reports to the twenty-fifth legislature submitted by …

REPORTS TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE

SUBMITTED BY THE

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS

THE JUDICIARY, STATE OF HAWAI#I

DECEMBER 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Act 139, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2009, Sections 6(1) - 6(5)

Report on bench warrants, including (1) the amount collected for bench warrant assessments ontraffic cases during fiscal years 2008-2010, (2) the number of warrants served during fiscal years2008-2010, (3) the number of warrants outstanding for fiscal years 2008-2010, (4) the status of theeBench Warrant Pilot Program, and (5) determination of success of the program and whether tocontinue the pilot program.

II. Act 94, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2006

Report on the effects and consequences of the changes to the appellate court system as a resultof Act 202, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2004, including (1) information relating to caseload perintermediate appellate court judge, (2) the number and nature of appeals and applications fortransfer to the supreme court, (3) the length of time required for disposition of cases and motionsfor both the intermediate appellate court and the supreme court, and (4) any changes in humanresource needs or logistical systems.

Act 148, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2008

Report on the number of times the intermediate appellate court has exercised the subpoena powergranted by Act 148, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2008, regarding compelling the attendance ofwitnesses from any part of the state and the production of books, papers, documents, or tangiblethings.

III. Act 162, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2002, HRS §577-7.5

Report on Parental Preferences in Government contracts.

IV. Act 274, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1997, HRS §607-5.6

Report on the Parent Education Special Fund, including an accounting of all deposits into andexpenditures from the fund.

V. Act 232, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1994, HRS §607-3.6

Report on the Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account, including an accounting of the receipts ofand expenditures from the account.

VI. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 64, S.D. 1, Regular Session of Hawai#i 2009

Report on the periodic repricing review as required by section 89-9(f)(2), Hawai#i Revised Statutes.

ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE

ON

ACT 139, Sections 6(1) - 6(5)SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2009

A Report on Bench Warrants

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2009

I-1

Report on Bench Warrants

This report is respectfully prepared pursuant to Act 139, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2009, also

known as the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 2009, which requires the Judiciary to submit a report to the

2010 Legislature, which includes the following :

(1) The amount collected for bench warrant assessments on traffic cases during fiscal years 2008-

2010;

(2) The number of warrants served during fiscal years 2008-2010;

(3) The number of warrants outstanding for fiscal years 2008-2010;

(4) The status of the eBench Warrant Pilot Program;

(5) Determination of success of the program and whether to continue the pilot program.

The Judiciary, State of Hawaii Report as of 12/15/09Act 139 (SLH 2009)

Section 6 (1) The Amount Collected from Bench Warrant Assessments on Traffic casesStatewide of Fees ($50) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 (7/1/09-10/31/09)

$224,374 $223,538 $217,701Note: These numbers reflect the bench warrant assessment fees receipted to the general ledger for these time frames. Partial payments and full payments collected over the course of more than one fiscal year explain the variation in amounts. These numbers do not reflect bail forfeitures.

Section 6 (2) The Number of Warrants ServedA. Statewide Warrants Served Annually FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 (7/1/09-10/31/09)Traffic (JIMS) 14932 12899 4167Criminal (Petty and Misdemeanor/DC CRIM) 5685 5215 2250Criminal (Felony and other/HAJIS)* unknown unknown unknownIntake Service Center 118 142 51Hawaii Paroling Authority 212 222 63Grand Jury 720 729 271Total 21667 19207 6802

Section 6 (3) The Number of Warrants OutstandingB. Statewide Warrants Outstanding at end of FY FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 (7/1/09-10/31/09)Traffic (JIMS) 54424 54674 54731Criminal (Petty and Misdemeanor/DC CRIM) 4263 7410 2933Criminal (Felony and other/HAJIS)* unknown unknown 2699Intake Service Center 99 69 46Hawaii Paroling Authority 165 67 53Grand Jury 554 532 524Total 59505 62752 60986

*HAJIS system warrant data has some limitations: 1) the system cannot relate a warrant document to a specific defendant in a multi-defendant case, therefore, warrant numbers may be lower than actual, and 2) the system does not track the service date for warrants.

I-2

I-3

Section 6 (4) The Status of the eBench Warrant Pilot:

• As of November 30, 2009, the eBench Warrant Pilot has been implemented in the First and

Second Circuits. eBench Warrant currently has over 400 users statewide. Users include Judiciary

staff on the islands of O#ahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, as well as staff in the Honolulu Police

Dept, Maui Police Dept, Honolulu Harbor Police under the Department of Transportation, Sheriffs’

Divisions on O#ahu and Maui, Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, Maui Prosecutor’s Office, and Public

Defender Offices on O#ahu and Maui. All three shifts for law enforcement staff on O#ahu and in

Maui County have access to the application, and remote printing of the warrants is occurring in 8

law enforcement locations. The eBench Warrant application is available 24/7 from any location, is

compatible with various internet browsers, and can be accessed by PCs and Apple computers, as

well as smartphones and PDAs with internet.

• Hawai#i Information Consortium (HIC) hosts the application and provides technical support.

• Plans are currently in place to expand the Pilot to Third and Fifth Circuits (Hawai#i County and

Kaua#i County) in 2010.

Section 6 (5) The Success of the Program:

• Collaboration: The lengthy software development cycle has allowed for all Bench Warrant Task

Force Committee agencies and other agency staff to review all three application versions (Beta I,

Beta II and Beta III) during development, to provide input and feedback on application features

and mechanics at each stage, and to test the application itself. This collaboration amongst

agencies has resulted in an application that has beneficial features and management tools not just

for the Judiciary, but also for law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. Ample testing

has also increased production usability and user satisfaction. O#ahu and Maui users have given

positive reviews for the application.

• Costs: The eBench Warrant application was developed by HIC under existing agreements at

virtually no cost to the State; the Judiciary paid HIC $14,000 to accelerate development , allowing

extra space for additional HIC resources to meet application release deadlines. The Judiciary also

incurred costs of approximately $43,000 for project management services and independent

technical consultation. The Judiciary, Public Defenders, Prosecutors, Sheriffs, Maui Police, and

Honolulu Police access the online application using existing equipment and technology. There is

I-4

no subscriber fee for any of the agencies to access and use eBench Warrant. All of the Judiciary

and law enforcement training was performed by HIC and JIMS Judiciary staff during regular work

hours and incurred no Judiciary overtime costs. Most of the Maui County and remote location

training have been accomplished using web technology, thereby reducing the travel expenses and

worktime impact associated with this training.

• Savings: Since implementation of the O#ahu Pilot on March 24, 2009, the Judiciary has delivered

approximately 11,320 traffic warrants to law enforcement electronically. The Maui Pilot was

launched on October 1, 2009 and has delivered over 130 traffic warrants electronically. This has

saved the Judiciary approximately 22,900 pages of paper, which is a low estimate since many

courts deliver more than one copy of the document. Electronic delivery not only saves on the time

needed to make additional copies, transport the hard copy documents, file and record receipt of

the hard copy documents, and disperse copies, but it also saves paper because statewide access

to the warrant data and warrant document does not rely on multiple hard copy documents being

made and dispersed to share information. Multiple users in multiple agencies and locations can

view and digest the same warrant data simultaneously without ever printing a copy.

• Sweeps: O#ahu Sheriffs Division has periodically conducted warrant sweeps, selecting a specific

location to attempt to serve outstanding warrants to people reported to live there. The sheriffs

started using eBench Warrant to prepare sweeps packets in February 2009, even prior to actual

Honolulu County-wide implementation, since the warrant data updates started well before

implementation. Sheriffs estimate that the eBench Warrant printable search result list,

spreadsheet export, geograhical search by street address and zip code, and the map view can

save 40 hours of clerical work to prepare the sweeps packets. eBench Warrant geographical

reports also allow sheriff sweep teams to optimize their work, moving systematically down any

given street or area and decreasing the time needed to drive back and forth. Sheriff warrant

sweeps success rates doubled or tripled when eBench Warrant was used to prepare packets, eg.

the September 2008 sweep resulted in 24 warrants served and 14 people arrested compared to

the April 2009 sweep results of 64 warrants served and 42 people arrested.

• Top 20 High Bail and Top 20 Most Warrants Reports: O#ahu Sheriffs on the Traffic Warrants

Team have used the eBench Warrant High Bail report to focus on high priority warrants. In August

2009, three individuals on the list were arrested. These three individuals had four warrants for

I-5

$20,250 total bail, six warrants for $15,000 total bail, and five warrants for $21,800 total bail; all

three individuals were brought to court and their cases were heard. In November 2009, the

number 13 Most Warrants individual was arrested and served with nine outstanding warrants. The

total bail for these nine warrants printed from eBench Warrant was $16,300. Also in November

2009, the number 1 high bail holder was arrested in Nevada and will be extradited to Maui for

execution of warrants, including a traffic warrant for $50,000 bail. Without the High Bail and High

Number of Warrants reports, it can be very difficult for law enforcement to prioritize warrants.

These reports were designed as a result of specific law enforcement requests.

• Impacts: The HIJIS Federated Query and Identification Subcommittee has identified eBench

Warrant as one of the Judiciary applications which is a high priority exchange.

• Future: The Judiciary plans to continue the Pilot until all counties statewide can access the

application and warrant data. The Judiciary will continue to expand the number of users, conduct

more training, and work with HIC and other criminal justice agencies to add features and

functionality to future releases of the application. The Judiciary will proceed with the JIMS Criminal

module in 2010, thereby making it possible to add more warrant types, including all criminal and

grand jury warrants, to the database in the hopes of creating a single, comprehensive warrants

system.


ON

ACT 94SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2006

A Report on the Effects and Consequences of the Changesto the Appellate Court System

AND


A Report on the Number of Times the Intermediate Appellate CourtHas Exercised the Subpoena Power Granted Regarding Compelling the

Attendance of Witnesses From Any Part of the State and theProduction of Books, Papers, Documents, or Tangible Things

Submitted by:


December 2009

II-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Overview.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-2

II. Information relating to case load per intermediate appellate court judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-3A. Appeals terminated per appellate judge.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-4B. Filings per appellate judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-5C. Pending appeals per appellate judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-5

III. Number and Nature of Appeals and Applications for Transfer to Supreme Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-6A. Appeals Terminated at Supreme Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-6B. Applications for Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-6C. Applications for Writs of Certiorari. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-8D. Original Proceedings (excluding Bar Applications). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-9

IV. Length of time required for disposition of cases and motions for both the intermediateappellate court and the supreme court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-10A. Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-10B. Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-11

V. Any changes in human resource needs or logistical support systems. . . . . . . . . . . Page II-11

VI. Such other information as may be requested by the legislature prior to adjournment sinedie of the regular session of 2009... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-11

VII. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page II-12

II-2

This report is submitted in accordance with Section 2 of Act 94 of the 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws

and Section 2 of Act 148 of the 2008 Hawai#i Session Laws.

On July 1, 2006, in accordance with Act 202 of the 2004 Hawai#i Session Laws and Acts 93 and

94 of the 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws, the Hawai#i Supreme Court implemented new appellate processes.

Consequently, all appeals filed on or after July 1, 2006 were assigned to the Hawai#i Intermediate Court of

Appeals (ICA), subject to transfer to, or review by, the Supreme Court in accordance with the terms of Act

202 and the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I. Overview

On July 3, 2006, pursuant to Section 82 of Act 202, the Chief Justice ordered that (1) all appeals

previously assigned to the Supreme Court and the ICA would be retained by each of those courts and (2)

all appeals that had not been previously assigned were transferred to the ICA. Consequently, as of July 1,

2006, the ICA had a total of 631 pending appeals (284 unbriefed; 347 briefed); the supreme court had 171

pending appeals (all briefed). The median age of pending appeals in both courts immediately before

implementation of Act 202 was 347 days.

During Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009, 1,621 new appeals were filed. During the same time

period, the Intermediate Court of Appeals terminated 1,613 appeals, and the Supreme Court terminated all

171 of the appeals it had retained. At the end of FY 2009, 630 appeals were pending at the Intermediate

Court of Appeals. At the Supreme Court, 11 appeals taken on transfer or applications for writs of certiorari

were pending at the end of FY 2009. The median age of all pending appeals as of June 30, 2009 was 246

days, a decrease of 101 days from the median age of pending appeals at the end of FY 2006. The median

age of terminated appeals in FY 2009 was 332 days, a 146 day decrease from the median age of 478

days in FY 2006.

By the end of 2009, approximately 20% fewer appeals were pending in the appellate courts and

the median age at disposition in FY 2009 was almost five months less than in FY 2006. In sum, the

backlog of cases in the appellate courts has decreased and appeals are being decided more promptly

under the Act 202 appellate process.

Information required by Section 2(1) of Act 94, 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws.1

II-3

II. Information relating to case load per intermediate appellate court judge1

The three fiscal years covered by this report included the retirement of ICA Chief Judge James S.

Burns, the death of ICA Associate Judge John S.W. Lim, the appointment of ICA Chief Judge Mark E.

Recktenwald, the appointment of ICA Associate Judge Katherine G. Leonard, the appointment of ICA

Chief Judge Mark E. Recktenwald to the Supreme Court, and the appointment of ICA Associate Judge

Craig Nakamura to Chief Judge of the ICA. Consequently, the "per judge" figures below are adjusted to

account for periods of vacancy.

See Table 1B, Judiciary’s Annual Report Statistical Supplements for FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009. 2

The number terminated is the total number of terminations minus terminations due to transfers to thesupreme court.

II-4

A. Appeals terminated per appellate judge

Appeals are decided by three judge panels. Each appeal is assigned to one of 20 possible

randomly selected panels. A lead judge on each panel takes primary responsibility for researching and

writing the panel’s disposition of the appeal. On average, during the three year measuring period, each

judge was responsible for 94 terminations.

FY No. Terminated2

(from Table 1B annualreport)

No. Appellate Judges(adjusted to account for

vacancies)

No. Terminated/No.Appellate Judges = No.

Terminated perappellate judge

2007 559 5.8 96

2008 469 5.4 87

2009 585 5.8 101

Average 538 5.7 94

See Table 1B, Judiciary’s Annual Report Statistical Supplements for FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009.3

See Table 1A, Judiciary’s Annual Report Statistical Supplements for FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009.4

II-5

B. Filings per appellate judge

The number of new filings divided by the number of judges shows that an average of 95 appeals

per year were filed for each judge on the Hawai#i ICA during this three-year period.

FY No. Filed No. Appellate Judges3

(adjusted to account forvacancies)

No. Filed/No. AppellateJudges = No. Filed per

appellate judge

2007 524 5.8 90

2008 527 5.4 98

2009 570 5.8 98

Average 540 5.7 95

C. Pending appeals per appellate judge

An average of 110 appeals for each intermediate appellate court judge were pending at the end of

each fiscal yea, during this three-year period.

FY No. Pending at end ofyear4

No. Appellate Judges(adjusted to account for

vacancies)

Pending/No. AppellateJudges = No. Pendingper appellate judge

2007 594 5.8 102

2008 650 5.4 120

2009 630 5.8 109

Average 625 5.7 110


See Table 1A, Judiciary’s Annual Report Statistical Supplements for FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009. 6

II-6

III. Number and Nature of Appeals and Applications for Transfer to Supreme Court5

As noted above, the supreme court retained 171 appeals on July 1, 2006. All appeals in the

Supreme Court thereafter were taken on transfer from the Intermediate Court of Appeals or on applications

for writs of certiorari.

A. Appeals Terminated at Supreme Court

The supreme court terminated appeals as set out below.

Termination of Appeals at Supreme Court6

FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

Civil 87 41 24

Criminal 36 36 9

Family 6 8 5

Other 5 5 0

Total terminated 134 90 38

B. Applications for Transfer

From July 1, 2007 through June 30,

2009, 20 applications to transfer appeals

from the ICA to the supreme court were filed.

Two applications were filed in criminal

appeals; 18 applications were filed in civil

appeals.

Applications forTransfer

FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

Filed 5 6 9

The appeal in which the application for transfer is filed is terminated when an opinion or order on7

the merits or an order of dismissal is entered. Supreme court denials of applications for writs of certiorari(to review ICA final decisions) are not counted in this category, but are included in Section III.C. of thisreport.

Of the 20 applications filed, 19 were terminated before the end of FY 2009. The nature of all 208

terminations are noted in the text, although one of the terminations was after the end of FY 2009.

II-7

An application to transfer is terminated when the supreme court accepts or rejects the application. 7

One of the criminal applications was rejected because the case met none of the criteria for transfer; the

other was filed by the defendant and dismissed without prejudice to being filed by counsel of record. Of

the 18 civil applications for transfer, 10 were accepted or granted and eight were rejected or denied.

Of the 10 civil applications accepted or granted, two were granted as mandatory transfers under

HRS § 602-58(a)(1) (matter of imperative or fundamental public importance); three were accepted as

discretionary transfers under

HRS § 602-58(b)(1) (matter of

first impression or novel legal

question); and five were

accepted and granted under

both HRS § 602-5(a)(1) and

HRS § 602-5(b)(1). 8

Eight of the 10

transferred appeals were

decided during the reporting

period. The average time to

disposition from the date of

transfer was 125 days.

II-8

C. Applications for Writs of Certiorari

During the three fiscal years covered by this report, 389 applications for writs of certiorari were

filed. That is, applications were filed from approximately 24% of ICA’s 1,613 terminations, compared to a

33% average for the three fiscal years before Act 202 was implemented.

Eighty-eight of the 389 certiorari applications were accepted for review on the merits. Eighty-three

of the merit reviews were completed within the three year measuring period, with an average time of 87

days from acceptance to disposition on the merits.

FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

Applications forWrits of Certiorari

70 99 104 146 110 133

ICA AppealsTerminated

230 284 317 559 469 585

Cert Apps as % ofICA Terminations

30% 35% 33% 26% 23% 23%

In the three fiscal years covered by this report, 1,015 applications for admission to the bar were9

filed and 617 individuals were admitted to the bar.

II-9

D. Original Proceedings (excluding Bar Applications)9

During the reporting period, 238 original proceedings were filed in the supreme court and 229 were

terminated.

Original Proceedings

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

Filed Terminated Filed Terminated Filed Terminated

69 68 72 72 97 89


II-10

IV. Length of time required for disposition of cases and motions for both the intermediate

appellate court and the supreme court10

A. Appeals

The median age of terminated appeals in FYs 2007 through 2009 ranged from 332 days to 417

days. In comparison, the median age of terminated appeals in fiscal years 2004 through 2006 ranged from

478 to 517 days. The difference

between the average mean termination

age for the three years before

implementation of Act 202 (501 days)

and average mean termination age in

the three years following implementation

of Act 202 (376 days) is 125 days.

The median age of pending

appeals at the end of FYs 2007 through

2009 ranged from 246 days to 327 days.

In comparison, the median age of

pending appeals at the end of FYs 2004

through 2006 ranged from 339 days to

369 days. The difference between the average mean pending age for the three years before

implementation of Act 202 (352 days) and average mean pending age for the three years after

implementation of Act 202 (282 days) is 70 days.

In sum, since the implementation of Act 202, the ages of pending appeals and the times to

disposition have both significantly decreased.


Information required by Section 2(5) of Act 94,2006 Hawai#i Session Laws and Section 2 of Act12

148, 2008 Hawai#i Session Laws.

II-11

B. Motions

Exact figures for the length of time it takes to resolve motions are unavailable, but the motions

calendar is kept virtually current, as demonstrated by the figures below.

FY Motions Pending atStart of FY

Motions Filed Motions Terminated Motions Pending atEnd of FY

2007 9 2272 2254 27

2008 27 2179 2169 37

2009 37 2470 2463 44

V. Any changes in human resource needs or logistical support systems11

No changes in human resources or logistical support systems are requested.

VI. Such other information as may be requested by the legislature prior to adjournment sine

die of the regular session of 2009.12

Section 2 of Act 148 of the 2008 Hawai#i Session Laws required the Judiciary to report "the

number of times the intermediate appellate court . . . exercised the subpoena power granted by [Act 148]."

The ICA has not yet used the subpoena power expressly granted by Act 148. It was anticipated,

however, that the subpoena power would be infrequently used. Appellate courts typically decide cases

based on the evidentiary record that was established in the court or tribunal whose decision is being

appealed. The express subpoena power was sought and is important to ensure that the ICA is equipped

to fulfill its responsibilities when the need arises.

ICA judges have used the express authority to administer oaths granted by Act 148 on five

occasions. On four occasions, ICA judges administered the attorney's oath of office to law clerks who

earned admission to the bar. On one occasion, an ICA judge administered the oath of office to the

incoming board and officers of a community organization.

II-12

VII. Summary

The implementation of Act 202 has resulted in reductions in the total number of cases pending on

appeal. Moreover, the time that it takes to resolve cases on appeal has dropped significantly since Act 202

was implemented. Finally, it appears these reductions in case backlog and case processing times did not

negatively affect the quality of the work of the ICA, since the proportion of cases the supreme court was

asked to review has also dropped since Act 202 was implemented.


ON


A Report on Parental Preference in Government Contracts

Submitted by:


December 2009

III-1

Overview and Report of Act 162, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2002

Act 162, SLH 2002 provides that Judiciary contracts, programs, and services shall not favor one

parent over the other in terms of child rearing and that the Judiciary provide an annual report to the

Legislature.

We report that the Judiciary program administrators, program specialists and contracting officers

are continuing to monitor their contracts to insure compliance with this act. In addition to using standard

contract boilerplates, our Judiciary staff attorney assures compliance with all applicable laws by reviewing

these contracts prior to finalization. None of our policies and procedures in the contracting of individuals or

groups providing contractual services to the Judiciary has ever reflected in the past, nor will they ever

reflect in the future, any parental preference.


ON


A Report on the Parent Education Special Fund

Submitted by:


December 2009

IV-1

The Parent Education Special Fund

Act 274, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1997, requires the Judiciary to submit a report on the Parent

Education Fund.

The Parent Education Special Fund was established by the 1997 Legislature, State of Hawai#i,

through Act 274. On May 2, 2003 H.R.S. 607-5.6 was amended to increase the Fund’s surcharge to $50

for family court matrimonial cases and to add the surcharge to paternity actions.

The Purpose of the Fund

Parents attending the Kids First parent education programs in Hawai#i are encouraged to refocus

on their children’s needs and to see how continued fighting negatively impacts their family. The families

are given island-specific parent handbooks containing resources for counseling, domestic violence,

parenting classes, and anger management classes. They watch the award winning Purple Family video,

and are encouraged to mediate rather than litigate their custody conflicts. The program also assists

children ages 6–17 cope with their parents’ separation. Children learn that they are not the cause of their

parents’ divorce, that parents do not divorce their children, and that their family is not the only one going

through a separation. Through mock trials teens learn about the court system. They are given resource

materials and encouraged to seek counseling if they are depressed or angry about the separation.

Current Programs

Each Circuit has a parent education program for separating and divorcing parents and their minor

children (ages 6–17).

Circuit FY 08-09Attendance

Program Schedule

First (O#ahu) 4,196 Kids First Every Wed.Second (Maui) 785 Kids First 2 Wed.nd

Third (Hilo) 410 Children in Transition 2 Tues (monthly)nd

4 Tues (odd months)th

Third (Kona) 347 Children First 3 Thurs.rd

Fifth (Kaua#i) 310 Kids First 2 Wed.nd

Total: 6,048

IV-2

Parties contesting custody or visitation were included in the Kids First program to assist never-

married families learn to co-parent. In FY 2009 on O#ahu, 4,088 new marital actions (divorce) were filed,

half of which included families with minor children. Additionally, 1,333 new paternity (unmarried parents)

petitions were filed. Approximately 36% of O#ahu’s paternity cases involve contested custody or visitation

issues. The remaining cases are filed by the Child Support Enforcement Agency seeking child support

reimbursement. Many families inform Kids First that they appreciate the Parent Handbook resources and

use the parenting plan calendars to decide time-sharing agreements.

The percentage of divorce filings in each Circuit mirrors each island’s population. The vast

majority of the state’s cases are on O#ahu where 72% of the divorces and 66% of the paternity cases are

filed. During FY 2008, the O#ahu Kids First divorce program assisted 4,196 individuals (2,716 adults and

1,480 children).

The paternity calendar consists of families who are unmarried and have children. Currently in

Hawai#i, nearly 40% of children are born to unmarried parents comparable to the national average. Nearly

1300 paternity cases are filed each year on O#ahu.

Statewide, 97 parent educations sessions were held serving 3,829 adults and 2,219 children. This

was a decrease of 58 people over the prior fiscal year; many parents were unable to attend the program

due to military deployment or relocation to the mainland. Statewide revenue increased $1,369; however,

with the decline in interest rates, the overall total reflects a decrease of $2,901 in collections.

On O#ahu, 12% of families attending have current restraining orders.

All parents are told:

• Family violence must stop immediately.

• Violence is never appropriate and is extremely harmful to children.

• The court takes into account the safety of victims and children in making custody and

visitation decisions.

CircuitFY 08-09

CensusPopulation

Population DivorceFiled

Divorce PaternityFiled

Paternity

First (O#ahu) 905,601 71% 4,088 72% 1,333 66%Second (Maui) 141,902 11% 667 12% 241 12%Third (Hilo, Kona) 173,057 13% 655 12% 329 17%Fifth (Kaua#i) 62,8 28 5% 240 4% 106 5%State of Hawai#i: 1,283,388 100% 5,650 100% 2,009 100%

IV-3

Financial Status of the Fund

The Parent Education Special Fund began collecting filing fee surcharges and donations on July 1,

1997. The attached financial report reflects the twelfth year of collections. The Parent Education Fund

continues to support all five of the Judiciary’s parent education programs.

IV-4

PARENT EDUCATION FUND REVENUEFiscal Year 2008 - 2009

Circuit: First Second Third Fifth Total

Surcharge 110,400 15,350 14,750 4,850 145,350Interest 3,971 0 0 0 3,971Total: 114,371 15,350 14,750 4,850 149,321

PARENT EDUCATION FUND EXPENSESFiscal Year 2008 – 2009

Circuit: First Second Third Fifth Total

Data Processing 547 0 0 0 547Dues 200 0 0 0 200Food 3,623 0 0 670 4,293Incentives 2,994 2,994Interpreter 235 0 0 0 235Pens 3,104 3,104Postage 458 0 0 0 458Printing 1,308 0 0 0 1,308Security 11,419 2,909 0 2,618 16,946Services for a Fee 15,250 15,000 18,750 4,500 53,500Special FundAssessment

7,791 0 0 0 7,791

Subsistence 881 0 0 728 1,609Supplies 1,792 0 0 0 1,792Training 278 0 0 280 558TransportationOut of state

1,042 0 0 1,084 2,126

Volunteer Parking 662 0 0 0 662Total: 51,584 17,909 18,750 9,880 98,123


ON


A Report on Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account

Submitted by:


December 2009

V-1

SPOUSE AND CHILD ABUSE SPECIAL ACCOUNT

The Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account placed in the Judiciary, was created in 1994 by the

Legislature, State of Hawai#i, for the purposes of developing and/or expanding new and existing programs.

The scope of the Judiciary’s Special Account may include, but is not limited to, grants or purchase of

services which support or provide domestic violence or child abuse intervention or prevention, as

authorized by law, and staff programs, as well.

The Judiciary’s Special Account is financed through a portion of the monies collected from the

issuance of birth, death, and marriage certificates. In addition, any fines collected pursuant to Hawai#i

Revised Statutes Chapter 586-11 (Violation for an Order of Protection) and contributions from state tax

refunds are also deposited into the Judiciary’s Special Account.

PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES AND OTHER EXPENDITURES FUNDED THROUGH THE SPOUSE AND

CHILD ABUSE SPECIAL ACCOUNT

As in past years, monies from the Judiciary’s Special Account provided a broad range of

programs, projects and activities statewide, which addressed intervention and/or prevention of domestic

violence and child abuse. The process of determining which services, programs and activities received

funding involved internal planning and collaboration of the Judiciary, both internally, as well as coordination

with other private and public stakeholders in the community.

A total of $434,181 was spent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009. The annual ceiling on expenditures,

as determined by the Legislature is $507,722 per fiscal year.

The following programs, projects, activities and expenditures were funded by the Judiciary’s

Special Account:

PURCHASE OF SERVICES PROGRAMS:

The following nonprofit organizations receiving funding to provide or supplement their contracted

services with the Judiciary:

V-2

• Child and Family Service

The Developing Options to Violence Program in the First Circuit (O#ahu) provided

specialized domestic violence intervention services to juveniles adjudicated for

abuse of a family or household member, or involved in intimate partner violence.

Services were also extended to the juvenile’s family members.

• Domestic Violence Action Center

Advocacy services were provided to victims of intimate partner violence in the

First Circuit (O#ahu), who filed petitions for temporary restraining orders and

orders of protection. Services included assessments, information and referrals,

development of safety plans, and accompaniment in court proceedings.

• Island of Hawai#i YMCA

Supervised child visitation and exchange services were provided for families

involved in domestic violence and/or high conflict cases by the YMCA’s Family

Visitation Center in East Hawai#i. The majority of referrals were from the Third

Circuit Court (island of Hawai#i.)

• Parents and Children Together/Family Peace Center

Funding to supplement a Purchase of Service contract allowed this program to

provide for range of services to victims of intimate partner violence and their

children who have witnessed or been exposed to domestic violence in their

homes.

• Parents and Children Together/Family Visitation Center

Supervised child visitation and exchange services were provided for families

involved in domestic violence and/or high conflict cases were provided at the

Family Visitation Center on O#ahu. The Center operated from two sites, Honolulu

and Waipahu. The majority of cases, which were referred primarily from the

V-3

courts, involved parties seeking temporary restraining orders and/or orders of

protection. Funding from the Special Account supplemented the programs

contracts which came from general funds and a federal Access and Visitation

Grant.

• YWCA of Kaua#i

In FY 2008-2009, the Fifth Circuit (Kaua#i) continued to contract with the YWCA of

Kaua#i to provide domestic violence interventions services to adolescents involved

in domestic violence.

FEDERAL GRANT PROJECTS

Matching funds from the Judiciary’s Special Account were used for the following federally funded

Judiciary grants project described below:

• State Access and Visitation Program Grant was awarded to the Judiciary, State of

Hawai#i, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and provided

supervised child visitations and exchanges in a safe and neutral setting. Services

were provided on the islands of O#ahu and Hawai#i, with priority given to families

referred by the courts because of domestic violence or other high conflict

situations. Matching funds in excess of the required 10% were provided in

response to the high volume of requests received by the contracted service

providers.

• STOP Violence Against Women Act, Federal FY 2006, entitled “Intimate Partner

Sexual Assault” made it possible for some members of the Hawai#i Domestic

Violence Fatality Review Team to attend a national domestic violence conference.

Most of the expenses were covered by the federal grant with a small portion

subsidized from the Special Account.

V-4

TRAINING/MEETINGS, ETC.

During FY 2008-2009, the Judiciary’s Special Account was used to host a one day training on

Effective Strategies for Supervising Domestic Violence Offenders for probation officers and other

community partners. This training was conducted on the islands of O#ahu, Hawai#i and Maui.

Probation officers from the island of Kaua#i were flown to Honolulu to participate. Approximately

100 persons attended the training on O#ahu, which featured James E. Henderson, probation

supervisor from Michigan. The training was also videotaped to be used for probation officers

unable to attend, as well as for future staff.

A one day training was held in June 29, 2009 for probation officers supervising domestic violence

offenders and domestic violence services providers statewide on the Spousal Abuse Risk

Assessment (SARA). The SARA is a validated risk assessment tool which has been selected by

the Judiciary for use in determining risk levels of domestic violence offenders on probation. Using

validated assessment tools is an important strategy in assessing offenders to determine levels of

supervision and treatment. This falls under the umbrella of the state’s criminal justice Interagency

Committee on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS) whose goal is to reduce recidivism of offenders by

30%. The training, conducted by P. Randall Kropp, Ph.D., one of the creators of the SARA, was

attended by approximately 50 professionals.

The Special Account was also used to purchase publications on domestic violence and elder

abuse.

Monies were also used to cover monitoring and site visits to grant funded activities with the Island

of Hawai#i YMCA, and the annual meeting of the Access and Visitation Grant state coordinators.

These are requirements of the federal Access and Visitation Grant.

V-5

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES

The Special Account was used to purchase office and optical equipment that will be used to

enhance and promote the Judiciary’s efforts in responding to issues around child abuse and

neglect, and domestic violence.

Components of an integrated database were developed to include information about domestic

violence offenders who are under the supervision of the Judiciary.

SPECIAL FUND ASSESSMENT

Costs necessary to administer the Special Account, per Act 34, SLH 1964, amounted to $22,270

during FY 2008-2009.

SUMMARY

The Judiciary’s Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account continues to enable the Judiciary to

develop and maintain a proactive stance in responding to the issues of domestic violence and child abuse

and neglect. One of the major strengths in the establishment of the Special Account has been the

discretion given to the Judiciary which has encouraged and allowed funding for a comprehensive range of

services and activities, which would not have been possible otherwise. As a result, services to victims of

domestic violence and child abuse have improved, as well as effective interventions available for domestic

violence offenders.

The Judiciary remains committed to using the monies from the Special Account to promote the

safety and well being of domestic violence victims, and other family members, as well as abused and

neglected children and their families.

V-6

The JudiciarySpouse and Child Abuse Special Fund

Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2008-09

Other Office Supplies 168

Food Supplies 12,883

Other Materials and Supplies 4,487

Subscriptions 691

Transportation, Intra-State - Employees 1,732

Transportation, Intra-State - Others 2,588

Subsist Allowance, Intra-State - Employees 80

Subsist Allowance, Intra-State - Others 0

Transport, Out-of-State - Employees 192

Transport, Out-of-State - Others 445

Subsist Allowance, Out-of-State- Employees 1,482

Subsist Allowance, Out-of State-Others 540

Hire of Passenger Cars - Employees 181

Hire of Passenger Cars - Others 534

Other Rentals of Land, Building 275

Other Rentals 1,935

Purchase of Services Contracts 333,243

Other Services on Fee Basis 22,660

Special Fund Assessment (Act 134, SLH 1964) 22,270

Training Costs and Registration Fees 2,636

Other Miscellaneous Current Expenses 327

Interest 5

Office Equipment 3,404

Optical Equipment 9,288

Data Processing Equipment 12,135

Total Expenditures 434,181


ON

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 64, S.D. 1REGULAR SESSION OF HAWAI#I 2009

A Report on the Periodic Repricing as Required by Section 89-9(f)(2), Hawai#i Revised Statutes

Submitted by:


December 2009

VI-1

This report is respectfully prepared pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 64, S.D. 1,

Regular Session of Hawai#i 2009, which requests each jurisdiction within the State of Hawai#i to submit

periodic repricing reviews, as required under Report on the periodic repricing review as required by section

89-9(f)(2), Hawai#i Revised Statutes.

The Judiciary respectfully informs the Legislature that it has complied with the provisions of

Section 89-9, HRS.

Section 89-9(f)(2) HRS, states: “If repricing has not been negotiated..., the employer of each

jurisdiction shall ensure establishment of procedures to periodically review, at least once in five years,

...the repricing of classes within the bargaining unit. The repricing of classes based on the results of the

periodic review shall be at the discretion of the employer....”

This provision took effect on July 1, 2002, and the first five-year period ended on June 30, 2007.

Accordingly, the Judiciary Human Resources Department completed the first periodic repricing review on

June 18, 2007. No Judiciary classes were repriced during the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007.

The next five year period ends June 30, 2012. The review of classes for repricing is a continuous

process. The Judiciary has repriced the following classes thus far within the second five-year period. The

repriced classes are:

RepricedBU: Class Title: From: To: Effective:

10 Juvenile Detention Worker I CO-02 CO-03 4/1/0810 Juvenile Detention Worker II CO-04 CO-05 4/1/0810 Juvenile Detention Worker III CO-06 CO-07 4/1/0810 Juvenile Detention Officer CO-06 CO-07 4/1/0810 Juvenile Detention Supervisor CO-08 CO-09 4/1/0813(73) EEO/ADA-Officer SR-24 SR-26 8/16/0913 Court Fiscal Officer I SR-24 SR-22 10/6/09

The Judiciary provides notification of its repricing actions to the other jurisdictions of the state and

counties to ensure equitable compensation for civil service employees.