HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2016 12 Community Diversion Program Agreement with Yakima Valley Community FoundationBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDASTATEMENT
Item No. 12.
For Meeting of: June 21, 2016
ITEM TITLE: Resolution authorizing an Agreement with the Yakima Valley
Community Foundation to accept funds to pay for the
implementation of a Community Diversion Program
SUBMITTED BY: Cynthia I. Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Community Diversion Program: The City began exploring the implementation of a Community
Court Program at the end of 2014 and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Center for Court Innovations, an organization based in New York that receives federal grant
money to help jurisdictions across the United States establish alternative court models. They
provide their services at no cost to us and they have been instrumental in performing our
community needs assessment and the development of our program model. The effort included
site visits to Spokane Community Court and the Seattle Community Court, a community survey
that was conducted in districts one and two of the City of Yakima, stakeholder interviews and
community focus groups. The findings of these efforts have been summarized in a draft
Community Court needs survey. See attached.
The City has developed a model that is officially called the Community Diversion Program. The
program is a Prosecution Division initiative that has the support of Yakima Police Department,
defense counsel and a number of community organizations. Alternative budgets were created at
the end of last year and the program was initially funded this year. Unfortunately, the program was
cut because of the 2016 budget shortfall.
Future of the City of Yakima Community Diversion Program: The Yakima Valley Community
Foundation has offered up to $30,000 to fund a half year of the program if the City commits to
funding the other half of the year. This development caused the Seasons to reduce their monthly
use fee from $1,000 to $750. If the City of Yakima is interested in implementing the program, the
City could commit to fund the program in 2017 at a cost of $57,000 which would allow the City to
accept the half year funding grant of $28,927 (half the cost of the first year expense of $57,854)
to get the program off the ground in July of this year. This proposal would give us a 1.5 year
experience to use for grant applications in 2018. I project that if the program is successful we
may be able to transition to a full Community Court Program in 2018 with the assistance of grant
funding.
There are BJA grants and private grant opportunities available for Community Court projects. The
City of Spokane recently received a BJA grant to enhance their community court and a separate
grant to fund a jail reduction project. The City of Olympia received a community court startup BJA
grant of $100,000. Attached is a detailed budget for the program through 2017.
ITEM BUDGETED:
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
D Resolution -COY & YVCF Grant Agreement
D Detailed Budget
D COY & YVCF Grant Agreement
Yakima Needs Assess nt Report - Preliminary
D
Findings 8 12 15
Upload Date
6/13/2016
6;13/2016
6;13/2016
6/13/2016
No
Public Safety
Interim City Manager
Type
Resolution
Backup Material
Cont roc t
Backup Material
A RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. R -2016 -
authorizing and directing the City Manager of the City of Yakima to
execute an Agreement with the Yakima Valley Community Foundation to
accept funds to pay for the implementation of a Community Diversion
Program.
WHEREAS, the City Prosecution Division prosecutes misdemeanors and gross -
misdemeanors that occur within the City of Yakima and the prosecution caseload includes
repeat offenders who commit low level crime that has a negative effect on the neighborhood
and the community at large; and
WHEREAS, the City with the support of the Center for Court Innovations, an
organization that receives federal grants to help jurisdictions around the country explore and
implement alternative courts, has studied the possibility and benefits of implementing a
Community Diversion Program since the fall of 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Council funded the implementation of a Community Diversion program
to be implemented in 2016, however, due to a budget shortfall the funding for the Community
Diversion Program had to be redirected to other City budget commitments; and
WHEREAS, the YVCF has offered to fund half a year of Community Diversion Program
with a commitment from the City to fund the other half of the year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is willing to accept the financial resources offered by the
YVCF and commits to implement and fund the Community Diversion Program in 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest of the City to direct the City
Manager to execute the attached Agreement between the City of Yakima and the Yakima Valley
Community Foundation for commitment to fund the implementation of a City of Yakima
Community Diversion Program: now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement to accept funds from the Yakima Valley Community Foundation to implement a
Community Diversion Program in exchange for a City commitment to fund the Community
Diversion Program in 2017.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21s1 day of June, 2016.
ATTEST: Avina Gutierrez, Mayor
Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk
Attachment A
In this model, the Prosecution Division would offer a Community
Diversion program to pre-screened defendants through a Stipulated
Order for Continuance. The program would be held at the Seasons.
Public Defenders and the service providers would be present. The goal
would still be to connect repeat offenders with the services needed to
Seasons -Diversion
Program
Monthly
cost
1.5 yearly
cost
Personnel Costs
Interpreter
2 hours
$50. an hour
$1,800.00
may be less if court
certified interpreter
not needed.
Prosecutor
Prosecutor
20 hours
will initially
be covered
by existing
staff
Defense
Public Defender
20 hours
will initially
be covered
by existing
staff
Security 9 hours
2 X a montF
$20.00
$6,480.00
People to People
41,599.00
62,399
Total Personnel Costs
Equipment and
Supplies Costs
Supplies
one time costs
Printer, cart
$475.00
Recorder
$100.00
Hearing Equipment Cables
$50.00
Prosecutor
Defense
PFP
Chair
$225.00
Agency Supplies
Prosecutor
Public Defender
Location Expenses
Room Rental
2 X per
month
$750.00
$13,500.00
Wand
$200.00
crowd control device
$200.00
flags for entrance
$435.00
Safety vests
$50.00
Travel/Training
`r c6;a1 Equipment ant
SuppQk s
$13,500.00
One time
costs:
$1,735.
Capital
none
Improvements
Total budget July
84,179.00
1,735.00
85,914.00
2016 - December
2017
Funds available from
$28,927.00
private donor
City's Commitment for 2017
56,987
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF YAKIMA AND
THE ¥AKIMA VALLEY COMMIJNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
A CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DIVERSION PROGRAM.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Yakima (hereinafter the "City"),
whose address is 129 North 2nd Gtree{, Yakima, Washington 98901. and, the Yakima Valley
Community Fuunde1iun, for purposes of funding the implementation of a Yakima Community
Diversion Program.
WHEREAS, the City Prosecution Division prosecutes misdemeanors and gross -
misdemeanors that occur within the City of Yakima and the prosecution caseload includes repeat
offenders who commit low level crime that has a negative effect on the neighborhood and the
community at Iarge; and
WHEREAS, the City with the support of the Center for Court |nnoVotiona, an organization
that receives federal grants to help jurisdictions around the country explore and implement
alternative cuurts, has studied the possibility and benefits of implementing a Community Diversion
Program since the fall of 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Council funded the implementation of a Community Diversion Program to
be implemented in 2016, however, due to a budget shortfall the funding for the Community
Diversion Program had to be redirected to other City budget commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Yakima Valley Community Foundation will grant $28,927 for the program
if there isa commitment from the City tofund the program in 2017 in the amount of $57.000and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is willing to accept the grant offered by the Yakima VaIIey
Community Foundation and commits to implement ancl fund the Community Diversion Program in
2017; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein
and performed by the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the responsibilities of the City and
the Yakima Valley Community Foundation.
2. Obligations of the Parties.
The City shall perform the following obligations as a condition of the Yakima Valley
Community Foundation funding the Grant:
A. The City shall implement the Community Diversion Program.
B. The City shall commit to fundithe program in 2017 consistent with the budget in
attachment A.
C. The City Prosecution Division shall oversee the Community Diversion Program and
report every 6 months to the Yakima VaIIey Community Foundation on who the
program has served and the results of the individuals involvement in the program.
Page 1 of 4
CdyVfYakinla-Yahirna\/mUeV Community Foundation
The Yakima Valley Community Foundation shall perform the following obligation:
The Yakima Valley Community Foundation shall provide a grant in the amount of
$28'927 for the implementation of a Community Diversion Program as described in
Attachment A.
3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution hereof and
shall remain in effect until the full performance of each and every part of the Agreement.
4~ Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City's Prosecution
Division.
5. Grantor. The Yakima VaIIey Community Foundation and the City understand and
expressly agree that the Yakima Valley Community Foundation is Grantor and The Yakima
Valley Community FouOdatioD, as a GnaOtor, assumes no responsibility for the Community
Diversion Program.
G. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of the
parties. It shall confer no benefits or hghb;, direct or indinaot, on any third parties. No
person or entity other than the City and the Yakima VaIIey Community Foundation may rely
upon or enforce any provision of this Agreement.
7, Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
A. The City agrees to maintain responsibility and assume liability in the
implementation of the Community Diversion Program for its own wrongful and/or negligent
acts or omiooiono, and those of its officers, agents or employees; and shall hold the
Yakima VaJIey Community Foundation and its officers, agents or employees harmless from
any responsibility or liability arising after City's acceptance caused by the wrongful and/or
negligent acts or omissions of City or any third party.
B. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this
C. Nothing contained in this Section or this Agreement shall create a liability or a
right of indemnification in any third party.
8. Compliance with Law. The Parties to this Agreement shall comply with all
applicable fedena|, state and local |mvvo, rules and regulations in carrying out the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
9. Waiver of Breach. A waiver by either party hereto of a breach of the other party
hereto of any covenant or condition of this Agreement shall not impair the right of the party
not in default to avail itself of any subsequent breach thereof. Leniency, delay or failure
of either party to insist upon strict performance of any aQreennent, covenant or condition
of this Agreement, or to exercise any right herein given in any one or more instances, shall
not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any such ogreennent, covenant, condition
or right.
Page 2of4
City of Yakima - Yakima VaIIey Community Foundation
Community Diversion Agreement
10. Dispute Resolution. The City and the Yakima Valley Community Foundation shall
meet to discuss any outstanding issues related to the implementation of this Agreement
in order to resolve any disputes through cooperation and negotiation.
11. integration. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed on
by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of
this Agreement, are deemed to exist or to bind either of the parties.
12. Modifications. The parties may modify this Agreement but no proposed changes
or modifications shall have validity or become binding on either party unless such changes
or modifications are in writing and executed by both parties.
13. Sevenabi|itV'
A. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any part, term or provision of this
Agreement illegal or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions
shall not be afhected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and
enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held invalid.
B. If any provision of this Agreement is in direct conflict with any statutory
provision of the State of \8/aohiOQkJD, that provision which may conflict shall be deemed
inoperative and null and void insofar as it may uonflict, and shall be deemed modified to
conform to such statutory provisiom
14. Survival. Any provision of this Agreement which imposes an obligation after
expiration or termination of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination and
shall bind the parties.
15. Notices. Unless otherwise stated henein, all notices and demands are required in
written form and sent to the parties at their addresses as follows:
TO: CITY OF YAK|K8A
Jeff Cutter, Interim City
Manager City of Yakima
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
TO: YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
Linda G. Moore, President & CEO
111 University Parkway Suite 102
Yakima, Washington 98908
16. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
17. Filing. Copies of this Agreement shall be filed with the Yakima County Auditor or
posted on the City's web site pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
Page 3of4
Cih/ofYmkima-YahinnaVmUeyConmnnunit«Foundmbon
CITY OF YAKIMA YAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDTION
Jeff Cutter, Interim City Manager Linda G. Moore, President & CEO
Date Signed Date Signed
ATTEST:
Sonya Clear - Tee, City Clerk
There is one attachment to this Agreement, labeled Attachment A
Page 4of4
City of Yakima -Yakima VaIIey Community Foundation
C L N' I' L R
FOR
(; O U R T
I NNOVAT ION
520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10018
646-386-3100
www.courtinnovation.org
Needs Assessment Report for the
Creation of Community Court in the City
of Yakima, Washington
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Draft August 12, 2015
1
CENTER
FOR
CU R 1
INNOVATION
The Center for Court Innovation seeks to help create a more effective and humane justice system by
designing and implementing operating programs, performing original research, and providing reformers
around the world with the tools they need to launch new strategies. The Center grew out of a single
experiment in judicial problem -solving. The Midtown Community Court was created in 1993 to address
low-level offending around Times Square in New York City. This innovative experiment in community
justice combines punishment and help, sentencing offenders to perform community service and receive
social services. The project's success in making justice more visible and more meaningful led the court's
planners, with the support of the New York State Unified Court System, to establish the Center for Court
Innovation to serve as an engine for ongoing court reform in New York. The Center has received
numerous awards for its efforts, including the Innovations in American Government Award from
Harvard University and the Ford Foundation, and the Prize for Public Sector Innovation from the Citizens
Budget Commission. Today, the Center's projects include community courts, drug courts, reentry courts,
domestic violence courts, mental health courts, and many other initiatives.
Beyond New York, the Center disseminates the lessons learned from its innovative programs, helping
criminal justice practitioners around the world launch their own problem -solving experiments. The
Center for Court Innovation provides hands-on, expert assistance to practitioners—judges, attorneys,
criminal justice officials, and community organizations—around the country and internationally. The
Center provides guidance on assessing public safety problems and crafting workable, practical solutions.
Having launched dozens of innovative criminal and juvenile justice initiatives in New York, the Center
knows first-hand the nut -and -bolts steps that must be taken to get a new project off the ground. From
using data to define the problem to reaching out to the local community to building effective multi -
agency partnerships, the Center is working nationwide and overseas to help create innovative responses
to problems like drugs, domestic violence, delinquency, and neighborhood disorder.
This report was supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance's National Problem -Solving Justice
Initiative (Grant # 2011 -DC -BX -K002). The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view
or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2
Needs Assessment Report for the Creation of Community Court
in the City of Yakima, Washington
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Table of Contents
I. Background: the Driving Force behind the Plans to Create a Community Court in Yakima 4
II. Methodology 4
III. Data Analysis 6
a. Description of the area to be served by a proposed community court 6
b. Population and demographics 7
c. Poverty and Unemployment 7
d. Local social service providers 7
e. Crime 7
IV. Community Strengths and Challenges 9
a. Quality of life and public safety perceptions 9
b. Specific public safety concerns 12
c. Community resources and engagement 15
V. Justice System Strengths and Challenges 16
a. Linking defendants to services 16
b. Defendant accountability 17
VI. Next Steps 18
3
I. Background: the Driving Force behind the Plans to Create a
nommunity Court in Yakima
Since the Fall of 2014, the Public Safety Committee of the Yakima City Council has been exploring the
creation of a community court to address public safety concerns in the city's Downtown and First Street
Corridor neighborhoods. These two areas are located in the heart of the city and are home to a variety
of attractions, a mix of communities, and a rich array of services. Downtown Yakima is a vibrant,
business -oriented neighborhood that has been undergoing revitalization. The First Street Corridor is a
mile -long entryway into Yakima, and is the first thing people see while entering the city. Both have a
reputation for quality of life offenses like graffiti, drug activity in public, street prostitution, trespassing,
aggressive panhandling, loitering, and public urination.
Community courts are neighborhood -focused courts that attempt to harness the power of the justice
system to help communities address local problems. They strive to engage outside stakeholders such as
residents, merchants, churches, and schools in new ways in an effort to bolster public trust in justice.
The community court model seeks to bring the court and community closer by giving the court a
problem -solving orientation, providing mechanisms for community input, and linking defendants to
social services. Community courts seek to respond to crime through a combined strategy of holding
offenders accountable and offering to help defendants with a range of social needs.
The Yakima City Manager, Tony O'Rourke, designated Cynthia Martinez, City Prosecutor, as the lead
planner for this initiative. The lead planner reached out to the Center for Court Innovation, and the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (Department of Justice) approved the Center to provide technical assistance
to the City of Yakima for the creation of a community court under the terms of the Center's National
Problem -Solving Justice Initiative grant. In December 2014, the City of Yakima entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Center for Court Innovation to assist in conducting a formal
assessment of community needs for the project's development.
Methodology
Key stakeholders, including the lead planner Cynthia Martinez, Municipal Court Judge Susan Woodard,
and Public Safety Committee city council members, began a needs assessment process. A needs
assessment is a systematic examination of quantitative and qualitative data from a variety of
government and community sources. A needs assessment provides community court planners with an
opportunity to:
1. Engage key stakeholders in the justice system and community;
2. Learn more about specific problems and opportunities for change; and
3. Develop innovative strategies that improve safety in the community.
The needs assessment process included data gathering and review, stakeholder interviews, a survey of
the community, and focus groups. Additionally, key stakeholders visited two regional community courts
4
to speak with court staff, discuss the planning process, and observe community court dockets. These
were the Spokane Community Court and the Seattle Community Court.
Data analysis
The Yakima Police Department provided arrest data within the City of Yakima for the years 2013, 2014,
and 2015 (current through July 23, 2015). The data derived from (1) NIBRS data, which represents
reportable arrests according to the National Incident Based Reporting System; and (2) Spillman RMS,
which is the Yakima Police Department's Records Management System and contains raw arrest data.
Both data were examined in collaboration with Joseph Brown, Crime and Intelligence Analyst at the
Yakima Police Department.
Other data that was analyzed includes the results of an annual citizen survey ("2014 Annual Survey")
conducted in Yakima' as well as U.S. Census data.2 In the 2014 Annual Survey initiative, 743 surveys
were completed by Yakima residents. Data pending to be analyzed includes court data, demographic
data, and data on the community's problematic drug use and mental health needs.
Stakeholder interviews
In a community court planning needs assessment process, stakeholder interviews are one-on-one
structured interviews with key stakeholders—justice system players, leaders of the business and
residential communities, elected officials, clergy, service providers, and others—which help to provide a
fuller understanding of a community's problems. Interviews with the following stakeholders have been
conducted so far:
- James Barth, Director of Safety Services in Central Washington and the Barth Clinic
- Therese Murphy, Administrator for Yakima County District Court Probation and Pretrial Services
- Dominic Rizzi, Chief of Police, City of Yakima Police Department
- Jeff Schneider, Captain, City of Yakima Police Department
- Judge Susan Woodard, Presiding Judge, Yakima Municipal Court
Interviews are pending with other key stakeholders, including other representatives of the community,
criminal justice agencies, government, and social service providers.
Community survey
The City of Yakima developed a community survey designed to provide city officials with views from
people who reside in, work in, or visit Downtown Yakima or the First Street Corridor about public safety
and quality -of -life issues. Additionally, the survey sought to gauge citizen interest in establishing a
community court that would address low-level criminal offenses.
1 The National Citizen Survey, Yakima, WA: Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups (2014), available at
http://www.yakimawa.gov/services/city-manager/files/2014-Yakima-Citizen-Survey-Geographic-Crosstabs.pdf.
2 United States Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, Yakima (city), Washington, available at
http://quickfacts.census.govicifdistates/53/5380010.html.
5
Professor David C. Brody, Ph.D., from the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington
State University, implemented the community survey and analyzed the results. A total of 135 surveys
were completed, both by mail and online, which represented approximately a 20% response rate for the
mail survey. 84% of survey respondents reported living or working in Yakima for longer than 10 years,
and 78% of respondents own their own home. The findings of the community survey—which will be
referred to throughout this report—were published in the City of Yakima Community Survey on Public
Safety: Final Report ("Community Survey Report") in June 2015 (see Annex A).
Focus groups
Conducting focus groups offers planners an opportunity to better understand the attitudes and needs of
key, targeted populations, whose views may not be well represented in stakeholder interviews. These
structured group interviews are designed to solicit input from key justice system or community groups,
including underrepresented groups, provider networks, or community residents. Safe Yakima Valley, a
not-for-profit organization dedicated to improving and safeguarding the community, has led two focus
groups with a mix of citizens and business owners regarding the development of a community court in
Yakima.
Focus groups are pending with other categories of stakeholders, including criminal justice system
representatives, a business owners' association, and the Hispanic community.
Data Analysis
Description of the area to be served by a proposed community court
The area to be served by the proposed community court includes Yakima's Downtown and First Street
Corridor neighborhoods, which correspond to the city's police districts 1 and 2, respectively. They are
located in the northeast part of the city.
Overview of Law Districts — City of Yakima
Your area of Inquiry
6
b. Population and demographics
According to the most recent U.S. Census, conducted in 2010, the total population of the City of Yakima
is 91,067, and the racial breakdown is as follows: 52.2% of residents are white (non -Hispanic), 41.3% are
Hispanic, 2% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.7% are black or African American, and 1.5% are
Asian. From 2009-2013, the percentage of persons who spoke a language other than English at home in
the City of Yakima was 36.7%, in comparison with 18.5% in Washington State. While the U.S. Census
only provides citywide data, it would be helpful to examine these rates in the city's nine districts.
Poverty and UnemploymCilL
The U.S. Census also estimated that between 2009-2013 24.4% of Yakima residents lived below the
poverty level, whereas about half of that population (13.4%) lived below the poverty level in
Washington State. The City of Yakima has a homeownership rate of approximately 10% lower than that
of the state (53.5% versus 63.2%). While the U.S. Census only provides citywide data, it would be helpful
to examine these rates in the city's nine districts.
d. Local social service providers
The Downtown and First Street Corridor neighborhoods are home to many social service agencies and
nonprofit organizations, including drug treatment, mental health providers, and homeless shelters. One
of the best known of these is the Yakima Union Gospel Mission, which is located on the First Street
Corridor and provides meals, counseling, health services, and a residence shelter. Other well known
agencies include the YMCA and Safe Yakima Valley.
Crime
In a report generated by the Yakima Police Department, a breakdown of crimes in Yakima's nine police
districts showed that:
• In 2013 and 2014, 32% and 26% of all low level property and society arrests took place in
districts 1 and 2, respectively.
• In 2013 and 2014, 35% and 34% of all misdemeanor arrests took place in districts 1 and 2,
respectively.
• In both 2013 and 2014, 26% of all gross misdemeanor arrests took place in districts 1 and 2.
Further, when looking cumulatively at all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor arrests from 2013 —
2015 (through 7/23/15) these two districts account for a disproportionately high percentage (27%) of
arrests in the city's nine police districts.
Community court planners indicated that charges being considered for the community court's
jurisdiction include criminal trespass, prostitution -related crimes, possession of drug paraphernalia,
shoplifting, theft, assault (liquor or drug related), liquor in park, lewd or indecent conduct, and
7
aggressive panhandling. Overall, arrest data showed that criminal trespass (1 and 2), possession of drug
paraphernalia, and prostitution -related crimes occur frequently in districts 1 and 2. Notably, 100% of all
prostitution -related arrests in 2013-2015 occurred in districts 1 and 2 (Loiter for Prostitution — 12; Offer
& Agree Prostitution — 12; Patronize a Prostitute — 15; and Prostitution — 4)
Percent of Yakima's total misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors
occurring in Downtown Yakima and First Street Corridor (districts 1 and 2)
Charge 2015 2014 2013
Criminal Trespass 2
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Criminal Trespass 1
Theft 3 (Under $750)
Shoplifting
33%
40%
41%
17%
.07%
53% 61%
47%
43%
23%
.79%
52%
46%
31%
.04%
As can be seen above, according to arrest data, shoplifting is not a frequent charge in districts 1 and 2.
The most prevalent misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses in districts 1 and 2, excluding
driving -related and domestic violence -related offenses, are shown in the charts below.
Top five misdemeanor offenses in districts 1 and 2
2014
1. Criminal trespass 2 (26)
2. Use of drug paraphernalia (19)
3. Resisting arrest (11)
4. Possession of drug paraphernalia (7)
5. Lewd conduct (6)
2013
1. Possession of drug paraphernalia (42)
2. Criminal trespass 2 (27)
3. Use of drug paraphernalia (24)
4. Stay out of area (23)
5. Patronize a prostitute (15)
Top five gross misdemeanor offenses in districts 1 and 2
2014
1. Assault 4 (32)
2. Shoplifting (30)
3. Assault (29)
4. Malicious mischief (25)
5. Theft (Under $750) (23)
2013
1. Assault (34)
2. Obstruct a law enforcement officer (34)
3. Theft 3 (Under $750) (33)
4. Trespassing (19)
5. Shoplifting (15)
8
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good)
The overall quality of life in Yakima
Overall image or reputation of Yakima
Yakima as a place to live
Your neighborhood as a place to live
Yakima as a place to raise children
Yakima as a place to retire
Overall appearance of Yakima
IV. Community Strengths and Challenges
Citizens and neighborhood groups have an important role to play in — 7
helping the justice system identify, prioritize, and solve local Problem -Solving Principle:
problems. Actively engaging citizens helps improve public trust in Community Engagement J
the justice system. Greater trust, in turn, helps people feel safer, — -
fosters law-abiding behavior, and makes members of the public more willing to cooperate in the pursuit
of justice (as witnesses, jury members, etc.).3
Community engagement is an integral part of planning for a community court. This section outlines the
community strengths and challenges identified by Yakima residents throughout the needs assessment.
a. Quality of life and public satety perceptions
According to the 2014 Annual Survey, less than half of Yakima residents rated the overall quality of life
in Yakima as excellent or good. At the same time, it should be noted that over 60% rated their
neighborhood as excellent or good as a place to live. Below is a breakdown of the general community
characteristics as rated by this survey.
2014 Annual Survey, Community Characteristics – General (2014)4
In the same survey, 29% of respondents stated that their overall feeling of safety in Yakima was either
"excellent/good" or "very/somewhat" safe. In comparison, 76% of respondents felt this way about their
neighborhood during the day, and 60% felt this way about Yakima's downtown/commercial area during
the day. These results are illustrated in the chart that follows.
3 Center for Court Innovation, Principles of Problem -Solving Justice (2007), p. 4, available at
http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf.
4 The National Citizen Survey, p. 2.
9
Overall
46%
21%
52%
61%
44%
44%
30%
In the same survey, 29% of respondents stated that their overall feeling of safety in Yakima was either
"excellent/good" or "very/somewhat" safe. In comparison, 76% of respondents felt this way about their
neighborhood during the day, and 60% felt this way about Yakima's downtown/commercial area during
the day. These results are illustrated in the chart that follows.
3 Center for Court Innovation, Principles of Problem -Solving Justice (2007), p. 4, available at
http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf.
4 The National Citizen Survey, p. 2.
9
2014 Annual Survey, Community Characteristics — Safety (2014)5
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe)
Overall
Overall feeling of safety in Yakima
29%
In your neighborhood during the day
76%
In Yakima's downtown/commercial area during the day
60%
The 2014 Annual Survey reveals that 92% of residents ranked the overall feeling of safety in Yakima as
being "essential/very important" to them.' Finally, residents were asked to indicate how important, if at
all, it is for the City to invest in a list of possible issues in the next 12 months. "Public safety/police
services" and "job creation/economic development" tied in the lead, with 91% of survey respondents
rating these as "essential" or "very important."
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2014 Annual Survey, City Priorities (2014)'
"Please indicate how important, if at all, it is for the City to invest in each of
the following issues in the next 12 months:"
I
I
1
1
1
1
Public Job creation/ Road Parks and Community Code and sign
safety/police economic improvements recreation events/activities enforcement
services development improvements
• Percent rating as "esential" or "very important"
During the needs assessment process, a community survey was carried out to assess residents' public
safety perceptions and opinions about the creation of a community court in Yakima. Planners conducted
extensive media outreach to raise awareness of the community survey and the community court project
in general. Recent coverage includes the following:
• NBC, City of Yakima Looks to Create Community Court to Crack Down on Low Level Crime (May 8,
2015), http://www. nbcrightnow.com/story/29019450/city-looks-to-create-community-court-to-
crack-down-on-low-level-crime.
• Yakima Herald, Yakima wants input on community court idea (May 7, 2015),
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/yakima-wants-input-on-community-court-
idea/article d7b0507a-86ba-5572-913b-773b0217d6fd.html.
5Id.
6 Id., p. 9.
Id., p. 10.
10
•
• KIMA CBS 29, Yakima asks for input on potential community court (May 6, 2015),
http://www. kimatv.com/news/local/City-survery-to-gather-input-on-potential-Yakima-
co m m u n ity-co u rt -30 2798481. htm 1.
• KAPP TV, Safe Yakima Valley Looks To Help Create Community Court System (March 16, 2015),
http://www. kapptv.com/article/2015/mar/16/safe-saki ma-val ley -looks -help -create -comm u nity-
cou/.
• News Talk KIT, City Officials Travel to Spokane To Check Out Special Court (January 21, 2015),
http://newstalkkit.com/city-officials-travel-to-spokane-to-check-out-special-court/.
• KIMA CBS 29, Yakima explores idea of community court program (October 13, 2014),
http://www. kimatv.com/news/local/Yakima-explores-idea-of-community-court-program--
279076211. htm I.
Community members and stakeholders expressed an overall feeling of safety in Yakima and a good
quality of life. However, they noted a few areas of the city where residents do not feel safe. The
community survey results, which are detailed in the graphic that follows, indicate that 53% of
respondents feel "somewhat unsafe" or "very unsafe" in the First Street Corridor neighborhood.
Stakeholders described properties in the First Street Corridor neighborhood as being in a state of decay,
which contributed to not feeling safe there. 29% of survey respondents indicated feeling "somewhat
unsafe" or "very unsafe" in Downtown Yakima; conversely 54% felt "somewhat safe" or "very safe."
Percent of Community Survey Respondents Perceiving Broad Areas as Safe or Unsafe$
Panel A Percent Unsafe
Somewhat unsafe • Very unsafe
First Street Corridor
Downtown Yakima
Your neighborhood
City of Yakima
30%
22% ■
16%
19% .6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% SO% 60%
First Street Corridor
Downtown Yakima
Your neighborhood
City of Yakima
40%
36%
•
52%
T
O% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
In response to a question about perceived safety in specific locations (e.g., a park Downtown) or
situations (e.g., walking Downtown), more than 50% of respondents indicated they felt "somewhat
unsafe" or "very unsafe" in Miller Park, Cherry Park, the Downtown transit center, and walking on the
First Street Corridor. The graphic below illustrates the community survey responses to this question.
'Community Survey Report, p. 7
11
Percent of Community Survey Respondents Perceiving Specific Locations or Situations as Unsafe9
Somewhat unsafe ■ Very unsafe
M■Iler Park - 27% - 36%
Cherry Park 1 20%
Downtown transit center 1 34%
Walking First Street Corridor 1 29%i ■
On the street a 20%
Walking Downtown • 18%
Downtown library 7 14% 1 1%
Commuting for work 7% 1 1%
Farmer's market 5%
D% 1D% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
k Specific public safety concerns
Community survey respondents, stakeholders, and focus group participants broadly agreed on Yakima's
most prevalent public safety concerns. The community survey asked residents to rank a number of
different offenses as a "Big Problem," "Small Problem, "Not a Problem," or "Don't Know" in the
Downtown and First Street Corridor neighborhoods. The top offenses that community survey
respondents found to be a "Big Problem" were graffiti (80%), vandalism (69%), property crime (65%),
driving without a valid license (63%), drug activity in public (61%), and littering (59%). Also ranked high
were several quality of life offenses, including prostitution (54%), shoplifting (49%), trespassing (46%),
aggressive panhandling (46%), public urination or defecation (45%), and public drinking (37%).
9 Id.
12
Offenses Rated by Community Survey Respondents as "Big Problem" '
Graffiti
Vandalism
Property crime
Driving w/o valid license
Drug activity in public
Littering
Abandoned buildings
Violent crime
Prostitution
Unsupervised juveniles
Shoplifting
Trespassing
Aggressive panhandling
Public urination or defication
Overnight camping
Public drinking
Underage drinking
Disorderly conduct
Truancy
Violation of park rules
Abandoned vehicles
Noise disturbance
38%
37%
35%
33%
32%
30%
26%
25%
69%
65%
63%
61%
59%
58%
57%
54%
51%
49%
46%
46%
45%
80%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Stakeholders and focus group participants shared similar public safety concerns. The following issues
were discussed during the needs assessment process:
Quality of Life Offenses. Stakeholders and focus group participants indicated that quality of life
offenses were common in the Downtown and First Street Corridor neighborhoods. When asked
about specific public safety concerns, the first issue that was brought up in almost every
interview was graffiti. One stakeholder described the graffiti issue as "disheartening."
Community members voiced a concern that graffiti was gang -related, and that Yakima's juvenile
population appeared to be most influenced by gangs. Stakeholders also expressed serious
concerns over several other quality of life offenses, including vandalism, public drug and alcohol
use, prostitution, trespassing, aggressive panhandling, loitering, and public urination. One
stakeholder mentioned that "you don't need statistics to see the prostitution and petty nuisance
crimes taking place in these two districts; you can just drive by and it's apparent." Another
stakeholder mentioned seeing prostitution in the middle of the afternoon and referred to the
marked prevalence of quality of life offenses in Yakima as a "sad, sad, sad situation."
• Property crimes: Stakeholders and focus group participants noted that property crimes were a
significant public safety concern. They indicated that local businesses were victims of crime,
break-ins, and property destruction, and that residential homes were also burglarized. Among
10 Id., p. 8
13
the community survey respondents, 39 (29%) indicated they had been a crime victim in
Downtown Yakima, while 28 (21%) had been victimized on the First Street Corridor. Of these
respondents, 17 reported being a victim in both locations. The respondents most frequently
experienced property crimes, including robbery, followed by acts of vandalism.
In the addition to the quality of life and property offenses discussed above, stakeholders noted the
following significant public safety concerns:
Homelessness. Stakeholders and focus group participants indicated that there is a visible
homeless population in the Downtown and First Street Corridor neighborhoods that appears to
be increasing. In addition to homeless individuals congregating in Downtown Yakima,
stakeholders also noted that this population is often present in the areas immediately
surrounding the Yakima Union Gospel Mission on the First Street Corridor (a nonprofit that
assists the city's homeless population through services and emergency shelter). There was
broad support for the Mission's services, but also an understanding that the Mission "cannot
help everyone." Because Yakima is the largest community within several hundred miles—the
surrounding areas being primarily rural and agricultural—residents indicated that people tend to
migrate to Yakima to access basic services. Oftentimes these individuals are transient and end
up becoming part of the homeless population. Further, stakeholders noted that oftentimes
homeless individuals concurrently have substance use and mental health issues.
• Problematic Drug Use and Mental Health Concerns. Stakeholders and focus group participants
indicated that there is a visible population of problematic drug users and mentally ill individuals
in the Downtown and First Street Corridor neighborhoods. People can be seen drinking alcohol
out of paper bags in public, and using drugs on the street, in and around run-down hotels, and
even in library bathrooms. Residents referred to this prevalence as a "drug lifestyle" in the
motels along the First Street Corridor, and stated that mentally ill individuals were often seen
"wandering" around the city. Yakima Police Department stakeholders interviewed stated that
the most common illicit drug of choice is heroin, followed by methamphetamine and cocaine.
• Socioeconomic concerns and distrust in government: In addition to the public safety issues
listed above, stakeholders and focus group participants indicated that the City of Yakima has had
historically high rates of poverty, low education levels, and a lack of jobs. This is in part due to
the city's agriculturally -based economy and influx of transient migrant workers, but
stakeholders also pointed to a lack of a coordinated effort to address these issues. Stakeholders
noted that overall, Yakima residents seem to feel unable to overcome these systemic barriers
and there is low public community education on these issues and how to resolve them.
According to one stakeholder, "there is a community perception of giving up." There is distrust
of local government, including the police—particularly by the Latino population—and there has
been a rise of gang activity, particularly by youth.
14
:. Community resources and engagement
Stakeholders and focus group participants had many positive things to say about Yakima's community
resources, including the existence of different community activities in Downtown Yakima, the
opportunity to work in historical buildings, the emergence of new businesses, the bus and taxi services,
the availability of fresh produce due to its agricultural nature, and affordable housing. Stakeholders also
noted that the City is in transition and hopes to develop its tourism industry. Community members
appreciated Yakima's small size and diversity.
Stakeholders noted that Yakima is a very "giving community" and that there is "no hesitation" in
supporting good, positive programs by both individuals and organizations. The following community
resources were mentioned as being particularly important in the City of Yakima:
• Union Gospel Mission
• YMCA
• Safe Yakima Valley
• Yakima Neighborhood Health
• Gang -free Initiative Services
• Rotary International
• Yakima Valley Pet Rescue
• Yakima Humane Society
• Pegasus Project
• Casey Family Program
Stakeholders agreed that Yakima is home to many social service and treatment providers, with the only
"downside" to this being that "there is a lot of need" and individuals often could not afford to access
these services.
Given that the community court model has been shown in other jurisdictions to encourage
collaboration, enhance community involvement in the justice system, leverage resources, and provide
creative solutions to problems that fuel criminal behavior, stakeholders and community members were
largely enthusiastic about the idea of a community court in Yakima. One resident who works and lives in
the heart of Yakima stated about the idea of a community court, "You know I think if you break the law
there should be a punishment, but you know if people in the community are willing to volunteer and
help others in the community get back on their feet I think it's a great thing."11
Additionally, the Yakima community has left comments on social media sites expressing their thoughts
on a community court. On KIMA Action News' Facebook page,12 although some residents were skeptical
of the idea, positive feedback to a post asking, "A community court's job is to punish low-level crimes
with community service or education programs. Should Yakima implement a system like this?" include:
11 NBC, City of Yakima Looks to Create Community Court to Crack Down on Low Level Crime (May 8, 2015).
12 https://www.facebook.com/kimatv/posts/10152953953519958 (small typos corrected).
15
• "YES!!! Please include programs such as: 1) anger management, 2) counseling, and 3) career
counseling for after."
• "Absolutely. If more people had to do service hours for pity crimes maybe they'd learn from it!
Jail is nothing it's like a vacay... community hours and classes are by far more effective."
• "I think something like that would be perfect for nonviolent crimes or first time offenders."
• "You mean they don't have one already, no wonder these kids don't learn."
• "It would be nice to put them to work cleaning up the city. No harm in trying."
• "Contractors say it takes away their income, costs to have errands watched, and run a program,
etc... But in reality Yakima CAN'T afford not to do this, if it's done correct and they hire a
dedicated person not a user. Benefits outweigh.... There must be grants out there to run this for
a couple years...."
V. Justice System Strengths and Challenges
a. Linking defendants to services
Using valid, evidence -based risk and needs assessment instruments,
the justice system can link offenders to individually tailored Problem -Solving Principle:
community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety Individualized Justice
planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate. In doing so
(and by treating defendants with dignity and respect), the justice system can help reduce recidivism,
improve community safety and enhance confidence in justice. Links to services can also aid victims,
improving their safety and helping restore their lives.13
Currently, the Yakima Municipal Court does not utilize an evidence -based risk/needs assessment tool to
link defendants to services. However, stakeholders expressed interest in utilizing a risk/needs
assessment tool in the community court project, as well as receiving training on the Risk -Need -
Responsivity (RNR) principles.14
Stakeholders also conveyed that the Municipal Court does not typically link defendants to services, and
that in particular, addressing defendants' mental health needs and substance use disorders is a
challenge confronting the court. This has resulted in defendants with mental health needs to be held in
jail awaiting a competency evaluation even though bail has been set, or other times, defendants held in
jail until they stabilize but quickly returning to problematic drug use or to not taking their medication
once they are released. Stakeholders noted that there is a "quick cycling" of drug users through the
criminal justice system, as well a "longer term cycling" of individuals with severe mental health needs
through the system. Police Chief Dominic Rizzi noted that the ability of a community court to mobilize
and leverage services would have a positive social impact in Yakima.
13 Center for Court Innovation, Principles of Problem -Solving Justice (2007), p. 6, available at
http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf.
14 Under the RNR approach, the intensity of community-based treatment and supervision should match the risk
level for reoffense, the treatment provided should match the individual's needs, and the modality of the
intervention should be one to which the individual is most responsive.
16
81% of community survey respondents believed that connecting offenders with services may help break
the cycle of re -offending. According to the Community Survey Report, this willingness to consider non-
punitive action in dealing with offenders is indicative of a community that will support the development
of a community court.
Stakeholders indicated that Yakima was home to many service providers, but that a lot of people cannot
afford access to services. In particular, stakeholders mentioned that there are only a small number of
beds available for people who have substance use disorders or mental health issues and cannot pay.
When asked what kind of services the community court should provide to offenders, stakeholders and
focus group participants mentioned the following:
• Treatment for substance use disorder
• Mental health treatment
• Housing
• Job skills training / work ethics training
• Educational courses (e.g., GED)
• Health care
It is also worth noting that stakeholders indicated that Yakima County has applied alternatives to
incarceration practices for over two decades, and that its Superior and District Courts have been very
receptive to new initiatives. The county has a drug court, DUI court, and mental health court.
Additionally, with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the county is striving towards using
evidence -based practices and assessments in its pretrial services department.
b. Defendant accountability
The justice system can send the message that all criminal behavior, even low-level quality -of -life crime,
has an impact on community safety and has consequences. By insisting on regular and rigorous
compliance monitoring—and clear consequences for non-
compliance—the justice system can improve the accountability of Problem -Solving Principle:
offenders. It can also improve the accountability of service providers Accountability
by requiring regular reports on their work with participants.15
According to stakeholders, the City of Yakima has justice system resources that allow it to respond to
low level offenses through policing, prosecution, and short term jail sanctions. Focus group participants
likewise indicated that strengths of the justice system include a fast response by police to incidents and
police presence, including police on bikes in the Downtown area. However, stakeholders noted that the
system is not set up to effectively respond to the city's common quality of life offenses and low level
offenders, particularly those with substance dependency or mental health issues. As noted above, fining
or imprisoning this population has not been an effective solution and, further, does not send the
15 Id., p. 7.
17
message of accountability. Stakeholders indicated that the same players are seen over and over again in
the justice system.
Municipal Court staffing resources was noted as a challenge that affects judicial compliance monitoring.
In particular, stakeholders noted that there is an insufficient number of clerks in the office in relation to
their caseload. Due to staffing limitations, the Clerk's office is currently only open 4 hours a day and
judges often preform administrative duties.
One way of ensuring defendant accountability and maintain the community's buy -in is through visible
restitution, such as community service projects. When discussing a community court project,
stakeholders and focus group participants broadly supported the idea of seeing low-level offenders
perform a variety of community services. These included:
• Removing graffiti
• Picking up garbage along the freeway
• Helping senior citizens with yard work
• Working with different community groups
Several stakeholders indicated that the more visual a community service project is to the public, the
better, so that the community can see accountability "in action." One justice system stakeholder
indicated that it would be helpful to convey to defendants the concepts of personal property,
ownership, and pride to prevent the continuous graffiti on people's property. This could be done, it was
suggested, through community service with a home ownership program such as Habitat for Humanity.
Nonetheless, stakeholders noted that there was a concern about locating community service projects in
Downtown Yakima because businesses there pay a private company that is charged with the
beautification of the area.
Finally, stakeholders were receptive to the idea of holding defendants accountable through participation
in social services programs that benefit participants. For example, defendants could work towards a high
school diploma, learn employment skills, or obtain counseling as a part of their community court
mandate. This idea ties together the concepts of holding defendants accountable and linking them to
services, which is a key facet of problem -solving justice.
Next Steps
As evidenced by the needs assessment process to date, community members broadly support the idea
that a community court could benefit the City of Yakima in addressing public safety concerns. For
community courts to be successful, they should address each community's particular needs. In the early
stages of planning, it is common for planners to look to other jurisdictions' community courts. We
recommend that planners learn about and utilize the process that other jurisdictions used to create their
courts, rather than try to replicate any particular model.
To finalize the needs assessment process, the following steps should be completed:
18
1. Formalization of a Multi -Agency Steerinq Committer
While there is currently a diversity of stakeholders (including the lead planner, city council members,
and representatives from probation and the judiciary) engaging in the planning process, the Center
recommends establishing a formal Steering Committee to continue the needs assessment. The Steering
Committee could include members from the judiciary, city attorney's office, city council, law
enforcement, and the defense bar.
2. Data collection
Understanding local needs and the underlying problems of offending are crucial in problem -solving
justice. Yakima planners should further analyze calls for police service, demographic data of defendants,
and court data to better understand the specific needs of the offender population.
. Stakeholder interviews
Stakeholder interviews should be conducted with other key stakeholders, including the following:
• City Council
• Judiciary (county and city)
• City Attorney's Office
• Defense bar
• Social service providers (housing, health care, and treatment providers)
• Neighborhood residents
• Business community
• Faith -based groups
1. Focus groups
Focus groups should be conducted with other categories of stakeholders, including for example:
• Criminal justice system representatives (i.e., with an existing county or city criminal justice
advisory board)
• Law enforcement
• Business owners' association
• The Hispanic community (conducted in Spanish)
5. Technical assistance site visit
Upon request during the needs assessment process, the Center is willing to conduct a training and
technical assistance site visit to the City of Yakima to meet key stakeholders and discuss strengths,
challenges, and opportunities of this project. This site visit is an opportunity to share best practices and
lessons learned by other jurisdictions. The visits might include a current community court practitioner
(e.g., community court judge, prosecutor, or coordinator) from another jurisdiction.
19
Connect with mentor courts
In September 2014, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, in collaboration with the Center for Court
Innovation, selected community courts in Dallas, TX; Hartford, CT; Orange County, CA; and San
Francisco, CA, to serve as regional mentor courts for jurisdictions seeking to improve their handling of
low-level criminal cases. The mentor courts—which were chosen in peer -review competitive process—
host site visits, answer questions from practitioners, and participate in conferences and workshops.
Yakima community court planners should connect with one or more mentor courts to receive peer
support throughout the planning process.
We look forward to continuing to assist the City of Yakima with the creation of a community court and
the finalization of this needs assessment report.
Medina Henry
Natalie Reyes
Center for Court Innovation
20
Annex A
Community Survey Report
21