Compliance Rating. Beginning Compliance/Decision of Compliance Level to Be Determined Discussion: A County-wide Consortium has been formed and I believe has met two times at the time of the reporting of the report. The makeup of the Consortium meets the specified criteria. While a directive of special services related to public relations has been developed, a detailed plan has yet to be developed as to how to inform the public. This plan can build-off the directive. As previously mentioned, a Twitter account and Facebook have been developed as well as participation in a number of presentations on behalf of the Court in the community. A Community Meeting was scheduled for Saturday, June 8th. Expectations: The DMC Coordinator (Xxxx Xxxx) as well as other community members and advocates should be working with Xxx Coupe in this process. In addition to a plan, substantive efforts need to have taken place in this regard by June 17, 2013, such as further development of Websites and postings of information- reports, dashboard.
Compliance Rating. Decision of Compliance Level to Be Determined on 1b, 1g, 1h Discussion: I will be working with JCMSC and staff on 1b starting in the next few weeks. For 1g, this point will not be able to be addressed to reform takes place (e.g., detention). However, the inventory of available services and diversion options can be done almost immediately and discussions from the meetings involving the committee consisting of the Points of Contact, Xxxx Xxxx and others as well as a working relationship with Xxx Xxxxx (also tied to 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f) can begin to lay the foundation for a strategic plan. Expectations: Evidence of at least a monthly meeting and inventory of available diversion services need to be documented. A discussion of plans concerning the development and implementation of diversion programs needs to be also documented. A strategic plan also needs to be in place and should be discussed during the monthly meetings, if not more frequently. Failure to adhere to these expectations by the September 17 time-frame could constitute grounds for non-compliance. As part of the DMC Assessment, the examination and comparisons of the Relative Rates as detailed in Table 1 and including monthly data for 2013 will need to be presented and discussed as part of this provision. Lower RRI’s at each point of contact is expected with the exception of diversion and probation where the RRI should be at a goal of 1. In addition, an assessment involving multivariate analyses will be conducted by the Equal Protection Monitor and the results shared with JCMSC and should be used by the Points of Contact committee as part of their monthly discussions. This component of the assessment study will provide data to determine if the influence of race on case decision making has been reduced or eliminated, especially outcomes involving a warning, restitution, detention, and adult transfer. The data will be based on delinquent referrals from January, 2013 to September 1, 2013 and will involve comparisons to the results presented in the Agreement and for the year 2012. This format will allow for a comparison of results over three different time-frames.
Compliance Rating. Decision of Compliance Level to Be Determined Discussion: Meeting some of these points is related to addressing 1a through 1h Expectations: Documentation of efforts striving to meet these provisions needs to be given to the Equal Protection Monitor by September 17, 2013. The compliance level will be determined on the EFFORT on the part of JCSMC toward implementing each of these provisions.
Compliance Rating. Decision of Compliance Level to Be Determined on 1a, 1c, 1e, 1f Discussion: As of now, little has been done on these to this point. The Points Of Contact have just recently been identified (in the first 2 weeks of May, 2013. Likewise, so too has data in terms of numbers and relative rates. As of the writing of the Report, the Points of Contact have only met a couple of times, have had limited discussion of the data and development of plans as to how to address DMC, etc.
Compliance Rating. Beginning Compliance/ Decision of Compliance Level to Be Determined Discussion: The JCMSC has been working with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) and this will entail a review of at least detention procedures and utilization of services. Likewise, the Summons Program has been used in an effort to avoid secure detention. Time is needed to allow these programs to take hold and then data will have to be evaluated as to whether DMC in secure detention has been reduced. I also believe the committee involving the Points of Contact and others should provide information that could lead to the need to review policies and procedures at other stages in addition to secure detention; thus, the justification for withholding a decision of compliance as pertains to other points or stages in the system . Efforts are still needed to assess WHY minority youth are less likely to be involved in diversion programs and accordingly, what can be done to achieve a reduction. Similar points pertain to Transfer to adult court. Expectations: An assessment of compliance will be based on the efforts by JCSMC to meet the above stated provisions that includes but is not limited to efforts toward complying with the JDAI initiative. Data on additional points of contact – court referral, diversion, petition, findings of delinquency, probation, placement in secure confinement and transfer to adult court- need to be collected at least monthly, discussed at least monthly among the points of contact, and plans and strategies developed as to how to address if DMC exists. Documentation of this occurring needs to be provided in writing to the Equal Protection Monitor by June 17, 2013. Failure to adhere to these expectations could constitute grounds for non-compliance.
Compliance Rating. JHI shall achieve a Satisfactory Compliance Rating, which will be determined by Republic no later than May 31st of each year. A Satisfactory Compliance Rating shall consist of the following: (i) a score of no less than [*] on the Compliance audit which includes, but is not limited to, Application retention, signed and completed Applications, and signed and completed Truth-in-Lending Act Disclosures, (ii) conducting compliance training, approved by Republic, and verifying to Republic that said training was completed and passed by all Designated ERO Locations’ employees, (iii) maintaining adequate electronic and physical security, as set forth in the Program Guidelines (as described in the Program Agreement) and as determined by the Compliance audit, and (iv) providing accurate reports and information, in a timely manner, including but not limited to, identifying tax preparers in all ERO locations who have passed the required compliance training, reports of all Customers who have been denied a Financial Product based on Application screening, and information on all Joint Applications on which a Spouse has chosen to opt-out of the RAL, Money Now Loan, or AR / BL (“Loan Product”), including which Loan Product was opted-out of and the name of the opting-out Spouse. [*] designates portions of this document that have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Compliance Rating. Partial Compliance.
Compliance Rating. Compliance as to the December 2022 target in 52 (c). Not compliant/unrated as to the remaining provisions. Justification: 52c. This concerns a benchmark that DHHR must reduce the RMHTF census by 25% to 822 by December 31, 2022. 52d. This concerns the assessment of all youth residing in an RMHTF on December 31, 2024, specifically that they be assessed by a qualified professional and that the residential setting is found to be the most integrated and appropriate setting for their individual needs. This will not be assessed for compliance at this time, though the QIA process being implemented by Xxxxx suggests progress is being made.
