collaborative courts since the Court’s first Drug Court program in 1995. By definition, collaborative courts require a strong foundation of teamwork and a firm understanding of a systems approach to alternatives to incarceration. With the passage of AB109, the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) was able to build upon the prior agency partnerships developed by collaborative courts to institute more enhanced local programming. The Court’s collaborative court programs became one of the core matrixes of program options under realignment and placed even greater emphasis on the Court’s ability to monitor the most difficult cases.

In 2011, regardless of the passage of AB109 and the increased reliance and attention on collaborative courts, the budget crisis forced the Court to:

• Reduce collaborative court staff.

• Decrease some programs from meeting once per week to twice per month; and

• Elimination of several programs, including Proposition 36 and the Truancy Court, which shifted to a monthly program through the District Attorney’s office.

Despite this downturn and because of the Court’s commitment to collaborative courts, the Court opted to move forward with program expansion, with the development of two programs: the new Veterans Justice Court (VJC), which is a 1-day per week program co-located with the Community Justice Center (CJC), and the San Francisco Achievement Collaborative Team (SF-ACT), an expansion and redesign of the juvenile drug court.

Collaborative court programs, as an essential component of San Francisco’s treatment options, are the opportunity and the creative solution that contributes to enduring public safety results. In the next few years, the Court’s programs will continue to grow in accordance with legislative and cultural changes in the criminal justice community. As a result, the Court will need to re-examine its eligibility criteria, and the deepening commitment to adhere to the most current evidence-based approaches. The Court’s authority allows for the active management of offenders’ accountability and adherence to treatment, imposing not a punitive force, but a therapeutic, restorative one.

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Veterans Justice CourtWorking in partnership with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, the Court established the Veterans Justice Court (VJC) as a 1-day per week program. The program is located in the same courtroom as the CJC. Veterans returning from the current conflicts and separating from the military are incarcerated in San Francisco jails as well as federal and state correctional institutions. The Court’s objective is to provide a separate veterans calendar for participants with substance abuse and mental health disabilities. The veterans also are provided with academic, vocational, or skills improvement leading to job placement and retention.

Veteran participants who match CJC legal eligibility and clinical suitability criteria are assigned to the veterans calendar. It is similar to the program elements of other collaborative court programs: a problem-solving focus, a team approach to decision making, integration of social and treatment services, judicial supervision of the treatment process, community outreach, and direct interaction between defendants and the Judge. The court process is voluntary and may be refused by the veteran.

In operation since April 2013, the VJC received 75 total program referrals and, as of December 2013, has an active caseload of 25 clients with four successful graduates. Poised to increase in 2014, the VJC will examine the expansion of legal eligibility criteria and will pursue additional federal funding for staffing and services.

Photo left: Assistant District Attorney Judith Garvey and Deputy Public Defender Brian Pearlman join Judge Braden Woods and court staff in congratulating a veteran for his successful completion of the VJC program. Photo right: VJC participant Evan Graham and VJC graduate Richard Davis share a handshake with Judge Braden Woods in the courtroom prior to a Veteran’s Day celebration.


Behavioral Health Court (BHC)The BHC redirects seriously mentally ill adult offenders from jail to community mental health treatment services. BHC is committed to providing a seamless continuum of care beginning with in-jail services, transitional care prior to release, and early release into the community. The continuum of care concept, which is unique to San Francisco, is one of the most innovative in the country. BHC focuses on the following goals: an adherence to individual treatment needs; the re-integration of clients into the community; and the prevention of re-arrest and re-incarceration.

BHC also relies on the in-kind services of team partners including the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Adult Probation Department, and Jail Reentry Services. Using a non-adversarial approach and frequent judicial monitoring,

team members discuss participants’ treatment compliance and accountability, make clinical and legal decisions, and address policy issues that enhance performance outcomes. Treatment services are provided through the City’s General Fund and is administered by the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) Community Behavioral Health Services.

BHC Successes in FY 2011-13BHC celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2013 at the San Francisco Yacht Club with more than 150 friends, colleagues and former clients. When the program started in 2003, the Court had a modest goal of helping 10-20 people in the jail who were incarcerated for showing signs of untreated mental illness in public. Ten years later, the Court has a capacity of 140 clients and the program is a fully integrated and necessary part of the criminal justice system in San Francisco. In the past two years, BHC graduated 60 people from the program, with an average 24-month stay.

BHC has been the subject of numerous research studies and has become a leader in the movement to decriminalize mental illness, reduce violence, and spend precious mental health resources more effectively. According to the Los Angeles Times, Behavioral Health Court’s outcomes stand out as compared with other similar programs. “… San Francisco’s court served the highest proportion of participants with schizophrenia and the greatest percentage who committed crimes against people rather than property. Yet San Francisco’s program showed the greatest drop among the four courts in re-arrests compared to control groups, a 39% reduction compared to a 7% drop.” (October 25, 2010, Lee Romney, Los Angeles Times)

In 2012, BHC received a Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grant for $250,000 to support the Housing and Employment for Recovery Outcomes (HERO) program. The HERO program will provide integrated supportive housing and employment to groups of 13 BHC clients at a time over 6-month intervals. Supported employment services will commence in jail and continue on-site for the duration of the client’s stay in transitional housing. Locating permanent housing and facilitating long-term self-sufficiency are the HERO program’s primary goals.

Drug CourtThe San Francisco Drug Court (SFDC) has its own treatment clinic, the Drug Court Treatment Center

YEARPERCENTAGE CHANGE

ALL ACTIVE FELONY CASES

NON-DRUG FELONY CASES

DRUG FELONY CASES

2009 -6.49% -1.48% -10.37%

2010 -16.57% +4.07% -34.14%

2011 -13.16% -10.71% -16.45%

2012 -16.88% -2.85% -37.06%

TABLE I

175 unduplicated clients entered SFDC in 2012 – 38% lower than in 2011 and 60% lower than in 2008.

TABLE II

434

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

CL

IEN

TS

YEAR

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

442

296280

175

DRUG COURT: ENTERING CLIENT VOLUME

DRUG COURT ANNUAL DECLINE IN CASE VOLUME

(DCTC), located one block from the HOJ, and is supported by local funding through the DPH. After enrollment, the Court monitors the defendants’ treatment. A series of sanctions and incentives are used to encourage compliance with treatment. Those who are non-compliant receive graduated sanctions, such as writing an essay, community service, or jail time, to encourage adherence with treatment. Upon successful program completion, probation is terminated or criminal charges are dismissed.

In addition to the legal benefits, the SFDC is designed to assist participants in the acquisition of

the necessary tools to live a clean and sober lifestyle. Resources also are provided to help further their education and/or obtain vocational training and maintain stable employment allowing them to become contributing members of society.

Between 2011- 2013, the Drug Court graduated approximately 140 participants.

Clients ServedThe Drug Court experienced a decrease in drug-related active felonies, which may be attributed to the closure of the San Francisco crime lab in 2010. In 2012, there was

IN THE SPOTLIGHT IN THE SPOTLIGHT

After presiding over Behavioral Health Court for 3 ½ years, Judge Garrett L. Wong presides over his last graduation in November 2013.


another sharp decline due to a policy change that focused police and prosecutorial resources on violent crimes rather than non-violent drug offenses (Table I). These changes accounted for a decrease in the Drug Court’s active caseload (Table II).

The Community Justice Center (CJC)The CJC, launched in March 2009, is a geographically based collaborative court and social service center serving the Tenderloin, Civic Center, Union Square and SOMA neighborhoods of San Francisco. The CJC emphasizes defendant accountability through judicial monitoring. Immediate interventions address the primary issues facing defendants, including substance abuse, housing, employment, mental health, and physical health.

The CJC is a collaboration of the San Francisco Superior Court, the DPH, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department, the Police Department, the Bar Association of San Francisco, the Adult Probation Department, the Human

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Services Agency, and numerous partners seeking to improve public safety and the lives of CJC clients and community residents. The CJC is the only community court in California to hear serious case types, including nonviolent felonies.

CJC Statistics (as of December 2013)• In FY 2011-12, the CJC heard 2,001 new cases

and saw 1,900 new defendants. In FY 2012-13, the CJC heard 2,049 new cases and saw 1,501 new defendants.

• The CJC has heard more than 10,000 cases involving over 6,000 defendants since March 2009.

• More than 2,500 San Franciscans have been assessed for clinical services at the CJC.

• On average, the CJC hears approximately 100 cases per day.

• Among incoming cases, 27 percent are misdemeanors and 73 percent are felonies. Most misdemeanor cases are related to theft and drug paraphernalia. Nearly 90 percent of felony cases are drug-related.

• Since August 2011, 266 CJC clients have completed more than 9,100 hours of community service, a value of more than $95,000 (based on the San Francisco minimum wage: $10.55).

San Francisco Achievement Collaborative Team (SF-ACT)The San Francisco Achievement Collaborative Team (SF-ACT) is a joint educational and behavioral health program at the Civic Center Secondary School. This juvenile drug court program was restructured in September 2013 to provide multi-phased evidence-based treatment and court supervision for probation-involved youth in a school setting.

SF-ACT offers individual and family therapy, home visits, substance abuse counseling, case management and academic support. The Collaborative partners of SF-ACT are: the Court, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), DPH, and the Juvenile Probation Department. Services are provided by Richmond Area Multi-Services, Inc., Catholic Charities CYO, and SF AIIM Higher. A Wellness Center at the Civic Center School The CJC is located in the Tenderloin at 555/575 Polk St.

While Judge Garrett L. Wong looks on, talented violinist and Behavioral Health Court graduate Kim Knoble performs for fellow graduates and guests at the November 2013 graduation.


IN THE SPOTLIGHT

is the central hub for all additional health and wellness services.

SF-ACT targets juvenile offenders whose delinquent behavior is connected to the ongoing, chronic and habitual abuse of substances. Typically, offenders enrolled in SF-ACT will have social histories marked by prior contacts with law enforcement, previous exposure to addiction treatment programs, and a history of relapse into substance abuse.

Eligibility criteria include:

• Youth ages 14-18 and their families or caregivers

• Ongoing issues with substance use

• Significant emotional and behavioral risks

• Multiple prior treatment episodes

• At risk for out-of-home placement

• Capable of participating in program and treatment activities

Funding is a combination of resources through the DPH, the DCYF, and the SFUSD. Typically, students will be involved with SF-ACT for an average of one school year. Their time may be shorter or longer depending on individual and/or educational needs.

Program capacity is generally 40 youths per year. The core philosophy of SF-ACT is to do “whatever it takes” to keep a youth in school, out of the system and to, ultimately, give back to the community.

Unified Family Court Specialty Calendars/Collaborative Courts

Dependency Drug Court (DDC)The DDC serves families involved in the Juvenile Dependency Court who are impacted by parental substance use. Launched six years ago, the DDC supports parents to access services, complete court-ordered requirements, and reunify with their minor children. The DDC provides frequent court monitoring, coordinated case planning, and priority housing referrals, among other services.

The primary impact of the Court’s reorganization on the DDC was a reduction in judicial time allocation. The DDC went from a weekly calendar to twice monthly. The DDC maintained its capacity of serving 50 families by adjusting polices to compensate for the reduced judicial time. Additionally, the DDC Coordinator position was reduced to 50 percent time from a full-time position. This caused delays in planned program enhancements, reduced ability to access grant opportunities, and other program stresses.

In January 2014, the DDC’s weekly calendar was restored to a weekly capacity. The increased judicial time allows DDC to benefit from additional judicial leadership and adhere to baseline standards in the field. Additionally, in FY 2012-13, funding for the DDC Coordinator position was reallocated for a Program Assistant. This position is responsible for all day-to-day operations (i.e., maintaining court calendar, data entry, communication with partner agencies), which has allowed more efficient use of time for the DDC Coordinator. As a result, the DDC is engaging in a strategic planning process and is scheduled to apply for several grants in the coming year.

The DDC benefits from ongoing, institutional support from DPH, which funds its core service operations.

Juvenile Reentry Court (JRC)The San Francisco Juvenile Reentry Court, established in 2009 as a Second Chance Act National Demonstration Project Site through Juvenile Probation Department and the Public Defender, provides coordinated and comprehensive re-entry case planning and after care services for high-needs youth in out-of-home placement. Program goals are to reduce recidivism and placement failure, and to increase public safety.

Juvenile Reentry Court is a team collaboration involving the Court, the Juvenile Probation Department, the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), as well as youth and their families. In 2012, the program received an extension of the federal grant to expand the services to all youth in out-of-home placement, including youths in the Log Cabin Ranch, a post adjudication residential facility program focusing on treatment and rehabilitation. This pioneering model is the only one with direct Juvenile Court involvement. The Court convenes every Friday morning. Through the Court, youths receive an integrated case plan developed by the team, which includes input from youths and their families as well as community-based service organizations.

The Juvenile Reentry program has served 195 youth since its inception. The Reentry Court currently has 94 youth in the program. In 2009, the recidivism rate, as reported by the Juvenile Probation Department, for youth in out-of-home placement was approximately 69 percent. Five years later, the recidivism rate of youth who are a

part of the reentry program has exponentially decreased to approximately 13 percent. This percentage includes youth at Log Cabin Ranch. Many of the youths who are in the program and/or graduated from the program are enrolled in colleges, vocational training programs, and gainfully employed.

The Court is seeking additional funding options to expand this successful program as the program is in continual need of social services.

Self-Represented Litigant CalendarIn 2007, the Unified Family Court (UFC) expanded its services to Self-Represented Litigants (SRLs) by creating a special calendar for them. The calendar – which is currently held every other Friday morning – was staffed previously by Family Law Self Help Center attorneys, Family Court Services mediators and the case manager.

UFC’s Senior Staff Attorney and volunteer attorneys now staff the calendar, which seeks to provide support to families to empower them to resolve the issues in their cases amicably and expeditiously. Cases are set on this calendar if both sides are self-represented, have multiple issues, and have no history of domestic violence. The Senior Staff Attorney examines all cases to determine what outstanding issues need resolution prior to the court date. Parties typically are able to resolve all matters on the day of the hearing. This case management approach has proven effective in assisting litigants to resolve their cases in a timely manner while reducing caseloads and no longer requiring repeat trips to Court.

Judge Susan Breall discusses a juvenile’s case with the JRC team, (from L to R) CJCJ Reentry Case Manager Adrian Garcia, Deputy Probation Officer Tony Hurley, Deputy Probation Officer Michael Johnson, Social Worker Domingo Jarquin, Deputy Probation Officer C. Kwanza Morton, Deputy Public Defender Rebecca Marcus, and Assistant District Attorney Gregory Cleaver.


UFC Participation in the Chief Justice’s “Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court Initiative”By invitation of Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, a UFC Judge participated in a summit that brought together judicial officers, educators, juvenile justice and child welfare professionals, and community leaders to focus on truancy and school discipline policies that result in a “school-to-prison-problem.” The summit’s goal was to implement evidence-based practices that will better serve the needs of the children who come before the Court.

Truancy CalendarThe Truancy Calendar is a specialty calendar aimed at reducing the rate of truancy in San Francisco schools.

Instead of charging minors for a status offense in the Juvenile Delinquency Court, the parents of the truants are charged with an infraction (a criminal violation with a penalty of a fine and no jail time). With the parties’ consent, the Judge meets with a team comprised of the District Attorney’s Office, representatives of the school district, and community organizations. After case discussions, case plans are prepared to assist the students.

At the hearing, the team is in Court to provide referrals to the parents and the minors. The parents are referred to services to address the family issues and given help to support their child’s return to school as engaged students. The calendar’s goal is to refer parents to programs that address their own problems to keep their children on track. The calendar is a partnership among the Court, the District Attorney’s Office, Human Services Agency and the SFUSD.

Youth Family Violence Court (YFVC)The YFVC is a collaborative court that addresses cases related to family violence/domestic violence. A case typically is referred to YFVC post-detention. The team then works to address issues of violence and dysfunction within the home.

The most frequent cases involve parent-child, sibling and dating relationships. The program has served clients as young as 10 years old. It is not uncommon to uncover a history of severe abuse in the home in many of the cases before the Court.

The YFVC’s mission is to prevent continued violence and to enable youth to participate in positive family and intimate relationships free of physical and emotional violence. Services for youths and families include: court

supervision and appearances, violence intervention programs, mental health services, parenting services and child trauma services. The Judge meets with representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, the Juvenile Probation Department and minor’s counsel prior to the hearing. The Court currently meets twice monthly.

Juvenile Wellness Court (JWC)The JWC is one of the newest collaborative courts designed to address the specialized treatment and service needs of juvenile justice-involved youth who suffer from mental health disorders.

The wellness model collaboration participants are the Court, the District Attorney’s Office, the Defense Bar and several mental health organizations including Juvenile Probation Department, AIIM Higher, Seneca, and DPH. The JWC also works closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Human Services Agency on cases in which the child has dual status (Welfare and Institution Code §300 & 600). The aim of this program is to provide abundant services for these children to help them thrive and function in a community. By expanding access to community resources, the JWC aims to decrease the incidence of recidivism and increase participation in school or vocational training for youth.

The team meets prior to the court calendar once a month to discuss the case, and then has the court session with the minor and the parents. Ultimately, the goal of this incentive-driven court is not so much the adjudication of the case, but the overall well-being of the minor. The team generally strives to devise a plan that allows the child to remain in the community.

Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) EPIC is a specialty calendar in the Court’s Child Support Department designed to prevent defaults and increase participation of non-custodial parents. It was created after a successful grant-funded project between the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and the Court that focused on early intervention and intensive outreach efforts. The results reduced the default judgment rate from more than 60 percent to less than 15 percent.

The calendar provides non-custodial parents (NCPs) an opportunity to participate in the case in an informal court setting. If the NCP fails to appear, the collaborative partners use the status conference to review financial information, and do further outreach, including creating an opportunity for the Court to directly contact the NCP. Noncustodial Employment Training Program (C-NET) C-NET is a program to assist parents with barriers that prevent them from meeting their child support obligation. These barriers include lack of work experience and employment, a criminal record, deficient education, and a large arrears balance.

Services for C-NET participants include:

• Assistance in finding job training and employment;

• Arrears reduction or adjudication;

• Clearing of an incarceration record

• Assistance with a GED; and

• Establishment or modification of a custody and visitation order.

To implement these services, the DCSS collaborates with C-NET, the Family Law Facilitator’s Office; the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department, the Public Defender’s Office, Workforce Development, and includes regular oversight through the Court’s Title IV-D specialty C-NET calendar.


The JRC team is comprised of (L to R) Deputy Probation Officer Tony Hurley, Assistant District Attorney Gregory Cleaver, Judge Susan Breall, Deputy Public Defender Rebecca Marcus, CJCJ Lead Coordinator Daniel L. Reyes Jr., Deputy Court Clerk III Mary Shea, and Deputy Probation Officer C. Kwanza Morton. Back row (L to R) Reentry Case Manager Adrian Garcia, and Deputy Probation Officer Michael Johnson. Not pictured: Supervising Probation Officer Gary Levene and Public Defender Social Worker Vanessa Alvarez.


STATE BUDGET CRISIS IMPACTS AND THE COURT’S RESPONSE

Online Not In Line: e-Filing Saves Money, Time and PaperThe San Francisco Superior Court has been working to increase the amount of information received and managed electronically for several years. Beginning with mandating electronic filing for asbestos cases in 2006, the Court has long recognized the need to move from a paper-based to an electronic system. Budget issues experienced since FY 2008-09 have exacerbated the need for efficiency. Paper-based systems are no longer viable options for the Civil Division as budget and staff resources diminish. Further, the public demand for increased access to Court information, particularly via the Internet, continues to increase.

The Court resolved to improve its management of information with the implementation of the records management and retention project in 2010. The goal of this project was to develop a records retention schedule for all Court records and to implement that retention schedule as soon as feasible. During this effort, it became clear that the Court required a more proactive way of managing information and could no longer afford to simply scan and store paper records and case folders in a warehouse.

The Court recognizes that its current paper-based system, where documents are scanned into the electronic case record (via the case management system) for retrieval purposes only, will no longer serve its best interests or those of its customers. The limited search functionality inherent in the Integrated Justice Systems (IJS) case management system precludes the effective management of cases in a way other than manually. Further, staffing shortages experienced in 2011 resulted in a significant backlog of paper both to be filed traditionally into case folders and to be scanned into the case management system.

Priority of the Presiding JudgePresiding Judge Lee has designated the Electronic Information Management (EIM) project as one of her top priorities during her 2-year term. In March 2012, the Executive Committee approved the concept for the EIM project and adopted the following vision statement:

“Our court will develop and use technology to achieve court-wide efficiencies and to improve our service to the public. The programs will adapt to and respond to changes in technology and developments in the California justice system.”

The EIM project goals are to:

• Deem the electronic record as the official record of the Court;

• Expand electronic filing to all Civil case types;

• Manage electronic Court records and information efficiently; and

• Eliminate the backlog of paper filing and scanning of documents.

The current case management system includes significant redundancies of work and results in inefficient management of information. While key Civil case documents are routinely scanned, much of the information clerks and Judges require to manage and process cases is maintained only in paper.

Filing backlogs frequently lead to incomplete case files and as a result Judges rely on courtesy copies from parties as frequently as they rely on the Court record. Parties and Court users are forced to come to the Courthouse to obtain copies of documents; original Internet search functions – while helpful to many users – are now primitive at best.

EIM project staff seek to complete the work within the Court’s existing resources and technology systems to the extent possible. Additionally, staff are simultaneously working to eliminate the backlog of paper filing and scanning while expanding electronic filing and implementing a robust document management system.

The EIM project focuses on three aspects:

• Electronic filing, accepting a document in electronic format only at point of receipt, and processing that document electronically throughout the life of the case;

• Document management system, indexing a document in electronic format at point of processing, and providing Google-type search functionality for all who access information within and across cases; and

• Records retention schedule, management of all documents, electronic and historic, for the life of the case, and destroying Court records as required.

The e-Filing expansion and elimination of the filing backlog required a $900,000 investment for 11 full-time equivalent positions at the Deputy Court Clerk I level. These are temporary positions that will end at the end of

FY 2013-14. By September 1, 2013, the temporary staff had eliminated the backlog of paper filing (i.e., traditional filing of paper documents in the case folder) that had accumulated from May – November 2011 because of state budget cuts that led to layoffs. The temporary staff also scanned all documents by the end of 2013.

ConclusionDespite the severe budget cuts and the turmoil of the past few years, the Civil Division continues to move forward. The Civil Division does not look the same as it did in 2008, and it certainly will not look the same in the coming years. The Civil Division continually challenges itself to find new and better ways to operate – from taking advantage of technology to finding ways to expedite cases as they flow through the justice system. It is a testament to the commitment and dedication of a management team and staff that even in austere times, the Court can achieve great progress.

Realignment – AB 109Throughout the state, Superior Court Criminal Divisions have been scrambling to implement the significant legislative changes of the Public Safety Realignment Act (AB109) collectively referred to as “Realignment.” Enacted in 2011, this legislation is a landmark criminal justice reform. These changes “were intended to stop the costly, ineffective and unsafe ‘revolving door’ of lower-level offenders and parole violators through our state prisons,” according to Governor Jerry Brown, by transferring the responsibility of supervising parolees from the state to the counties.

No longer is the simple distinction between a felony (subject to time in state prison) and a misdemeanor (subject to one year in County Jail) accurate. Since the


Photo left: After state budget cuts forced the Court to lay off staff in October 2011, filed Civil cases are piled high in Room 103 in the Civil Clerk’s office awaiting proper placement in file folders. Photo right: State budget cuts lead to longer lines and wait times due to reduced clerks’ office hours. Judge James P. Collins, hears a criminal matter at the Hall of Justice.


enactment of AB 109, criminal sentences may involve straight time of multiple years in the County Jail or split sentences with time in County Jail followed by mandatory supervision at the county level. State prison is now reserved for only the most dangerous criminals.

Another major change from Realignment is the Court’s role in dealing with parolees. What previously was the responsibility of the Board of Parole Hearings is now the responsibility of the Superior Courts. Under AB 109, Post Release Community Supervision, or “PRCS” as it is referred to, is the process by which a category of low-level crime parolees are released from state prison to the supervision of the local county’s Adult Probation Department. It is now the role of the Superior Courts to “oversee” the supervision by issuing warrants for absconders and adjudicating motions to revoke PRCS for those parolees who violated the terms of their release.

In January 2012, more violent and serious parolees were released to the supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and they too are now the responsibility of the Superior Courts to monitor. This transition proved a bit more difficult because the CDCR had never worked directly with trial courts, let alone 59 different courts. The Court reached out to the CDCR and began the planning process early. After several months of working with a collaborative team from the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, Bar Association of San Francisco, the Sheriff’s Department and the CDCR, the Court ironed out differences in procedures and began a new calendar for Motions to Revoke Parole in Department 22 (Criminal Master Calendar).

The Criminal Division had to retool many of its processes in order to implement AB 109. These changes included hiring two former Court Commissioners to split the work of Parole Revocation Hearings, reprogramming Criminal case management systems to allow the Court to create the needed orders and documents, and training judicial officers and staff to deal with the new laws and procedures related to realignment.

Prior to AB 109, Superior Courts had one type of supervision to monitor - probation. Motions to revoke probation were filed in Department 22 and distributed to trial departments for hearing. Now the Court hears motions to revoke probation, PRCS, mandatory supervision and parole, each with its own rules and requirements. The Court will continue to work collaboratively with its justice partners to improve on new processes and procedures.

Mandatory Settlement Conferences – The Need to Preserve Judicial ResourcesMandatory Settlement Conferences (MSC) provides civil litigants with an opportunity to amicably resolve their lawsuit and avoid the adversarial costs of trial. The San Francisco Superior Court provided MSC services for decades with the help of its Civil Judges. However, the fiscal crisis required drastic reorganization of court resources and MSC services were directly impacted. In August 2011, the Court stopped setting MSCs in general unlimited civil cases due to the resource shortages. With a growing judicial vacancy and a trial backlog, the Court needed its Civil Judges to focus all their efforts on conducting trials rather than devoting limited court resources to holding settlement conferences. The demand for MSC services grew as civil litigants faced the consequences of the elimination of MSCs.

In 2012, the Court decided to transform its MSC system in order to offer this much-needed service under the constraints of limited resources. The Court formulated a new system which utilizes the vast experience within the Bar Association of San Francisco for settlement conferences in lieu of Judges. The Court launched a widespread recruitment effort to attract attorneys who have practiced at least 10 years to volunteer for the new settlement program in the summer of 2012. The Court was eager to bring attorneys from diverse backgrounds into its new settlement approach.

The response was overwhelming, hundreds of applications flooded the Court. A judicial committee reviewed and selected 150 attorneys to volunteer for the

new MSC program. Candidates were selected based on the following criteria: settlement experience, litigation experience, education, ADR panel services, and bilingual ability. The accepted applicants had on average 30 years of litigation experience and six years of settlement experience.

The Court also created a unique 1-day training curriculum for MSC panelists that covered the basics of court procedures, the volunteers’ scope of authority, ethical rules, and settlement methods. The training panel included two Judges, the ADR Director from the U.S. District Court, and the Court’s ADR Administrator. All active volunteers were required to attend. The training received high marks of satisfaction from close to 90 percent of it participants.

MSC ProcessBefore the budget crisis, the Court’s computer system automatically assigned cases to a MSC. On average, 4,000 cases was scheduled per year. Only one in four of those cases set to a MSC actually moved forward with the settlement conference.

The system was redesigned to more effectively target the 25 percent of cases that typically move forward with its MSC. In the new system, civil cases on the case management and trial calendars are reviewed by staff attorneys to determine which cases are most likely to benefit from a settlement conference. The new system targets on average 1,000 cases per year for assignment to MSCs.

If parties do not get ordered into a MSC, they may also request one. A party to any limited or unlimited jurisdiction Civil proceeding may apply to the Presiding


Mandatory Settlement Conference Attorney Mark D. Petersen works with the parties in a Civil case to reach a settlement and avoid a trial.


IN THE SPOTLIGHT SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: PROTECTING THE COURT AND THE PUBLIC

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services for judicial officers, courtroom staff and members of the public who attend proceedings at the Hall of Justice (HOJ), the Civic Center Courthouse (CCC), the Community Justice Community (CJC) and the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC).The sheriff’s department provides entry screening at all sites, perimeter law enforcement services at the HOJ and CCC, and building law enforcement services at the CJC and the JJC.

The Court requests additional services from the Sheriff, including law enforcement services associated with cases involving multiple defendants, highly publicized cases, sequestering of juries, and threats to judicial officers and court personnel.

The Sheriff’s Department is also responsible for retaining control of defendants housed in the county jails and persons remanded to custody. The Sheriff provides law enforcement services during emergencies and carries out civil orders of the San Francisco Superior Court.

The San Francisco Court Services Section is in the Field Operations Division of The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. The Section consists of the HOJ (Criminal courts), CCC (Civil courts), the JJC, CJC, and the HOJ Front Lobby Security. All Sheriff’s staff are sworn peace officers who receive continuous training in order to maintain the highest levels of professionalism.

Judge for a specially set settlement conference by following the procedures set forth in local rule 5.0(C). The Presiding Judge approves parties’ requests for a specially set MSC. The requests for specially set MSCs continue to grow as the program matures and word of its success spreads.

A qualified volunteer with expertise in the subject matter of the dispute is assigned to the case as a settlement conference officer. MSCs are set every business day with four calendars per day. Like the old system, MSCs are set at least 3-5 weeks before trial with the goal of completed discovery and the trial ripe for settlement. Once the settlement conference officer is notified of the MSC, his/her primary responsibilities are to:

• Conduct pre-hearing conference calls prior to the MSC;

• Assist the parties in reaching a settlement;

• Assist in a drafting a written settlement agreement as necessary; and

• Report the MSC outcome back to the Court.

Successes of MSC ProgramThe Court conducted a survey of cases ordered to a MSC between November 1, 2012 and August 16, 2013, the first 9½ months of the program. There were 590 cases in which the Court had recorded dispositions in its case management system at that time. Sixty-four percent of those 590 cases were settled as a result of the settlement conference officer’s efforts – a 9 percent increase in settlement rate compared to the old MSC system.

Interestingly, a majority of cases were settled prior to the MSC date as a result of MSC system’s new feature, which required pre-hearing conference calls to be conducted prior to the MSC date. These calls not only prepared parties for the MSC, but initiated the discussions that led to settlements even before the civil litigants arrived at the MSC table. It was an efficient way for the Court to encourage settlement while minimizing the impact to court resources.

Settlement conference officers proved to be invaluable and dedicated to the new MSC program. Officers spent an average of 4.74 hours per MSC case, for a total of close to 2,800 free hours volunteered to the Court in less than one year.

Recent judicial appointments have allowed the Court to occasionally bring Civil Judges back into the settlement process. Judges have been assigned to complement the efforts of the settlement conference officer as necessary. Civil Judges have helped to complete the agreements that settlement conference officers have worked to achieve, thereby increasing settlement rates.

ConclusionWhile the budget crisis plunged the Court into turmoil, it also paved the way for innovative ways to serve the public – even with severe constraints. These successes could not be realized without a resounding response from the community: the Bar Association members who answered the Court’s call for help to meet the public’s needs.

Deputy Sheriff Capozzoli stands guard in Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee’s courtroom at the Civic Center Courthouse.


TRIALS & TRIBULATIONS

BUDGET AT A GLANCE

2012-2013REVENUES

REVENUES

State Trial Court Funding

Restricted State Funding

Local/Non-State Funding

Grants

State Trial Court Funding

Restricted State Funding

Local/Non-State Funding

Grants

EXPENDITURES

EXPENDITURES

Salaries

Employee Benefits

Information Technology

Services & Supplies

Fixed Assets

Jury Services

Salaries

Employee Benefits

Information Technology

Services & Supplies

Fixed Assets

Jury Services

$69,038,146

$42,703,363

$19,619,711

$56,773,554

$38,748,596

$17,768,875

$4,387,640

$13,456,921

$117,208

$650,000$7,470,005

$7,455,477

$3,430,204

$3,240,516

$16,310,813

$334,101$650,000

$7,807,596

$1,139,535

$4,873,227

2011-2012

TOTAL BUDGET $75,129,240

TOTAL BUDGET $82,858,509

• $22.3 million reduction in state funding in five years

• $7.8 million additional cut between FY 2013-14–FY 2017-18 under new trial court funding formula

• 69 staff laid off in October 2011, including Commissioners, Court Reporters, Staff Attorneys, Clerks, etc.

• 11 Civil courtrooms closed

• 1 hour daily reduction in clerks’ office hours, routinely causing lengthy lines

• 2 self-help centers (one for family law; one for other civil cases) merged into one center serving all unrepresented litigants

• 591 authorized non-judicial employees; now 450 employees

• 3 football fields – civil filings not yet placed in file folders would cover this space at height of backlog due to staff shortage

IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET CUTS 2008-2013

Jurors, attorneys, and litigants wait in a morning line outside of the Civic Center Courthouse (CCC). State budget cuts forced the Court to reduce hours of operation, which results in lengthy waits to enter CCC.


ACCESS

Each weekday morning before the doors open to the Civic Center Courthouse (CCC), mothers, fathers, and other unrepresented civil litigants are the first ones to begin the line outside of the building. They are here before 8 a.m. – often in the foggy chill of morning – to stake a claim to

a coveted free service offered by the San Francisco Superior Court: the ACCESS Center.

ACCESS – which stands for Assisting Court Customers with Educational and Self-Help Services – is the 5th-floor destination for litigants seeking free legal education and assistance for certain civil cases. When the courthouse doors open to the public at 8:30 a.m., litigants representing themselves hurry to form another line upstairs outside the ACCESS Center. They wait anxiously to speak to staff in the multi-lingual, multi-cultural self-help center, where staff will assist them with divorce, child custody, name changes, small claims and other civil case types.

The past three years have been tumultuous for attorneys and staff who assist litigants representing themselves. The state budget crisis that plunged the Court into staff layoffs, service reductions and reduced hours of operation in October 2011 hit hard in the area of discretionary court operations. While certainly not considered discretionary by the litigants who rely on free legal education and assistance with court forms, budget cuts dramatically changed the delivery of self-

help services in the Court. Prior to the October 2011 reorganization, the Court offered litigants two separate self-help centers – ACCESS and the Family Law Self Help Center (SHC). ACCESS, which at that time was located at Polk Street Annex at 575 Polk St., served individuals not represented by an attorney with small claims, unlawful detainers (eviction), and civil harassment cases, guardianship of the person, conservatorship of the person, step-parent adoptions, and name/gender changes. The SHC, which was located in the Lower Level of CCC, provided free information, assistance and referrals to self-represented litigants in all family law cases, such as divorce, child custody, child support, domestic violence and parentage cases. The two self-help operations were merged and in late 2011, the combined self-help office reopened as ACCESS.

The merged operation was an integral part of the Court’s budget-related reorganization. Public impacts were immediate as the merged operation was forced to suspend services in key areas: Conservatorship of the Person; Guardianship of the Person; and Step-Parent and Second-Parent Adoptions. Layoffs also impacted the both self-help operations. One Mandarin/Cantonese-speaking staff attorney and a Spanish-speaking staff attorney were laid off from ACCESS. The SHC was forced to lay off 1.75 staff attorneys and one senior staff attorney. With fewer staff and an increased demand for services because of Recession-related impacts on thousands of San Franciscans, ACCESS moved to Room 509 of CCC in February 2012 with a modified service delivery model that emphasized group seminars instead of staff working with one customer at a time.

On average each week, ACCESS handles:

• 400 customers during drop-in sessions

• 30 individual appointments for complex issues

• 30 workshop participants

COURT PRESERVES ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS WITH MERGER OF SELF-HELP OPERATIONS

The Court received $1 million when lawmakers last year restored $60 million in state funding for trial courts. The Court devoted the restored funds to benefit foster children, elders and unrepresented litigants. As a result, ACCESS was able to rehire a staff attorney with bilingual skills to assist Spanish-speaking litigants. The infusion of state funding allowed the Court to restore suspended services for customers seeking help with petitions for Conservatorship of the Person; Guardianship of the Person; and Step-Parent and Second-Parent Adoptions.

Since the restoration of state funds, ACCESS has served 59 more customers weekly, or about 3,068 more per year.

In addition, ACCESS was able to resume its outreach to limited-English proficient communities in San Francisco. This project, which was suspended in September 2011, aims to improve access to justice for low-income, geographically disadvantaged, monolingual communities in San Francisco. This successful outreach helped these individuals through community partnerships, neighborhood workshops, clinics and ethnic media outlets.

In spite of these budget challenges, the Court continues its proud 14-year commitment to helping diverse San Franciscans access justice to improve their lives.

ACCESS Benefits in 2013 from Restored State Funding

October, November, December 2011

LAST QUARTER IN 2011 AFTER MERGER OF TWO SELF-HELP CENTERS AND STAFFING REDUCTIONS:

QUARTER PRECEDING RESTORATION OF SERVICES TO SELF-HELP:

POST-RESTORATION OF BI-LINGUAL SERVICES TO SELF-HELP (2-MONTH PERIOD):

May, June, July 2013

August, September 2013

Total served: 3,498

Total served: 6,827

Total served: 5,065

Monthly average: 1,166



ACCESS STATISTICS:

Photo left: Civic Center Plaza serves as a backdrop for this colorful collection of folders in the ACCESS Center.

ACCESS Staff Attorney II Malea Chavez assists a customer with questions about a Civil case.


ADMINISTRATION

ExecutiveThe Executive Office supports the needs of the Court’s 52 Judges and court operations staff. It also oversees and enforces the policies and procedures for the Court. The Executive Office is comprised of the Administrative Services Division, Human Resources, Fiscal Services, Information Technology Group and Communications office. During FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, the Executive Committee identified the need for a reorganization of the Court’s legal research staff, which led to the hiring of a Managing Attorney/General Counsel.

The October 2011 Reduction in Force (RIF) and staff reorganization led to significant changes in Administration. Layoffs impacted clerical, fiscal, training, personnel and Information Technology staff. As a result, duties were consolidated with existing staff.

Fiscal ServicesThe Office of Fiscal Service (OFS) provides accounting, procurement and contract services, and manages the trust deposits for court users. Budget management, comprehensive debt collections, and strategic planning – including tracking statistics – are other key functions within this division.

• Fundamental shifts in trial court funding and decreased budget autonomy over the past few years have significantly altered the fiscal landscape for courts throughout the state. Since FY 2009-10, the trial courts have faced massive state budget cuts coupled with increased executive and legislative oversight of the Judicial Branch’s budget.

• The 2011 Budget Act cut $350 million in trial court funding and shifted $469 million in security funding from the trial courts to the counties.

• The 2012 Budget Act reduced funding to trial courts by $540 million, placed future limits on the amount of local reserves that can be maintained to only 1 percent of the operating budget, and established a 2 percent statewide reserve for trial

courts, which would be funded by a share of the trial court’s allocation.

• Other fiscal limitations imposed by the 2012 budget legislation included restrictions on statewide spending on court case management systems and the Judicial Council’s ability to offset state cuts with other funding sources. Furthermore, the Budget Act required the Judicial Branch “to conduct a statewide analysis of workload metrics, staffing standards and other data necessary to support a more uniform and efficient administrative system for the judiciary.”

In April 2013, the Judicial Council adopted the Workload-Based Funding Methodology (WAFM) as the new formula for allocating the annual state trial court operational funds. The new formula, which will be phased over five years, addresses funding inequities in place since trial courts transferred to the state in 1998. The WAFM redistributes revenue between trial courts based on workload (i.e., case filings) and other metrics. As one of six “donor” courts, San Francisco will lose $7.8 million over the next five years while the rest of trial courts will begin to see increased funding beginning in FY 2012-13. This funding loss is in addition to the $22.3 million cut from the Court’s budget since 2008. WAFM will be adjusted every year in the spring before the state budget allocation to incorporate new workload metrics (i.e., case filings) which adds another element of revenue uncertainty in planning for the subsequent fiscal year.

The new fiscal reality for courts is revenue instability that depends on state policymakers' budget priorities, budget cut restorations, and the variable funding methodology that changes every fiscal year. Additionally, trial courts will have to adjust to significant challenges in FY 2014-15 including potential cash flow issues due to the 1 percent limit on local court reserves. The long-term impact of revenue uncertainty in an austere fiscal environment will affect all areas of the Court’s operations and inhibits long-term planning, including hiring and whether to backfill vacancies with temporary or permanent staff, and how to plan and pay for significant infrastructure investments such as a new case management system and efficiency projects.

DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS AND COURT LEADERS WORK TOGETHER TO SERVE THE PUBLIC THROUGH AN ERA OF CHALLENGE

In 2009, OFS initiated a long-term budget and strategic planning process to re-organize court-wide operations and reduce ongoing costs in recognition of a protracted economic recession and the state budget’s structural imbalance. In FY 2011-12, the Court implemented the first-ever RIF and eliminated 69 positions, including Commissioners, to address a double digit structural deficit that would have increased without immediate actions to curb spending. Concurrently, the Court implemented several cost-efficiency projects, such as the installation of electronic recording devices to digitize court transcripts, and the expansion of civil e-Filing services in FY 2012-13.

OFS also was impacted by the RIF and implemented cross-training among the remaining fiscal staff to better manage the existing workload. Despite having fewer staff, OFS continued to initiate new projects, including new escheatment procedures and returning surplus funds to court users. In FY 2012-13, the Court returned more than $1 million to 60 court users who had deposited funds in trust but had not claimed them in more than three years. Gains also were experienced in the Comprehensive Collections Unit (CCU), which saw debt collection gross recovery rates improve from 40 to 54 percent in FY 2012-13, far exceeding the state benchmark of 31 percent.

Administrative Services Division In addition to the hiring of the Court’s first-ever Managing Attorney/General Counsel (see page 40), the other significant change in Administration was the consolidation of functions, activities and tasks into a new Court Administrative Services Division. The unit encompasses training, facilities, court security, Assigned Judges Program, Temporary Judge Program, Americans with Disabilities coordination, new employee orientation, California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System coordination (CLETS), and customer service and support for the Offices of the Presiding Judge and the Court Executive Officer. The Administrative Services Division supports the entire Court.

Creation of the Administrative Services Division required a reduction in the number of training positions and changing the Director of Training position to the Director of Administrative Services position. These changes allow the Court to continue providing quality training and support for critical operations and administrative programs.

Training UnitThe Training Unit operates within the Administrative Services Division. The unit supports the Court’s divisions by developing training to assist staff in their court positions. Since its inception, the unit also assisted the Information Technology Group by offering end-user training on new hardware and software. The unit assisted in the:

• Development and implementation of a training program for the Court’s new electronic reporting software and devices.

• Design of the New Employee Orientation to familiarize new employees with the Court’s processes and procedures.

• Introduction of an updated version of Microsoft Office by offering classroom training on the updated software as well as one-on-one training for judicial officers.

The Training Unit continued to offer the Leadership Excellence for Aspiring Professionals program (LEAP) and graduated three classes during FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Since its launch five years ago, six sections have been facilitated successfully and 59 employees have completed the yearlong 20-session professional development program. Several graduates have been promoted or moved into new roles within the Court.

During the RIF, the LEAP program was instrumental in preparing participants for the changes the Court navigated during this difficult time. By design, the LEAP program emphasizes individual development and the

Rick Hines opens a non-public locked door at the Hall of Justice, where he oversees facilities.


creation of career plans for its participants either within or outside the Court. However, during the crisis, the program highlighted resume writing, interviewing and job search skills to help its participants cope with the economic uncertainty. These skills were reviewed with previous LEAP graduates and shared during lunchtime sessions with staff who had not participated in LEAP. The LEAP program was placed on hiatus during 2012 to accommodate the Court’s restructuring. Last year, LEAP was reinstated and the 2013 class completed its program requirements on December 13, 2013. LEAP will continue to develop and prepare the Court’s next generation of leaders.

Temporary Judge ProgramThe Administrative Services Division also administers the Temporary Judge Program. The program staff recruits, trains and assigns Temporary Judges for the Court. The California Rules of Court established guidelines for the Temporary Judge Program and requirements for those who serve as Temporary Judges. The Court’s Temporary Judge Program has more than 400 volunteer attorneys who serve as Temporary Judges. Temporary Judges serve in Civil, Family, Juvenile Traffic, Traffic, Discovery, Small Claims, Small Claims Appeals, and Mandatory Settlement.

After the Court’s RIF, the need for Temporary Judges increased significantly. As previously, Commissioners heard most of these matters. The Administrative Services unit ensures coverage in each of the departments and produces the weekly and monthly schedules.

Assigned Judges ProgramThe Administrative Services Division coordinates the Court’s participation in the Assigned Judges Program. The division, which handles hundreds of requests annually, coordinates with the Administrative Office of the Court, the Presiding Judge and the Visiting Judges to ensure that courtrooms are covered when a sitting Judge is not available.

CLETSThe Court Administrative Services Division also supports court operations by managing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Court and the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The MOU requires that the Courts’ use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) is within DOJ Guidelines. The Administrative Services

ADMINISTRATION

Division is responsible for responding to DOJ Audits, coordinating the training of court staff, and providing secure access to the system. The division provides administrative support to the Presiding Judge and Court Executive Officer. It tracks judicial absences and produces weekly assignment schedules and monthly calendars for the Court; provides the Presiding Judge with a monthly and weekly judicial leave forecast; tracks judicial leave requests; and provides new Judges with an orientation to the Court.

FacilitiesThe creation of the Administrative Services Division provides the Court with a central point of contact for facility concerns and a unit dedicated to responding to facility issues. The Administrative Services Division has two building services technicians dedicated to responding to facility concerns. Staff coordinates with vendors for large-scale moves, building renovations, building systems repairs, and non- IT equipment purchases.

Staff also collaborated with the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) to renovate Traffic Departments A & B. Other projects include:

• Securing a new janitorial service provider for CCC.

• Working with the AOC, vendors and the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) to rehabilitate the custody elevators at the HOJ.

Managing Attorney/General Counsel Since the Court’s reorganization, the legal operations also have been reorganized to maximize the utility and efficiency of Court-employed attorneys. Over the years, as a result of a hiring freeze and a reduction of attorney staff, the Judges were faced with reduced legal resources. Several years ago, the Court’s Executive Committee created the position of Managing Attorney/General Counsel, after recognizing the need for a single manager to oversee all of the Court’s legal resources, including oversight and management of the Court’s Staff Attorneys, Legal Research Assistants (LRAs), paralegals, law student externs, legal volunteers, and the Court’s Civil Case Settlement Specialist.

The Court has a legal staff of approximately 30 employees who serve the Court. Prior to the reorganization, Staff Attorneys and Legal Research Assistants reported to different Judges and managers. In 2011, the Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein sought

an analysis of the Court’s legal resources, which led to the conclusion that it was vital to the efficient delivery and management of the Court’s legal resources to hire a Managing Attorney to supervise these employees. However, due to budget constraints, the position was not filled until May 2013.

As a member of the Court’s Executive Management Team, the Managing Attorney directs the Court’s legal operations and serves as the Court’s General Counsel, offering comprehensive legal advice to the Presiding Judge, judicial officers, the Court Executive Officer, and members of the Court’s executive team. The Managing Attorney plans, organizes, and directs legal operations, including legal research court-wide, which includes the Department of the Presiding Judge, Civil and Criminal trial courts, the Appellate Division, Probate, Asbestos, Housing, and Unified Family Courts, and the Court’s self-help ACCESS center.

The Managing Attorney provides leadership, supervision, training, and work evaluation for assigned attorneys and legal staff. The Managing Attorney also coordinates the maintenance and renewal of legal resources for the Court.

For decades, the Court’s LRA program has given law school graduates the opportunity to serve as Legal Research Assistants for the Court. This 1-year program, which now is under the Managing Attorney’s supervision, provides new lawyers vast experience in many different areas of the law and the opportunity to deliver significant analyses in substantive work. The Judges are provided with the excellent research skills of recent law school

graduates and the LRAs gain significant improvement in their writing skills and invaluable experience in understanding and becoming familiar with court procedures in the Civil and Criminal courts and the Appellate Division. The Court is proud to be a part of the development of these fine young attorneys.

This new organization and oversight of legal resources by a Managing Attorney/General Counsel, has successfully resulted in new efficiencies and services for the prospective Court and the public it serves.

Jury ServicesJurors are usually first in line, frequently before the courthouse opens. They are sometimes a little confused, re-reading the paper from the Court telling them to be there. Some are proud to be there, others are complacent, and a few are upset. All are inconvenienced. They may not look like it, but these are the most important people who come to the courthouses.

Staff in Jury Services is aware that the jurors would rather be elsewhere, but they are committed to making the experience as painless and pleasant as possible. Everyone knows that jury duty means waiting, waiting, and more waiting. Staff strives to minimize that inconvenience, but the simple fact is that the trial process takes time. Jurors wait to get to the assembly rooms, wait for everyone to arrive to start orientation, and then wait to get sent to a courtroom. Once there, they may wait for attorneys and the Judge to finish motions crucial to the outcome of the trial. Prospective jurors are unlikely to remember the days when the process runs smoothly and they are sent to the courtroom quickly. Everyone

Managing Attorney Stella Pantazis holds a meeting with Legal Research Assistants (L to R) Brianna Mannion, Geoffrey Macbride, and Nicole Nellesen Coon.


remembers the days when there are delays or when last-minute action means that the trial cannot proceed and the jurors are dismissed.

Jury Services staff are responsible for issuing summonses to jurors; helping the jurors to reschedule or be excused; answering jurors’ questions over the phone and in person; orienting jurors to the process; assigning jurors to cases; sending them to the right courtroom; and paying jurors for their service.

An 11-member staff works in two offices, one at Civic Center Courthouse (CCC) and the other at the Hall of Justice (HOJ).

On average, staff talk to 1,200 jurors on the phone per week – with a caller wait time that is usually less than three minutes. In addition to the phone calls, approximately 20,000 jurors report to CCC and 37,000 report to the HOJ each year. San Franciscans expect to receive a jury summons in the mail every 18 – 24 months. This workload and the number of jury trials have remained steady, despite service cuts in the Court. Jury Office procedures were streamlined in order to continue to serve jurors efficiently with four fewer staff positions.

The Court’s trial calendars are extremely flexible. A Judge may order a jury panel for any case late in the day for the following morning. This is done to make sure that all trials proceed as quickly as possible. This is particularly important in the criminal trials where deadlines must be observed. Staff asks jurors to be flexible and available any day during the week. The Court acknowledges this approach is sometimes a burden. However, this process is necessary to ensure that everyone’s constitutional rights to a jury trial are respected and preserved.

Staff and Judges do their best to assure that jury service is a rewarding and efficient experience for San Franciscans. They take this duty seriously and work to

ADMINISTRATION

assure that justice and dispute resolutions are conducted in a way that respects the jurors’ time and contribution to the American system of justice.

Human ResourcesThe Human Resources Office consists of a 7-member staff who administer programs for court employees’ pay and benefits; recruitment, selection, and hiring; job classifications; labor relations, grievances and labor contract negotiations; attendance and disability programs; employee relations and investigations; and disciplinary actions and appeals. In addition, the Court was forced in 2011 to reduce staffing through layoff, which was overseen and processed by the Human Resources Office, for the first time in its history due to severe budget reductions.

In September 2011, the Court laid off 67 employees and abolished an additional 65 vacant positions. At the beginning of FY 2010-11, the Court’s non-judicial staff was comprised of 671 employees, working in 591 authorized positions, allowing for some part-time and intermittent work schedules. Currently, the Court’s non-judicial staff is comprised of 473 employees, working in 459.35 authorized positions, representing a 22.3 percent reduction in authorized positions and 29.5 percent reduction in staff.

For this reduction in staff, Human Resources was responsible for the 9-month long process of developing seniority lists, communicating with employees and their labor unions, and providing training and job placement assistance to those laid off. Through this very difficult and emotional process, and as a result of the efforts of Human Resources staff, the entire layoff was accomplished smoothly, without appeals to seniority calculations or formal protest or job action by labor organizations or employees. After the completion of the layoff process, the Court continued to abolish additional positions as they became vacant, until the current staffing levels were achieved. During the last year, it has been possible for the Court to return most of those laid off employees to work, replacing other Court staff who have resigned or retired.

Now that the staffing level has become more stabilized and more normal attrition has been achieved within the reduced staffing levels of the new reality, Human Resources staff is beginning to develop recruitment and testing plans in preparation for hiring some new employees to replace those who will be leaving their positions, mostly for upcoming retirements.

In 2012 and 2013, the Human Resources Office successfully renegotiated all five of its labor agreements. Three of these agreements have termination dates 2015; one in 2014; and one in 2016. However, those ending in 2015 contain certain clauses requiring negotiations in 2014 for limited reasons. In addition, revisions to the internal Personnel Rules are also under consideration with applicable labor organizations.

The City & County of San Francisco (CCSF) continues to provide payroll and benefits processing for the Court. During the last two years, CCSF has converted its entire payroll process to a new computer system better able to coordinate payroll, health benefits and retirement. The conversion to this new system, known as “eMerge,” has required additional efforts by Court Human Resources payroll staff. However, the expected result is greater efficiency and responsiveness in the coming year.

Information Technology GroupState budget cuts took a toll on the Information Technology Group (ITG), which reduced its 23-member staff to 15 and was a source of $2.5 million in balancing solutions to offset the Court’s deficit in FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13.

As a result, the Court was forced to forgo IT

equipment upgrades for staff and Judges. Other IT priorities also were impacted by the cuts, including server, storage and network upgrades.

By the start of FY 2011-12, the Court was beginning to realize the savings derived from the installation of a new VoIP telephone system. The system, which replaced analog telephones court-wide, had a $1.2 million price tag for equipment and installation. However, the project generated $750,000 in annual cost savings for the Court in comparison to the cost the Court had been paying to the CCSF for the Court’s phone system.

The Court’s Reduction in Force required ITG to provide some support to new automated functions within the Court. For example, the installation of digital audio recording to record misdemeanor and traffic trials required ITG to devote a staff of five technicians to install and service the units in courtrooms at the HOJ and CCC.

As the Court’s budget began to stabilize toward the end of FY 2012-13, ITG was able to refocus on an identified priority of establishing a disaster recovery plan for the Court’s ITG operations in the event of a catastrophe. The Court has achieved that goal with the creation of an out-of-state backup of its ITG and case management systems. In addition, ITG was able to move forward with the installation of upgraded hardware and software for staff and Judges.

Personnel Representative Sandy Thong answers a Court employee’s question.

Court Computer Systems Manager Tim Slack and Court Computer Systems Engineer II Vincent Gong troubleshoot an IT problem in the Court’s switch room.


ITG worked with Communications to achieve a longstanding goal of improving, updating and redesigning the Court’s Web site (www.sfsuperiorcourt.org). The redesigned Web site, which launched on June 1, 2012, was made possible with the help of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which worked with various courts, including San Francisco, to study the most efficient and user-friendly design for court Web sites. The design project yielded AOC-generated Web site templates for trial courts’ use. The site’s accuracy and ability to deliver correct information quickly to help litigants, attorneys and other court users are important factors in promoting public trust and confidence in the Court. During the protracted economic downturn, the site has served as a primary source to publicize operations changes, fee increases and other budget-related developments.

ITG was an integral part of the Court’s efforts to expand e-Filing to include complex litigation and Probate Trust cases. The Civil e-Filing expansion is a key element of the Court’s Electronic Information (EIM) management project, which began in March 2013 (See page 28). EIM, which is an ongoing project, aims to use technology to improve the service to the public, save money and reduce paper use.

CommunicationsThe Court’s Communications Director was an integral

part of the Court’s efforts to inform staff and the public about the far-reaching impacts of budget cuts on court operations and staffing. Since 2009, the Communications Director has worked closely with the Presiding Judge, Court Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources Director and other Executive and operations staff to communicate the impact on the Court and its staff of losing $22.3 million in state funding since 2008.

The Court took a high-profile role in the public discourse over budget impacts on access to justice after the Governor and state lawmakers cut $1.1 billion from the Judicial Branch. As a result, the Communications Director was the Court’s main point person to explain the impact of these cuts, including reduction of service hours in clerks’ offices; staff furloughs; layoff of employees; receipt in October 2011 of a $2.5 million loan from the Judicial Council; and closure of eight Civil departments, one Family Law, one Juvenile Dependency, and one Juvenile Traffic departments.

After the Court laid off 14 percent of its staff on October 3, 2011, the Communications Office absorbed additional duties, including management of a public

ADMINISTRATION

outreach program for San Francisco schoolchildren and preparation of Executive Committee and Full Bench meeting notices and agendas. Additional outreach efforts included coordination of frequent visits to the Court by international judicial officials and attorneys.

The Communications Director also worked closely with the ITG Director to redesign and content update of the Court’s Web site (www.sfsuperiorcourt.org) (See page 43). The role of Communications Director also expanded to include Web site content management in an effort to assure that content remains accurate, current and conforms to an established style guide.

To leverage the benefits of social media, the Communications Director established one of the first trial court Twitter accounts to communicate more quickly and directly with the public, including attorneys, justice partners and others interested in court news and changes.

In the area of media relations, the Communications Director:

• Responds to all public information requests;

• Issues news releases;

• Handles media requests for interviews of Judges and staff; and

• Serves as a liaison between the media and Judges on requests to photograph judicial proceedings.

In February 2012, the Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein issued a standing order, “Photography, Broadcasting and Recording in the Civic Center Courthouse,” which established media restrictions in CCC, which are overseen and managed by the Communications Director.

Given the increased workload, resources in the Communications Office were reinforced in late FY 2012-13 with an existing full-time Fiscal Services professional, who serves as a half-time Deputy Press Secretary.

CIVIL OPERATION

The Court is managing significant changes due to $22.3 million in permanent state budget cuts since 2008. The stress from this unprecedented economic hardship has severely impacted the Court’s Civil Operation. This unrelenting austerity requires the Court to embrace technology solutions to help Court users and staff save time and money. In spite of layoffs, closed Civil departments and reduced hours in the Civil Clerk’s office, staff strives to deliver efficient, exemplary customer service.

Situated in the Civic Center Courthouse, the Civil Operation handles lawsuits between and among individuals and/or corporations. The Civil Operation staffs courtrooms that conduct trials; manages the legal papers and processes associated with cases; creates and maintains court records; processes appeals of decisions; and responds to public requests for assistance and information. The case types in Civil range from Small Claims, Unlawful Detainers, Name Changes and Civil Restraining orders to complex cases, contract issues, property disputes, probate and issues of elder abuse.

The following departments provide specialized services in Civil:

• Master Calendar:Master Calendar Courtroom Clerks take minutes, coordinate ex parte appearances, prepare trial calendars, motion calendars, and fee waiver hearings. This is the “hub” of civil in that all cases that have not settled previously are assigned to a trial department for trial. The Master Calendar Clerk tracks which trial departments are open for new civil or criminal assignments. During the height of the RIF and Court reorganization, it was common for litigants to wait weeks to get their case assigned to a Civil trial department. However, Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee worked with staff in 2013 to assure that cases ready for trial were sent to a trial department in spite of the courtroom shortages that resulted from the permanent closure of Civil departments.

• Specialty Departments: Specialty Courtroom Clerks provide courtroom support in the departments of Law & Motion and Discovery, Asbestos, Probate, Case Management, Complex Litigation, Civil Harassment and Name Change department, and Small Claims. Specialty clerks prepare tentative rulings, take minutes of proceedings, manage the calendars, check orders after hearing for compliance with minutes, and sanction orders.

• Trial Departments:Trial Courtroom Clerks handle the daily activities

of the Civil Trial departments including jury selection, oaths, control of evidence, minutes of proceedings, settlement conferences, and post-trial motions. Civil trial courtroom clerks are cross-trained to handle criminal and civil matters.

• Probate Clerk’s Office:Probate receives all filings and manages the records for wills, estates, trusts, conservatorships of adults, guardianships of children, mental health treatment, and elder abuse restraining orders. Probate is the only unit in the Court that scans every single document that is filed. They also provide clerical support for the Court investigation unit and Probate examiners.

ENSURING EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee presides over the Court’s Master Calendar in Department 206.

http://sfsuperiorcourt.org

www.sfsuperiorcourt.org


CIVIL OPERATION

• Appellate Division:The Civil Appeals Division files and prepares records on appeal for the Court of Appeal for Unlimited Civil, Family Law, Juvenile and Probate cases. This Division also accepts briefings, calendars hearings and processes all filings for appeals from Traffic, Criminal Misdemeanor and Civil Limited Jurisdiction cases to the San Francisco Superior Court’s Appellate Bench.

• Records:The Records Division provides and maintains accurate court records for all users. Services include: certifying documents, providing case information, and facilitating access to court files and documents.

• Civil Filings:The Civil Filings Unit processes all new and subsequent filings for all Civil matters other than Small Claims, Defaults, Appeals, and Probate. The filings include those at the filing windows, U.S. mail, and drop offs.

• e-Filings:e-Filing processes all Asbestos, Complex Litigation, and Probate Trust filings electronically. Staff provides the same services as the filing window including accepting payments electronically.

• Civil Default:The Civil Default Unit processes Requests for Entry of Default and Default Judgments. When a defendant fails to file any responsive paper within the time prescribed by law, the plaintiff may request for entry of default and default judgment. This process

eliminates the need for trial or other proceedings.

• Civil Case Management:The Case Management Department handles all the calendars and all the paperwork for the case management departments. They coordinate all issues relating to arbitration, mediation, settlement conferences, orders to show cause for proofs of service, and assign trial dates. This unit also manages Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs.

• Alternative Dispute Resolution:The ADR department promotes the resolution of court cases in an expeditious, cost-effective and efficient manner through collaboration and continued outreach efforts with the Court, legal community and the public.

• Small Claims:The Small Claims Department handles disputes not exceeding $10,000. New claims and subsequent filings may be filed in person or through the U.S. mail. The division also provides information over the telephone, and to the public at the counter. Trials are less formal than the Civil trials for Limited and Unlimited Jurisdiction.

In response to substantial budget cuts, the Court overhauled operations while maintaining and promoting public trust and confidence. The budget cuts resulted in the closure of civil courtrooms and the consolidation of services and staff. Civil Operation staff was reduced by 30 percent over four years. This provided an opportunity to implement a strategic agenda to streamline and operationalize efficiencies.

Under then-Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein’s direction, the Civil Operation undertook these strategic initiatives designed to improve access to justice, both in the management of cases and in the management of case-related information:

Management of Asbestos and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CasesIn January 2010 under the direction of then-Presiding Judge James J. McBride, the Court established a department for asbestos cases to improve the management of these highly complicated cases. With the cooperation of the Bar and the concerted efforts of the Bench and staff, the Court was able to effectively and directly improve the case management of the largest asbestos caseload in the state. The number of processed cases increased, the number of jurors used for cases

that would ultimately settle decreased, and the time that cases took to go through the process decreased significantly.

Shortly thereafter, in October 2011, to further streamline the courtroom operations, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases were added to the Asbestos Department. Similar in nature, CEQA cases benefitted from the case management protocols in place.

In June 2012, the Asbestos General Orders that governed the case management of complex asbestos cases were consolidated into one Case Management Order (CMO). Judge Teri L. Jackson, created a task force of attorneys, the Bench and staff who reviewed, commented, and recommended the proposed changes that would effectively consolidate all not previously rescinded, invalidated, or deleted orders into one CMO that has been adopted by many courts in the state.

Consolidation of Law and Motion and Discovery DepartmentIn August 2011, the Court, under the direction of Judge Harold Kahn, instituted a program to have volunteer attorneys, serving as Pro Tem Judges, preside over discovery matters. This change freed up judicial and staff resources to focus on law and motion after the consolidation of two departments into a single department.

Implementation of Housing CourtIn October 2011, Presiding Judge Feinstein consolidated unlawful detainer and foreclosure matters into a single department. Under the leadership of Judge Ronald Quidachay, all unlawful detainer motions (including discovery and motions to continue trial) are heard every Court day. This has streamlined the process for these cases, ensuring that individuals facing eviction or foreclosure have speedy access to justice.

Development of Settlement Program Using Volunteer Attorneys In May 2012, Judge Feinstein developed a settlement program to address the need for Judges to conduct trials rather than devoting limited court time to holding settlement conferences. Volunteer attorneys from diverse and experienced backgrounds were recruited to sit as settlement attorneys to conduct settlement conferences. Fifteen hearing calendars were eliminated or consolidated into five calendars, freeing Court resources for trials. (See page 30)

Development of Records Retention ProjectIn November 2010, the Court began a records retention project to develop and maintain a comprehensive records management program. This includes promoting sound

records management principles, supporting access to information for legal, financial and operational decisions, and assisting in the appraisal of historical court records and delivery of them to the court archives. This project has allowed the Court to institute a regular records destruction program, reducing costs associated with warehouse storage.

Expansion of Electronic Filing to Additional Case TypesIn October 2012, the Court expanded mandatory electronic filing to Complex Litigation cases. Annually the Court receives an average of 75 new complex litigation cases. These cases involve a huge number of documents that now come electronically and directly into the Court’s case management system.

In July 2013 under the leadership of Probate Supervising Judge Mary Wiss, the Court further expanded its mandatory e-Filing program to Probate trust cases, believed to be the first court in the Bay Area to do so. The Court strategically convened a workgroup comprised of Probate attorneys and paralegals along with Bench officers and staff to implement the change.

A clerk file stamps a Civil filing in Room 103 of the Civil Clerk’s office.

Civil filings are made in Room 103 of the Civic Center Courthouse.


Eliminating BacklogsBecause the Civil Division has endured the greatest decrease in staff and Bench officers in the Court, it was impossible to manage the volume of paper coming through the doors. As a result of the budget cuts, the Civil Operation experienced:

• An 8-month backlog of submitted defaults filings. The Court had on inventory of 1,676 defaults to be processed.

• A backlog of pleadings sent by U.S. mail – marked received opened but not yet filed – dated back an average of at least 60 days.

• A 16-month backlog of papers that dated back to May 6, 2011 mounded into 300 linear yards of unscanned, unfiled papers.

• 2,254 in backlogged writs and abstract.

• Reduced Clerk’s Office hours from 8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. – 4 p.m.

In April 2013, the first of 11 designated temporary positions were filled to work under the EIM Initiative (see page 28). These temporary employees eliminated the backlog of filing and scanning while permanent staff worked to resolve the case-processing backlogs.

Deputy Court Clerk I Jerome Sadhu and Deputy Court Clerk I Stephanie Ramirez work to eliminate the backlog of stacked civil flings that accumulated on shelves due to state budget related staff shortages.

Backlog of filed Civil cases dating back to Fall 2012 fill shelves until staff have time to scan the files.

Litigants file Civil documents in the Civil Clerk’s office in Civic Center Courthouse.


CIVIL OPERATION

Probate San Franciscans from every neighborhood, economic level and ethnicity seek Probate Department services. It may be necessary to probate a decedent’s estate to transfer assets after the death of a family member. If a close friend or family member has become incapable of managing his/her own affairs, a conservatorship may be appropriate. The use of trust assets may lead to a dispute. If a child’s parents have proven unable to take proper care of the child or die unexpectedly, a guardianship may be needed to care for the minor. The Probate Department also handles mental health conservatorships for anyone gravely disabled by mental illness.

The work of the Probate Department is accomplished through the combined efforts of clerks, examiners, investigators and judicial officers, all of whom work together to process calendars that may have as many as 50-70 matters on in a single morning. Two Judges are assigned to hear the voluminous caseload in the Probate Department. The high number of matters on Probate’s weekly calendars could not be processed without the thorough work provided by the Probate Department clerks, examiners and investigators.

Probate Director Cynthia Jones and Probate Investigator Cynthia Webb-Beckford go over a Probate case report with Supervising Judge Mary Wiss.

Conservatorship and guardianship appointment hearings have separate calendars because of the sensitive nature of those proceedings, as do elder abuse restraining orders on matters related to a conservatorship. In addition, the Probate Court handles its own Law & Motion matters, which involves hearings scheduled on multiple afternoons each week.

Mediation and Other ProgramsProbate Court continues to offer special programs such as mediation and volunteer monitors for guardianships.

Two panels of volunteer attorneys provide Pro Bono Mediation in the Probate Department. The first panel, which is administered by a private probate litigation attorney, provides mediators for disputes involving trusts and decedents’ estates. The second panel, which is administered by the Court, provides mediators for those involved in guardianship and conservatorship matters.

Staff Reductions = Service Reductions With the anticipated “silver tsunami” of Baby Boomers turning 65 and older, it is expected that filings in estates, trusts and conservatorships will increase dramatically in the coming years. Despite the realities of these numbers now and in the future, the reduction in staff through layoffs, unfilled vacancies and the Court’s reorganization have placed a great strain on the Probate Department’s resources. The Probate Examiner staff was reduced by approximately 33 percent until Summer 2013 when restored state funding allowed the Court to rehire an Examiner, leaving a reduction of 16.5 percent. It is estimated that by Summer 2014, Probate will be able to reduce by 25 percent the time lag between the filing date and hearing date as a result of this partial restoration.

The investigation staff was reduced by approximately 30 percent, and the department’s clerical staff was reduced 75 percent.

Unfortunately, these reductions have real consequences for Probate Department clients. The time lag between filing a petition and obtaining a hearing more than doubled for trust matters and for estate petitions after the opening of a case. The delay between petitioning to establish a new conservatorship or guardianship has nearly doubled and continues to increase. One of the most visible impacts is the severely reduced hours the Department is open to the public.

A delay in a Probate matter being heard is far more than numbers and statistics. Backlogs in Conservatorship or Guardianship cases delays help for vulnerable, dependent adults or children. In an Estate matter, delayed

payment of fees lead to wait times to provide care for an individual, or longer waiting period for funds derived from the sale of a house to pay for living expenses.

In an effort to leverage technology to improve service to the public, achieve operational efficiencies and save money, the Probate Department is introducing a mandatory e-Filing system for its cases, beginning with trusts. Limited resources and new priorities strain the Department staff and Judges. But everyday, each member of the Probate Department and its bench officers serve San Franciscans with pride and dedication.

Parties gather outside the Probate Office in the Civic Center Courthouse for a case discussion.


CRIMINAL OPERATION

The Criminal Operation at HOJ consists of a Supervising Judge/Felony Master Calendar department, Master Misdemeanor department, 11½ Trial departments, four Preliminary Hearing departments, three specialty departments hearing felony settlements, and adult Collaborative courts. The Criminal Operation has managed major changes in the law (see page 29) as well as significant restructuring to assist with reduced resources.

The greatest change in operations has been the creation of the Master Misdemeanor department in 2011. The Court consolidated four Misdemeanor departments into one Master Calendar department that handles cases from arraignment to trial. Once ready for trial, the cases

are distributed throughout 11½ Trial departments. There is no longer a distinction between Misdemeanor trial departments and Felony trial departments. Since the creation of the Master Misdemeanor department, the Court has reduced significantly the backlog of cases from more than 2,500 to a low of 900.

The Criminal Operation also used technology to create solutions for lack of resources. In 2011, the Court implemented the use of a digital recording system known as JAVS, or the Jefferson Audio Visual System. All trial departments were equipped with the new system for use in Misdemeanor and Traffic trials. Operated by courtroom trial clerks, JAVS records the proceedings using the latest technology, recognizes each speaker, and allows for the creation of accurate and timely transcripts. Hundreds of trials have been tried using the new technology, resulting in greater efficiencies and significant cost savings for the Court and the public.

Another major step forward in creating efficiencies was the transfer of bail responsibilities from the Court to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. The Court was the only one in California that took the posting of bail for those in custody, which required staffing 24/7. This transfer of responsibilities allowed the Court to reassign staff to the Monday – Friday day shift. This transition saved payroll and security costs.

In 2011, the development of a Master Misdemeanor department and the initiation of direct filing of criminal complaints by the District Attorney’s Office to the Criminal Clerk’s Office in Room 101 allowed the Court to eliminate the night shift entirely. This final step provided additional savings in payroll and security costs, and reduced the number of arraignments on the Court’s calendars each day.

Lack of adequate space and secure storage has been an ongoing issue for Criminal exhibits at the HOJ. In July 2013, with the guidance of an interim Supervisor, two limited-term employees and two permanent employees in our Exhibits Unit, conducted a complete inventory and re-engineering of the exhibit handling procedures. During this project, 350 Applications and Orders regarding disposal of exhibits pursuant to Penal Code §1417, were signed by Assistant Presiding Judge John K. Stewart which allowed the Court to dispose of several thousand

Former Supervising Criminal Judge John K. Stewart discusses a case with an attorney in Dept. 22.

MANAGING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND REDUCING THE BACKLOG

exhibits. Most exhibits were returned to the District Attorney’s Office and several were destroyed pursuant to applicable code sections. The new protocols will ensure best practices in the collection, receipt and return of Criminal exhibits brought before the Court.

TrafficThe Reduction in Force, which led to the termination of eight Court Commissioners, required Judges to preside over the Court’s Traffic departments. As a result, Supervising Judge Gail Dekreon took a leadership role in the Traffic Division. The combination of management staff reorganization, fresh eyes and a focus on efficiencies has re-energized the Traffic Division.

Though staffing levels remain reduced, the new leadership has honed in on ways to make the process more convenient for defendants while improving workflows for the remaining team. Judge Dekreon and staff have implemented new Web site, phone system and courtesy notice improvements. A procedure for adjudication pursuant to Vehicle Code §40903 has streamlined delinquent citation processing for all future citations.

The two Traffic courtrooms were remodeled for

the first time since the building was erected in 1960. Further improvements under consideration are replacing the 35-year-old computer case management system to automate dozens of processes currently done manually. The new system also would allow for the scheduling of court dates, and the online payment of fines and delinquent citations. These changes would eliminate the current need for defendants to make multiple trips to the courthouse to take care of a single citation.

Court ReportersCourt Reporters are guardian of the record and purveyors of transcripts for all interested parties. Their professional responsibilities include providing appellate transcripts to the California Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of California and legislated transcripts arising out of criminal proceedings.

Allocation of Official Court Reporters was significantly changed beginning in October 2011. Since then, the Court no longer provides Court Reporters for Civil and Family Law trials, or Misdemeanor cases. Court Reporters now staff only areas of law that are required to be reported, such as Felony matters, Juvenile Dependency and Delinquency. This change resulted in

A typical day at the Hall of Justice, where attorneys, prosecutors, witnesses, defendants, jurors, and others converge outside of Criminal departments.


the lay off of 29 Court Reporters and a Supervisor.Simultaneously, the Court implemented digital audio

recording in order to record Misdemeanor and Traffic trials. For Civil and Family litigation, parties who wish to have their proceedings reported are required to retain and provide their own reporter, which gave ex-Officials the opportunity to remain working in the Court.

Attrition and some restored state funding in 2013 allowed the Court to rehire many of the laid off Court Reporters. As of early 2014, the Court Reporting Unit is comprised of 35 Official Court Reporters, and the Managing Reporter is rebuilding a Pro tem list.

While 2011 and 2012 posed critical changes in procedures for the unit, the Court Reporters continued to provide outstanding service to the public and their judicial officers.

InterpretersThe Court’s Interpreter Unit offer interpreting service from

CRIMINAL OPERATION

Court employees and independent contractors proficient in nearly every language. The unit has 16 employees and about 60 independent contractors servicing court users’ interpreter needs.

Spanish is the most frequently used language, followed by Cantonese, Mandarin and Vietnamese. Other widely used languages include Russian, Tagalog, Arabic and Korean.

The interpreters service all types of criminal cases and offer assistance to plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, jurors and any other others who need interpreting services.

Comprehensive Collections Unit (CCU)Since reorganizing in 2011, the unit has maintained its primary relationship with the CCSF’s Bureau of Delinquent Revenue to collect court ordered criminal fines and victim restitution. A private contractor’s role of handling traffic amnesty cases was expanded. The firm recovered $350,000 in delinquent debt during the 6-month amnesty period.

Additionally, the Court entered into an agreement with the State of California’s Franchise Tax Board to receive referrals for court-ordered and delinquent traffic fines. In addition to administratively overseeing collection efforts, the CCU continues to help victims of crime through the collection of victim restitution. FY 2011-12 saw $3.7 million collected from Criminal defendants, $2.4 million from Traffic defendants, and $354,000 in restitution distributed to victims. FY 2012-13 figures are similar for Criminal but more than doubled for Traffic, resulting in almost $5 million collected. Victim Restitution distributed in FY 2012-13 totaled $405,000.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

The Unified Family Court (UFC) has undergone significant changes since the economic downturn began in 2008. There also have been changes in caseloads and case characteristics – in part as a result of the Great Recession. The family court has seen more pro se litigants attempting to resolve their matters. This is an access-to-justice issue that requires an innovative approach, especially since the Court has fewer resources because of state budget cuts.

The UFC was established in 1997 by retired Judge Donna J. Hitchens. It unified the previously separate departments of Juvenile Dependency, Juvenile Delinquency, and Family Law into one Court division. Its mission is to provide coordinated services to those who have family related issues in the Court system; strengthen services to the community; and assist and promote healthy families and children.

In FY 2007-08, UFC had 11 judicial officers and 32 clerical staff. Since the severe budget cuts, the judicial staff dwindled to eight, which created a backlog of cases waiting for hearings resulting in delayed matters that impacted families and children. UFC staff also has been cut by eight clerical staff who provided assistance to the Bench, Bar Association of San Francisco and the public.

During the Court’s Reduction in Force and subsequent reorganization, the UFC has seen an increase in self-represented litigants who are unfamiliar with the court process. The Court has seen changes in the following areas:

• Increasing numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse clients

• Complex cases involving issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, mental health, or move-aways

• High-conflict or very adversarial cases, coupled with difficulty getting parents to focus on their children’s interests

• Clients with limited financial resources to pay for evaluations or other needed services

• Failures to appear for mediation

SUPPORTING THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES

Official Court Reporter Carlito Mandia reports a Criminal proceeding at the Hall of Justice.

Judge Julie Tang hugs a child after presiding over the child’s adoption hearing in the Unified Family Court.

Supervising Traffic Judge Gail Dekreon speaks to a defendant in Traffic Court.


UNIFIED FAMILY COURT• Noncompliance with court orders, along with lack

of consequences for noncompliance

• Clients returning to mediation multiple times

Family Court ServicesFamily Court Services (FCS) is a department within UFC which provides direct services to families and children involved in the court system. These services include orientation, mediation, investigations and collaboration with community agencies that serve the needs of families.

• The staff provides mandatory mediation for contested family law cases in which there is a dispute about custody and visitation. Parents are required to attend an orientation class provided by the mediators to prepare them for the mediation process. The goal of mediation is to assist the parents in developing an appropriate parenting plan and a successful co-parenting relationship.

• Mediations also are provided for Juvenile Dependency cases and include the parents, social workers, attorneys, community resource personnel, and when appropriate the children themselves. Successful mediations result in more creative plans for families and children needing assistance for safety and resolution of issues, more identified services for dependent children and specific visitation plans.

• All mediations are confidential, although reports to Child Protective Services are made if a child is at risk.

• Mediators are mental health professionals who receive updated training yearly. Experts in specific areas also provide training for FCS and other UFC staff. Each mediator is also a liaison to community agencies – thus enabling FCS to provide updated information on resources in the community for families.

• At the request of the Court, FCS staff may conduct information-gathering investigations, called Tier 2 reports, which can include interviews of children involved in court cases.

• Coordination of child custody evaluations, which was developed in 2007, was suspended due to fiscal constraints in 2011. Collection of data also has been suspended due to fiscal restraints.

Juvenile DependencyJuvenile Dependency Court can have a significant impact on the lives and futures of children and families. In most cases, a Dependency case is filed shortly after a police office or social worker has removed a child from the home. The police officer or social worker may remove a child from the home if they have a reason to believe the child is not safe, or if there is a credible threat against the child’s safety and well-being.

In October 2011, the Court closed one of two Dependency departments in a court-wide reorganization amid budget cuts. Since then, and until the summer 2013 restoration of funds, the single Dependency department absorbed most of the caseload from the closed Dependency department with the assistance of the UFC’s Supervising Judge’s Department. These changes impacted the efforts to serve the cause of justice in matters that deeply affect the lives of families and children not only in the Dependency courtrooms, but also the Family Law departments.

On Sept. 3, 2013, the Court re-opened on a part-time basis a previously closed full-time Dependency courtroom. This was a direct result of $60 million in restored state funding to the judicial branch. Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee made it a priority to use the money to restore services to the Court’s most vulnerable populations, including children who rely on permanency and stability. Since then, the UFC has seen the positive impacts of the restoration of the Dependency department.

When the Court was forced to terminate the Court Commissioners and close one Dependency courtroom, UFC Supervising Judge Charlotte Walter Woolard absorbed the caseload from the closed Dependency courtroom. Since Dependency cases have precedence, the Family Law long cause hearings set in front of Judge Woolard had to be rescheduled at a later date, causing a delay in justice for those family law matters that were waiting resolution. With the restoration of the Dependency department, Judges are hearing the Family Law cases with less delay.

The hundreds of cases heard every week in the Family Law and Dependency courtrooms underscore the importance that families and the community place on the ability of the courts to resolve their disputes. Families are the fabric of our society. When there is a break in the family unit that the parties are unable to resolve, they rely on the courts to provide adequate resources to meet those needs. With this additional department, the Court is again able to meet those needs more efficiently and help deliver court services to those families who need help to resolve their differences and move forward with their lives.

Court Interpreter Shannon Raintree assists a Spanish-speaking litigant in a UFC case.

Family Court Services mediators help court-involved parents resolve differences to provide the best outcome for the children.

A father gives a bottle to his baby girl on the 4th floor of the Civic Center Courthouse.


Juvenile DelinquencyThe objectives of the Delinquency Court are to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor; to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties whenever possible; give care, treatment and guidance to the minor; and help rehabilitate them and hold them accountable for their behavior when they commit delinquent acts.

Juvenile Delinquency cases were prioritized as a core service during the turbulent budget crisis, which led to few impacts on the adjudication of these matters.

Juvenile TrafficDue to the layoff of the full-time Juvenile Traffic Hearing Officer, the calendar days for Juvenile Traffic decreased from five days a week to once a week. The Traffic calendar, which was heard daily, is now heard every Wednesday. The Traffic calendar now has a 3-month waiting period for a hearing.

Since the layoff of the hearing officer, the Court uses Pro Tem Judges (attorneys who volunteer) to hear the calendar. Pro Tem Judges often are different each day

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

and not all of them are fully versed in Juvenile Traffic Law, which has uneven results. For example, one Pro Tem Judge may reduce the fine for fare evasion to $25 (instead of $116 or $206), even though the minor had appeared in the Traffic Court before on the same violation. Other consequences are:

• Rulings are inconsistent from one Pro Tem Judge to another. If co-minors are cited for the same violation but are scheduled to appear on different days, each Pro Tem may reduce the fine differently.

• Minors are not consistently referred to restorative justice programs, forcing programs to close or lose funding. For example, since the Informal and Traffic Court is heard once a week, the Juvenile Alternative Work (JAWS) Program has not been receiving as many referrals, which impacts its funding. JAWS is a restorative justice program for minors with graffiti and vandalism charges who are required to work with the Police Department to cover graffiti throughout San Francisco.

• Continued cases may not follow the Pro Tem Judge since a different Pro Tem Judge is scheduled every week, resulting in inconsistent rulings and/or fines.

• Cases set for trial require that the case be heard by one of our sitting Juvenile Delinquency Judges. Setting these dates in the future is difficult because a no-time waiver contested case always takes precedence. Traffic trials are set in the afternoon with the trials and hearings. This causes a lot of frustration for the parents and minor, and also the subpoenaed police officer, who have to take time off from work to attend the hearing.

Child SupportThe Title IV-D Child Support Commissioner in Department 416, pursuant to Family Code §4251, presides over matters involving determinations of parentage, and conducts hearings to establish, modify, or enforce child support or spousal support.

Cases heard in this department include those initially

filed by the local child support agency, the San Francisco Department of Child Support Services (SF DCSS), as well as proceedings in which SF DCSS is providing support services – including, for example, enforcement of support orders rendered in a prior dissolution proceeding, or in a case filed under the Uniform Parentage Act – pursuant to Family Code §17400.

Department of Child Support Services (State DCSS) provides free access to the public Guideline Calculator program. More information is available at http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Default.aspx.

Interpreter GrantIn FY 2007-08, the UFC also expanded its use of interpreters in Family Law and Child Support matters. Through a grant from the Administrative Office of the Courts for the use of interpreters in domestic violence cases, the UFC was able to leverage services to provide interpreters in nondomestic violence case types. This ongoing program has assisted the public and reduced continuance rates.

Judge Susan Breall speaks with a minor during a Juvenile Delinquency hearing.

The Court participates in an annual National Adoption Day celebration with adoption hearings and a reception for families in the UFC.

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Default.aspx

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Default.aspx


STATISTICS

CASE TYPE FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013CHANGE

# %Total Criminal Cases 186,285 164,017 -22,268 -12.0%

Felonies 4,436 -201 -201 -4.5%

Misdemeanors 4,615 4,235 -657 -14.2%

Non-Traffic Misdemeanors 2,183 2,164 -19 -0.9%

Traffic Misdemeanors 2,432 1,794 -638 -26.2%

Infractions 177,039 155,657 -21,382 -12.1%

Criminal Habeas Corpus 195 167 -28 -14.4%

Total Civil Cases 29,825 29,551 -274 -0.9%

Unlimited Civil 7,928 8,737 809 10.2%

Motor Vehicle PI/PD/WD 960 831 -129 -13.4%

Other PI/PD/WD 1,435 2,143 708 49.3%

Other Civil Complaints/Petitions 5,349 5,585 236 4.4%

Small Claims Appeals 184 178 -6 -3.3%

Appellate 158 221 63 39.9%

Civil Appeals 31 18 -13 -41.9%

Criminal Appeals 127 203 76 59.8%

Family Law Cases 5,549 5,317 -232 -4.2%

Marital Cases 2,663 2,687 24 0.9%

Other Family Law Petitions 2,886 2,630 -256 -8.9%

Mental Health 2,581 2,495 -86 -3.3%

Probate 971 1,003 32 3.3%

Limited Civil 9,475 8,668 -807 -8.5%

Small Claims 3,163 3,110 -53 -1.7%

Total Juvenile Cases 1,529 1,531 2 0.1%

Juvenile Delinquency 724 683 -41 -5.7%

Juvenile Dependency 805 848 43 5.3%

TOTAL 217,639 196,063 -21,576 -9.9%

Sources: CMS Management Information Reports 4513, 4515, 4519, and 4541, clerk and supervisor calendar tallies, IJS, and SATS.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT FILINGS BY CASE TYPE AND FISCAL YEAR: FY 2011-12 AND FY 2012-13

CASE TYPE FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013CHANGE

# %Total Criminal Cases 148,132 122,203 -25,929 -17.5%

Felonies 4,218 3,709 -509 -12.1%

Misdemeanors 4,513 3,318 -1,195 -26.5%

Non-Traffic Misdemeanors 2,504 1,728 -775 -31.0%

Traffic Misdemeanors 2,009 1,590 -420 -20.9%

Infractions 139,284 115,082 -24,202 -17.4%

Criminal Habeas Corpus 117 94 -23 -19.7%

Total Civil Cases 25,974 25,706 -268 -1.0%

Unlimited Civil 6,042 5,832 -210 -3.5%

Motor Vehicle PI/PD/WD 899 830 -69 -7.7%

Other PI/PD/WD 983 892 -91 -9.3%

Other Civil Complaints/Petitions 4,069 3,989 -80 -2.0%

Small Claims Appeals 91 121 30 33.0%

Appellate 220 320 100 45.5%

Civil Appeals 49 69 20 40.8%

Criminal Appeals 171 251 80 46.8%

Family Law Cases 5,130 4,266 -864 -16.8%

Marital Cases 3,038 2,498 -540 -17.8%

Other Family Law Petitions 2,092 1,768 -324 -15.5%

Mental Health 2,624 2,580 -44 -1.7%

Probate 581 603 22 3.8%

Limited Civil 8,046 9,408 1,362 16.9%

Small Claims 3,331 2,697 -634 -19.0%

Total Juvenile Cases 1,028 1,076 48 4.7%

Juvenile Delinquency 587 570 -17 -2.9%

Juvenile Dependency 441 506 65 14.7%

TOTAL 175,134 148,985 -26,149 -14.9%

Sources: CMS Management Information Reports 4513, 4515, 4519, and 4541, clerk and supervisor calendar tallies, IJS, and SATS.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT DISPOSITIONS BY CASE TYPE AND FISCAL YEAR: FY 2011-12 AND FY 2012-13

62

CREDITS

Editor: Ann E. Donlan

Assistant Editor: Megan Filly

The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, would like to acknowledge with gratitude the staff and Judges who provided the content and review for this publication.

Copyright © 2014

The San Francisco Superior Court published The New Reality to provide the public with information about the impacts of the state budget crisis on the Court’s operations, judicial officers and staff in Fiscal Year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

For additional copies, please contact:

Ann E. Donlan: [email protected] Filly: [email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

400 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102

www.sfsuperiorcourt.org

http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org

Documents

THE NEW REALITY · • Resume outreach to limited-English proficient communities in San Francisco; and • Reduce the backlog of hearings in Probate for elderly and disabled adults