Post on 31-Jan-2022
transcript
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.
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE
ON
ACT 94SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2006
A Report on the Effects and Consequences of the Changesto the Appellate Court System
AND
ACT 148SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2008
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:
Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i
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
Information required by Section 2(2) of Act 94, 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws.5
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
Information required by Section 2(3) of Act 94, 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws.10
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(4) of Act 94, 2006 Hawai#i Session Laws.11
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.
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE
ON
ACT 162SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2002
A Report on Parental Preference in Government Contracts
Submitted by:
Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i
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.
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE
ON
ACT 274SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 1997
A Report on the Parent Education Special Fund
Submitted by:
Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i
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
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE
ON
ACT 232SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 1994
A Report on Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account
Submitted by:
Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i
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
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE
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:
Office of the Administrative Director of the CourtsThe Judiciary, State of Hawai#i
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.