OFFICE OF THE KITSAP COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY






1998 YEAR END REVIEW










TABLE OF CONTENTS



Introduction       1
Executive Summary       2
Office Organization       5
The Criminal Practice       7
Overall Referral/Charging Analysis        7
Assault        10
Drug Crime        11
Domestic Violence        12
Property Crime       13
Rape       14
Felony Disposition Analysis       15
Kitsap County District Court and Bremerton Municipal Court       17
Juvenile Court       18
Truancy Enforcement       19
UW Disproportionality Study       19
The Appellate Practice       19
The Civil Practice       22
Billable Hours       22
Litigation       23
Work Requests and Contract Reviews       25
Mental Health and Asset Forfeitures       25
The Daily Practice       25
Client Evaluations       25
Health District       26
Child Support Division       26
Conclusion       27


Office of the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney
1998 Year End Review

Introduction:

Our Mission Statement


We, the members of the Office of the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney, dedicate ourselves to using our best efforts to serve the State of Washington and the citizens of Kitsap County, and to meet our obligations to our community as those obligations are defined by law. Within the framework of our mandated duties, we shall promote justice and the safety and welfare of the public, while adhering to the highest ethical standards of the legal profession. We shall remain accountable to the citizens of Kitsap County and utilize the public's funds as efficiently as possible.

The last four years in this Office have been marked by our attempts to improve our ability to deliver legal services to the citizens of Kitsap County--to live up to our mission statement. We have created a new organization and new roles within that organization. We have shifted responsibilities, seeking to enhance our performance and to balance work load with job satisfaction. We have done this while those responsibilities have grown in number and complexity.

With this report, we intend to show what we have done to meet the challenges presented this last year throughout the office and what we feel we must do to meet the challenges on the horizon. This is not meant to be an exhaustive catalog of our activities. What follows is a summary of the programs and activities of the office.

We have provided analyses of crime trends and our performance. In this context, Aanalysis@ means our best, informed judgement. We recognize that the data is subject to differing interpretations. We invite further inquiry and would welcome the opportunity for discussion.



1998 Year End Review
Page 1

Executive Summary:


The law of the State of Washington mandates that the office of the Prosecuting Attorney fulfill two very significant, but at times dissimilar roles. When one thinks of the Prosecutor, the image that generally comes first to mind is that of the lawyer representing the State in a criminal case. That role is very important and consumes most of the resources of this office. However, the Prosecutor also acts as lawyer for the County, its Commissioners, all its elected officials and department heads, and many other public agencies. In this role as legal representative and advisor, the Prosecutor usually acts out of the public eye, but can have a great impact, most often financial. Our job here is to help the County avoid and effectively deal with legal liabilities. We refer to this as our civil role.

In 1995, when this administration began, the resources devoted to the civil role of the Prosecutor were minimal at best. There were four lawyers assigned to represent the County, all the elected officials, and the department heads. Most of the County=s legal work was referred outside to private lawyers, at great expense, and little time was devoted to working with County officials and departments in efforts to control or avoid liability. To meet this need, we transferred one attorney position from criminal prosecution to the civil side of the office. There was plenty of work for the criminal lawyer to do, but the need for civil representation was greater. Over the next two years, two more lawyers were added to the civil division through appropriations by the Board of Commissioners.1 These additions have allowed us to establish and maintain the level of legal services needed by an organization as large and diverse as Kitsap County.

The work load borne by our Civil Division in representing the interests of the County was relatively stable last year. The highlight of the Civil Division=s work in 1998--and of the previous four years-- actually came in February of 1999. On February 8, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found Kitsap County=s comprehensive land use plan to be valid. This decision capped years of effort by the Board of Commissioners, the staff of the Department of Community Development, and the attorneys of this office. We have many more projects and problems pending and on the horizon, issues like how the County will comply with the Endangered Species Act. We need to maintain what has become a first-rate law firm in order to meet challenges ahead. The position transferred from criminal prosecution to civil representation was never replaced.2 Since 1995, and through 1997, this has not been too much of a hardship. However, things have changed. The number of criminal cases referred to our office in 1998 jumped dramatically after two years of



1 One more position was added through a contract with the Bremerton-Kitsap Health District. By statute we represent the Health District, but we bill them for our services. An examination of their billings led to the conclusion that it would be more cost-effective for them to simply fund one attorney=s position upon our assurance that we would devote one full time equivalent (FTE) attorney to their work. This arrangement has worked out to the benefit of both parties.

2 We have added three attorney positions to the criminal side of the office, but those have come through grants and contracts. With these outside dollars we have started the Special Assault Unit and service our contract to prosecute in the Bremerton Municipal Court. The positions are therefore limited in function to those grant and contract purposes.



1998 Year End Review
Page 2


stability. In 1996 we had 16,512 referrals; in 1997, 15,969. In 1998 we had 18,538--an increase of 16%, or 2,551 extra cases we had to review and respond to. The chart below examines the changes in a selected list of crimes and shows the overall increase from 1997. The crimes selected are the offenses that all can agree are disruptive of public order and have occurred in numbers large enough to justify some observations about trends.


Case Type 1997 1998 Difference (97-98)
Assault 1,421 1,482 61 (4%)
Drug 965 1,401 436 (45%)
Domestic Viol. 1,933 2,683 750 (39%)
DWI 985 1,114 129 (13%)
Forgery 182 210 28 (15%)
Property Crime 2,841 3,223 382 (13%)
Rape 53 117 64 (121%)
Robbery 47 66 19 (40%)
Weapon Viol. 234 255 21 (9%)
Total, Selected Categories 8,661 10,551 1,890 (22%)
Total, All Referrals 15,986 18,536 2,550 (16%)

Domestic Violence (DV) and drug crime leap out as the categories with the most significant increases. Combined, these categories account for over half of the increase in referrals in 1998.

We had expected an increase in DV crime. All local police agencies have stepped up their emphasis on domestic violence and have trained extensively on both the magnitude of the problem and how to effectively address it. I think it safe to say that we are not seeing an increase in the rate of domestic violence, we are simply uncovering what has been there all along.

The increase in drug crime is another matter. The increase in the number of drug referrals to this office truly does reflect an increase in the amount of criminal activity. The large majority of these referrals concern the possession and delivery of methamphetamine, a felony. The use of this illegal substance is extremely destructive. Highly addictive, it leads its users into other criminal activity, like burglary and theft of mail (both counted in the Property Crime category), to support the habit. It is


1998 Year End Review
Page 3


a challenge that we have to find the resources to meet.

Rape referrals increased dramatically in 1998. Although the number of offenses is relatively small, the percentage increase is very significant. However, like the increase in DV, I don=t think this increase in criminal referrals necessarily correlates to an increase in this type of crime. Rather, I think the increase in numbers results from recent enhancements to our local investigative and support systems. In particular, I think we can credit Harrison Hospital with making the most significant improvement in the system. Through the SANE program (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners), implemented last year, Harrison now provides law enforcement and victims with something we didn=t have before: forensic sexual assault examinations conducted by highly trained, caring professionals who will respond immediately to a request for service. This service greatly enhances both the likelihood of a report and the chances for a successful prosecution. However, the rate of increase is troubling and is something we will monitor closely in the future.

The other selected categories showed more moderate increases. Some, like the four percent increase in referrals for assault, are probably not significant. Others, like the thirteen percent increase in DWI referrals, are more ominous. This increase occurred before the new legislation lowering the breath alcohol standard from .10% to .08% took effect.

The most important thing to note is that overall we saw significant growth in the number of criminal cases referred to our office for review. As will be discussed in more detail below, there are signs that we are falling behind in our race to keep up with the increase. This is a problem that must be addressed.


1998 Year End Review
Page 4


Office Organization:


Our organizational structure remains much the same. The office=s attorneys and investigators are organized in five divisions: Case Management, Trial, District and Municipal Court, Juvenile, and Civil. The division chiefs all report directly to me as Prosecuting Attorney.

We serve four separate criminal courts. We cover all seven departments of the Kitsap County Superior Court, all three departments of the Kitsap County District Court, the Juvenile Court, and through a contractual arrangement with the City of Bremerton, we act as prosecutors for the City in the Bremerton Municipal Court. The lawyers of the Civil Division represent the County before all courts and administrative boards where the County may have business.

The Case Management Division is responsible for managing the flow of felony cases into the system. It is headed by Chris Casad. Chris also acts as chief liaison with local law enforcement. Recently, this latter role has assumed more importance. We have a new Sheriff and will have new Police Chiefs in Port Orchard, Bremerton, and Bainbridge Island. We are looking to Chris as a source of continuity as the County criminal justice system evolves.

The Trial Division is responsible for felony matters after charging and through disposition. When a felony charge is filed, the case is handed off to the Trial Division, along with a recommendation for a disposition. Trial Division lawyers prepare the case for trial and dictate the terms of the guilty plea, if any. Mike Savage heads the division. His duties also include supervising the office=s three investigators and the attorneys of the Special Assault Unit (SAU). Funded in part by a federal grant, the SAU handles the review and disposition of all referrals of domestic violence and sexual assault. The two types of crime often go together. At a minimum, the skills necessary to work successfully with the victims and witness in sexual assault cases are the same necessary to successfully prosecute domestic violence.

The District and Municipal Court Division performs both case management and trial functions for the County District Courts and the Bremerton Municipal Court. The misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors filed in these courts constitute approximately 70% of our caseload. In this Division, we spend by far the largest portion of our time dealing with Driving Under the Influence (DUI)--not so much because of the numbers but because of the complexity of these cases. Jeff Jahns is chief of this division. His responsibilities also include managing our Appellate unit.

Greg Hubbard remains chief of the Juvenile Division. Our responsibility in Juvenile Court is much different than that we carry when dealing with adult offenders, and so are the procedures we must follow. In the Juvenile Court we attempt to steer offenders away from future criminal activity. The Juvenile Division is a separate, stand-alone division reporting directly to me as the Prosecuting Attorney. This arrangement remains somewhat unusual in prosecutor's offices, but it has worked very well for us, appropriately emphasizing the important work we do there.

Sue Tanner heads the Civil Division. This division is the law firm that represents the County. It acts


1998 Year End Review
Page 5


as legal advisor to the county departments, reviews and drafts documents, and defends the county when we are sued. Through this division we also establish, enforce, and collect child support obligations. We consider the Civil Division a first rate law firm that matches in skill and professionalism the best that can be found in the private sector. We have made good progress toward our goal of keeping all of the County's legal work within this division.

Support staff organization tracks that of the attorneys. We have thirteen staff supporting all the criminal divisions. Supervised by Nancy Hudson, they provide victim and witness support services in addition to legal secretarial work. Our records division, currently allotted six full time equivalent positions, also supports the criminal operations, building our files and tracking our follow-up requests and filing performance. It is supervised by Diana Gates. We have twelve support staff working in our child support unit. They are supervised by Elena Padmos. Three legal secretaries support our Civil Division.

We have one office administrator, Carol Maves. In addition to supervising all the support staff, Carol acts as our financial manager, overseeing the production of our budget and coordinating our grant funding efforts.

We work in several locations throughout the County. Our main offices are in the Courthouse in Port Orchard, and we have a satellite office housing our Special Assault Unit in a building across the back courthouse parking lot. The Juvenile Division operates out of the Juvenile Services Center on Old Clifton Road in Port Orchard. We maintain an office and support staff at the Bremerton Municipal Court in the Bremerton City Hall. And we have another office at the Poulsbo City Hall supporting our work in the District Court North.

Tying us all together are the links established and maintained by the County=s Department of Information Services. We could not function without networked personal computers and e-mail. We have one full-time staffer, Michele Banks, devoted to the development and maintenance of our computer-based communication and production tools.


1998 Year End Review
Page 6


The Criminal Practice:


The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney plays a central, critical role in the criminal justice system. The line law enforcement agencies--the Sheriff=s office and the municipal police forces--deal with the initial reports of crime. They respond to the 911 calls, they examine the crime scenes, and they identify and deal directly with offenders. On the other end of the system, the Courts determine whether an offender should be punished and what that punishment should be. The prosecutor fits in between.

The work of the police agencies comes to our office as written reports, or referrals. We then have to make two decisions: whether the described conduct can be charged as a crime and whether it should be charged as a crime. If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we prepare the necessary documents, file them with the appropriate court, and carry the case to conclusion. Along the way we will have to respond to legal challenges from the defense, decide whether emerging evidence requires amendment or dismissal of the original charge, prepare for trial, determine what punishment to recommend to the Court should the defendant decide to plead guilty, and, if necessary, present the case to a jury. If we prevail and the conviction is challenged, we represent the State in the appeal.

This is the criminal practice in summary. We will look at aspects of it in more detail below.

Overall Referral/Charging Analysis


The charging decision is perhaps the most critical of the prosecutor=s responsibilities. Our sentence recommendations are just that, recommendations. The judge retains the ultimate authority to determine sentence. Pressing a case forward to trial is certainly significant, but that decision is subject to both a judge=s scrutiny and review by a jury. Whether to charge is solely within the prosecutor=s discretion. If we decide not to go forward, the case never gets started.

Accordingly, since the beginning of this administration we have measured our efficiency in large part by looking at our charging performance. The table below summarizes our charging performance since 1993 by showing the number of referrals of criminal activity to this office, the number of referrals that were turned into charges, the number of referrals in which we declined to file charges, our charging percentage, and the portion of our budget devoted to criminal prosecution. The table also shows cost per filing and cost per referral. These figures were produced by dividing the criminal legal budget by the number of filings and referrals, respectively. The are meant for comparison purposes only. The actual cost per case will vary greatly with the complexity of the matter.


1998 Year End Review
Page 7


  1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993
Number of Criminal Referrals 18,538 15,969 16,512 14,481 10,376 10,228
Number of Criminal Filings 11,974 11,067 11,529 9,223 5,567 5,698
Number of Referrals Declined 6,318 4,661 4,974 5,250 4,803 4,528
% Referrals Filed 65% 69% 70% 64% 54% 56%
Final Legal Budget $2,917,842 $2,713,663 $2,660,126 $2,667,980 $2,152,071 $2,056,252
Dollars per Criminal Filing $244 $245 $231 $289 $387 $361
Dollars per Criminal Referral $157 $170 $161 $184 $207 $201

The number of cases referred to our office increased dramatically in 1998. Unfortunately, but inevitably, so did the portion of our budget devoted to operating expenses. In 1998, the portion of the criminal legal budget devoted to operating expenses was $390,477.29; in 1997 it was $301,123.02--an increase of $89,354.27, or almost 30%.3 We are looking carefully at this portion of the budget and will continue to attempt to keep our operatiing expenses down. However, most, If not all, of the increase is due simply to the costs associated with a greater number of cases coming through the door.

The percentage of those referrals that we charged as crimes decreased last year. There are no state or national standards for this measurement, and, as far as I know, we are the only prosecutor=s office that regularly keeps track of the percentage of referrals that we charge. We do this because the review and charging of reports of criminal activity--referrals--is the prosecutor=s critical function. We do



3 The remainder of this portion of the budget, $2,527,363.90, was devoted to salaries and benefits, items Controlled for the most part by collective bargaining agreements. It grew by only 4.34% over 1997

1998 Year End Review
Page 8


    it also because it is the truest measure of our workload. Every referral means the creation of a file, a check of the named suspect=s criminal history, and a review of the facts of the case by a lawyer--a review that may lead to a request by our office that the law enforcement agency that generated the referral conduct follow-up investigation. All of this will be done whether we file the case or not. If, in analyzing our performance we only acknowledged filed cases, we would not account for all of our work.

    Relying on the data from 1996 and 1997, we had assumed that 70% of referrals charged was a reasonable standard. We did not meet that standard in 1998. The table below tracks our charging performance back to 1989, the first year records were kept that enabled us to do this analysis.


    Overall
    Charge
    Analysis
    Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref.
    Charged
    1989 6,624 4,007 2,617 0 60%
    1990 6,372 4,156 2,216 0 65%
    1991 9,165 5,977 3,187 1 65%
    1992 10,255 6,367 3,888 0 62%
    1993 10,228 5,698 4,528 2 56%
    1994 10,376 5,567 4,803 6 54%
    1995 14,481 9,223 5,250 8 64%
    1996 16,513 11,534 4,974 5 70%
    1997 15,986 11,139 4,830 17 70%
    1998 18,536 11,908 6,220 408 64%

    The decrease in charging percentage is due to many factors. We have identified the following as the most likely reasons:

    • First, we received more Ainformation only@ police reports, particularly in the domestic violence category. Awareness of domestic violence has risen substantially over the last few years. The Domestic Violence Task Force and the YWCA have also sponsored educational and advocacy efforts aimed at encouraging the reporting of domestic violence. Not every case is prosecutable. In addition, as our awareness has risen, law enforcement=s response to the problem has become more sophisticated. This office, in conjunction with the Kitsap County Sheriff=s Office and the Domestic Violence Task Force, has conducted extensive training of our local law enforcement agencies in domestic violence response. One of the



      1998 Year End Review
      Page 9


      things we have asked the police agencies to do is to make a report every time they respond to a DV call, even if they don=t have enough evidence to make an arrest. With our record keeping system, we can look to these Ainformation only@ reports as history should an event occur in the future in that household that would justify a charge.

    • Second, and related to the first reason, enhanced victim services in the area of sexual assault have increased the number of reports. Harrison Hospital has stepped up to meet a need we have long felt in Kitsap County. Harrison now provides forensic medical examinations to victims of sexual assault. Before the Hospital began providing these services, victims-- particularly children--were referred to Tacoma to Mary Bridge Hospital, the closest provider of forensic sexual assault examinations. Many were told that their report would not be considered complete until they obtained that examination; many chose not to make the trip. The availability of local examination services has encouraged reporting. Not all cases reported are prosecutable.

    • Third, we saw more referrals as a result of the School Resource Officer program. Several schools in the county now have police officers stationed at the facilities while students are present. The programs have been very effective in interdicting drug use and in heading off violent confrontations. But we also receive reports of school yard fights and other minor disruptive behavior that is not best dealt with through a criminal prosecution.

    • Fourth, and probably most importantly, we handled 2,551 more cases with the same number of personnel. The heavy volume of reports forced us to spend less time with each. Because we had to spend less time with each, we sent out fewer Afollow-up@ requests to law enforcement-- a request that the reporting police agency do some more investigation. As the volume of referrals has increased, so has the pressure to either file or decline--letting the case sit while we waited for follow-up has been discouraged in all but the most serious cases.

    The following tables break down our charging performance in the categories of Assault, Drug Crime, Domestic Violence, Property Crime (this category includes theft and burglary), and Rape.

    Assault: This category includes what used to be called Simple Assault, now Fourth Degree Assault, up through First Degree assault -- assault producing great bodily harm. This category does not include Domestic Violence assault; we count that separately. By far the largest number are the Fourth Degree assaults: the unwanted touchings and shovings that can occur in a dispute but that cause little or no bodily injury. Because most behavior in this category results from a disagreement between two people, it is often difficult to determine who, if anyone, should be charged because it is difficult to determine who started it This is particularly true when the assault occurs in the context of a schoolyard fight--a referral we are seeing more of because of the increase in the number of police officers assigned to schools. Further complicating our job is Washington=s liberal law of self-defense, requiring the prosecution to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was acting in self defense. Because of these factors, our charging percentage has traditionally been relatively low in this category, but it got even lower last year. I attribute most of this decrease in performance to


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 10


    our increased workload. These are the cases most often in need of follow up investigation if we are to charge. We simply have not had the time to wait for that to be done. We cannot say that our lower charging percentage means that fewer criminal assaults occurred last year. We can say only that we have been able to charge fewer with the resources at hand.


    Assault Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref. Charged
    1989 392 197 195 0 50%
    1990 567 293 274 0 52%
    1991 975 534 441 0 55%
    1992 1,088 545 543 0 50%
    1993 1,088 488 600 0 45%
    1994 1,072 472 600 0 44%
    1995 1,187 616 569 2 52%
    1996 1,620 888 732 0 55%
    1997 1,421 746 672 3 52%
    1998 1,482 665 774 43 45%

    Drug Crime: This category includes all the arrests for possession and distribution of controlled substances other than tobacco and alcohol. In some ways our drug charging performance in recent years shows the flip side of the issues we face in dealing with assault. Where most assaults are misdemeanors (by definition minor crimes), most drug cases are classified as felonies. Where most assaults involve two or more people in some kind of dispute, necessitating a choice between stories offered up by parties who may all be offenders, a drug arrest most often results from a police officer observing and seizing drugs possessed by the offender. Unless there is some legal issue about the way the officer made the arrest or seizure, the evidence is usually very straightforward and compelling. There is seldom any need for follow up investigation other than a test of the drugs to identify what kind of controlled substance they may be. The cases come to us whole, they are by definition very serious, and if we get to them in a timely fashion, we can much more often than not make a prosecutable case. Even though we suffered a very substantial increase in the number of drug referrals, we continued to increase our charging percentage.

    The larger issue, of course, is why the number of drug referrals grew so dramatically in 1998. There were no major, targeted law enforcement efforts like we have had in years past. The increase in the number of cases referred to the system for prosecution truly represents an increase in drug activity. Most of it is related to methamphetamine; most of what is caught ends up before the Superior Court


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 11


    as a felony prosecution. And we are not alone. Most other western Washington counties have seen similar increases.


    Drug Crime Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref. Charged
    1989 457 267 190 0 58%
    1990 311 185 126 0 59%
    1991 292 151 141 0 52%
    1992 393 227 166 0 58%
    1993 647 288 359 0 45%
    1994 810 382 418 1 47%
    1995 986 599 387 0 61%
    1996 1,026 774 252 0 75%
    1997 965 765 200 0 79%
    1998 1,401 1,115 257 29 80%

    As part of our efforts to meet this increase, we have explored alternatives to straight prosecution. We sponsor a program offering first time, small time, local offenders the option to have what would otherwise be a felony handled as a misdemeanor. Since the program began in 1996, we have put 35 people into the program; two have failed out. In what we hope will take a more substantial bite out of the drug problem, the Superior Court started a Drug Court in February of this year. This program offers more serious drug offenders a chance to take treatment. It is federally funded, for now, and follows a model employed throughout the country. The program is closed to violent and sex offenders and drug dealers. If the offender confesses, he or she can enter a treatment program rather than serve time in jail. If we can show a success rate similar to that enjoyed in other jurisdictions using the Drug Court model, we may achieve substantial future savings by diminishing the number of repeat offenders.

    Domestic Violence:

    We have made the prosecution of domestic violence crime a priority in this office. We have formed a team, the Special Assault Unit (SAU), to specialize in the prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assaults.4 We participate actively in the Domestic Violence Task Force, the local, cross-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary group dealing with general DV issues. We have



    4 DV by definition occurs within a family group; unfortunately, sexual assault most often does, too, and therefore shares many characteristics with DV
    1998 Year End Review
    Page 12


    adopted specific standards for the prosecution of DV. And we have participated in extensive training efforts aimed at making our line law enforcement officers better able to investigate DV assaults while being sensitive to the needs of victims. The table below shows our charging performance back to 1989.


    Domestic
    Violence
    Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref.
    Charged
    1989 530 292 238 0 55%
    1990 392 173 219 0 44%
    1991 450 227 223 0 50%
    1992 536 213 323 0 40%
    1993 641 211 430 0 33%
    1994 691 272 418 1 40%
    1995 1,124 598 525 1 53%
    1996 1,343 810 532 1 60%
    1997 1,933 1,125 807 1 58%
    1998 2,683 1,236 1,420 27 46%

    The question has to be asked: if we are doing all that we have claimed, if DV is such a priority, why did our charging percentage go down so dramatically? The major reason is that we, along with the rest of the law enforcement and victim services community, have encouraged the reporting of all incidents, no matter how small. The more serious acts of domestic violence are often the culmination of an escalating pattern of abuse. Knowing that pattern through reports of prior incidents helps us identify who may be at risk and, at best, intervene before tragedy occurs. If nothing else, it can help make the case after the fact. Accordingly, we have received many more reports of conduct that could not support a prosecution. Although I can=t give a guarantee, I don=t think the pressure to get on with the next case has affected our DV charging that much. Through the SAU, we have had a small, select few lawyers review most of the DV files. Our instructions have been to charge aggressively: if the law and the facts would support a conviction, proceed even if the victim, usually the wife, has decided that she wants it to go no further. We have adopted as our ethic the principle that domestic violence is a crime against the community, not the individual. I have no reason to believe that we have failed to follow that ethic in our charging practice.

    Property Crime:

    Property crime referrals, reports of theft and burglary, increased thirteen percent between 1997 and 1998. We believe that this increase is tied directly to the increase in drug crime.


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 13


    People need money to pay for methamphetamine and other controlled substances, and drug use is not consistent with holding down the kind of job necessary to support a habit. So people steal.

    We also charged a significantly lower percentage of these referrals. The explanation is the same as for the decrease in our assault filing percentage: in reviewing a referral we have been less likely to spend the time necessary to turn it into a chargeable case because more are coming through the door at a faster rate. We simply cannot afford to spend the time it would take to charge more of the referrals.


    Property Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref.
    Charged
    1989 849 491 358 0 58%
    1990 1,051 649 402 0 62%
    1991 2,364 1,690 674 0 71%
    1992 2,695 1,881 814 0 70%
    1993 2,466 1,521 945 0 62%
    1994 2,344 1,310 1,034 0 56%
    1995 3,036 1,927 1,109 0 63%
    1996 2,993 2,108 882 3 70%
    1997 2,841 1,966 871 4 69%
    1998 3,223 2,039 1,097 87 63%

    Rape:

    Rape is not a crime we have specifically addressed before in a year-end review, but the number of referrals grew from 53 to 117 between 1997 and 1998, an increase of 121%. As can be seen on the chart below, Kitsap County had for years maintained a remarkably stable rate of rape reports. There has not been a significant increase since 1991. This change demands some kind of analysis.

    Fortunately, the increase in referrals reflects, I think, positive changes in our community. As was mentioned above, Harrison Hospital began providing forensic sexual assault examination services in mid-1997. Before Harrison stepped into this role, victims of sexual assault had to travel out of the county to get the kind of examination necessary to make a criminal case. Many chose not to take that extra step; many, when told of what the system would demand of them simply let the matter drop without following through with the report.


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 14


    At the same time, and as an adjunct to the general increase in awareness of domestic violence, advocacy services generally, and law enforcement sensitivity to the needs of victims has increased. This, too, has in all likelihood contributed to the increase in reporting rate represented by the increase in referrals.

    We will track this crime category from now on. If the reporting rate stabilizes, then we will be able to say with more confidence that the increase in rape referrals resulted from an increase in services to victims that enhanced the likelihood of reporting. However, if the rate of increase continues to climb, we will have to look hard for other causal factors.

    Rape Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref.
    Charged
    1989 30 10 20 0 33%
    1990 36 10 26 0 28%
    1991 60 18 42 0 30%
    1992 58 10 48 0 17%
    1993 52 11 41 0 21%
    1994 43 8 35 0 19%
    1995 56 3 53 0 5%
    1996 56 15 41 0 27%
    1997 53 14 39 0 26%
    1998 117 26 87 4 22%

    Felony Disposition Analysis

    The analyses offered above are based on reports generated by the database managed by the County to serve the needs of our office, the jail, and the Superior Court. It counts things like number of referrals, number of charges, number of inmates, and number of trials pretty effectively. However, it can=t get take us very far into an analysis of our performance after charging.

    To develop some kind of picture of how we handled the cases after they were charged, we have in this administration kept our own database of adult felony dispositions. Maintaining this database is fairly labor intensive--so labor intensive that we have not been able to use it to analyze our


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 15


    performance in the other courts we serve. We simply don=t have the staff to input all the data.5

    Preliminary analysis of our felony dispositions in 1998 shows good things generally.

    • We disposed of 1356 cases in Superior Court; up 187 from 1997. Our overall felony conviction rate was 93% v. 91% in 1997.
    • Our guilty plea rate was up: 90% in 1998 v. 87% in 1997. 76% pleaded guilty to the original information in 1998, down insignificantly from the 77% rate in 1997.
    • The number of trials was down more substantially. We had 42 in 1998 and 51 in 1997. However, we won a higher percentage: 89% in 1998 v. 86% in 1997.
    • Dismissals were down significantly: 87 in 1998 v. 97 in 1997, and of those dismissed, 68 were on our motion and 19 on the motion of the defense.

    The changes in our disposition performance last year were consistent with what we saw in the charging analyses: the pressure of our increased caseload appears to be affecting how we handle the disposition of our cases.

    The increase in our overall felony conviction rate suggests this. We can control conviction rate with our charging decisions. If we choose only to charge the cases that are easy to prove, we can make our conviction rate approach 100%. An increase of two percentage points may not be significant, but it is consistent with what we saw in the charging analysis. There we saw a decrease in the rate of charging, explained by the pressure to move on to the next case in order to keep up with the volume. This suggests that we are charging the easier, clearer cases. This should translate into a higher conviction rate, and it did.

    The same phenomenon shows in the number of trials. We went from 51 in 1997 to 42 in 1998, a decrease of 17%. Again, this is a relatively small drop, but it is what we would expect to see if we are charging the easier cases. Most defendants will plead guilty if the case is clear from the outset. Only in the case of the most severe penalties do we see defendants taking cases to trial in the face of strong evidence. But strong, clear evidence will not be available in every case that should be charged. Thus, the number of trials is a mark of how aggressive our charging practice is. We apparently charged fewer cases knowing that trial would probably result.

    The other parameters measured give unqualified good news. The vast majority of defendants plead guilty to the original charge. This shows that we have stuck to our policy of avoiding classic plea bargaining, the practice of reducing charges in exchange for a plea of guilty. Likewise, only a very



    5 The Y2K problem has created an opportunity in this regard. The criminal justice database maintained by the County is not year 2000 compliant. Thus we have had to buy a new system. The cost of the system is regrettable, but it will allow us to do much more sophisticated analyses of our performance in all the courts we serve.

    1998 Year End Review
    Page 16


    few of the cases we charge result in outright dismissal. Most of those that do result from our motion, done after an analysis of the evidence shows that we cannot and should not prevail at trial. The defense wins only a very small number of challenges to the legal sufficiency of our charges.

    Kitsap County District Court and Bremerton Municipal Court

    By definition, the felonies filed in Superior Court are the more serious crimes. But far more criminal activity is dealt with by the courts of limited jurisdiction: in Kitsap County District Court and Bremerton Municipal Court. In the Superior Court, felony world we measure caseloads by 10's. In the District and Municipal Courts we measure caseloads by the hundreds.

    The table below summarizes our activity in the District Court in 1998, the first year we have been able to segregate the District Court numbers in our database. It shows our activity in a selected category of crimes; Assault, Driving Under the Influence, Harassment, Malicious Mischief, Obstructing Law Enforcement, and Criminal Traffic offenses (Reckless and Negligent Driving); and as a total. However, the total number does not include Fourth Degree Assault, DV; misdemeanor violations of protection orders; or any other domestic violence crime. Those matters are generally handled by the Special Assault Unit (SAU) and are tracked separately.


    Kits.
    Co. Dist.
    Ct.
    Ass'lt DUI Harr. Mal.
    Misch.
    Obst. Crim.
    Traff.
    Total,
    Index
    Total,
    All
    1998
    Refs.
    384 983 93 151 82 1,891 3,584 6,039
    1998
    Chgs.
    148 978 27 75 73 1,832 3,133 4,966

    It is readily apparent that DUI and the criminal traffic offenses account for most of our caseload. We fully expect this part of our caseload to increase with the implementation of the law lowering of the DUI breath alcohol standard from .10% to .08 %.

    Since the middle of 1995, we have served as prosecutors in the Bremerton Municipal Court through a contract with the City. This arrangement has turned out well for all parties. We can add the Bremerton cases to our database, giving us a better picture of criminal behavior in the County as a whole and of the individual offenders we deal with. Absent this arrangement, we would have no way of knowing the disposition of the cases charged in the Bremerton Court. We have benefited the City by providing skilled, experienced prosecutors and by taking advantage of the opportunities for coordinating the prosecution of offenders charged in both the County and City courts.

    Last year we noted a decrease in the number of criminal referrals from the Bremerton Police Department. We attributed the decrease to the emerging problem of overcrowding in the County jail, a limitation that constrained the ability of the police throughout the County to interdict misdemeanor


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 17


    and gross misdemeanor activity by making arrests. The overcrowding problem has only gotten worse, although relief is in sight. The voters of the County have approved a sales tax levy to expand the jail. We expect more space to be available within two to three years. In the meantime, we make do with what we have. This means that the police of all agencies have to consider whether space is available before they make an arrest. Because we have less space than is necessary, we have fewer misdemeanor arrests. And fewer misdemeanor arrests means fewer referrals to municipal court. As is shown in the chart below, the trend continues. The good news is that the rate of decline in referrals appears to have leveled off.


    Brem.
    Muni.
    Ref.
    Ass'lt DV DUI Harr. Mal.
    Misch.
    Obst. Crim.
    Traff.
    Total,
    Muni.
    Index
    Total,
    All Ref.
    1996 472 483 204 21 168 160 577 2,085 3,472
    1997 336 474 128 37 119 118 445 1,657 2,759
    1998 270 432 122 11 100 126 475 1,536 2,703
    Differ-
    ence
    (96-98)
    (202) (51) (82) (10) (68) (34) (102) (549) -769

    Juvenile Court

    The Juvenile Courts differ fundamentally from the adult system in that when juveniles are charged with crimes, the system looks to their rehabilitation as well as their punishment. Because we are dealing with children, the system assumes that we have both the obligation and the opportunity to try to change their behavior rather than simply punish it. Consequently, we consider our work there sufficiently important to justify a separate division reporting directly to the Prosecutor.

    The table below summarizes our charging activity in the Juvenile Court. It shows our increase in criminal referrals to only be moderate: approximately seven percent. Our charging percentage declined slightly, and remains below the proportion charged in the adult courts. There are a couple of factors that contribute to the lower charging percentage. First, many juvenile crimes occur with juveniles as the only witnesses. This factor makes the stories of the witnesses more ephemeral--they are more likely to change with the telling--and therefore less likely to support a criminal charge. Second, this year and last saw an increase in the number of police officers assigned to schools. These officers are generating more Ainformation only@ reports, reports that do not describe criminal activity but that may lay a foundation for future interventions.

    1998 Year End Review
    Page 18


    Juvenile
    Court
    Referrals Charged Declined Pending % Ref.
    Charged
    1996 3,965 2,613 1,352 0 66%
    1997 4,057 2,551 1,411 95 63%
    1998 4,355 2,718 1,502 135 62%

    Truancy Enforcement.

    In the Juvenile Division we continue to emphasize truancy enforcement under the ABecca Bill.@ We received 403 petitions from school districts to file truancy actions in 1998, up substantially from the 297 we received in 1997. Filings on these petitions grew to 366 from 242 in 1997. And the truant kids appear to be getting the message: contempt of court citations, the action we file when a child fails to follow the order of the Court after we file the petition, dropped from 84 in 1997 to 65 in 1998. We support this important program with grant funding from the State. The funding has not been enough to do the job completely. Our suit to seek full compensation for this unfunded mandate has been filed and is making its way through the process.

    UW Disproportionality Study.

    For the last couple of years the juvenile division has participated in a study conducted by the University of Washington and paid for with funds from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the State Juvenile Rehabilitation Authority. The study attempted to discern whether and to what extent the race and gender of the defendant affected our charging decisions and, in addition, the time it generally took to bring a case to disposition after referral. Benton, Franklin, and Yakima Counties also participated in the study. The study is too long and complex to summarize here. However, I think it can be safely said that study demonstrated that we showed little undue bias in our decisions and that we process our cases very efficiently.6

    The Appellate Practice

    An appeal is a challenge of a judge=s ruling. If the ruling complained of was made by a District or Municipal Court judge, the appeal is to the county Superior Court. If the complaint is that a Superior Court judge committed error, the challenge is generally made first in the Court of Appeals and then can be carried on to the Supreme Court. Our appellate practice consists primarily of defending the convictions we have obtained. A defendant convicted at trial can always find some grounds for challenging his or her punishment.7 Sometimes we are the appealing party, challenging a ruling that, in our opinion, wrongly limits the evidence we can produce or the punishment we seek.



    6 The study is entitled Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparity in Prosecutorial Charging Decisions, and Trends in the Duration of Juvenile Offender Proceedings, George S. Bridges, Ph.D. and Tim Wadsworth, M.A., University of Washington (1998). We would be glad to help any interested person obtain a copy.

    7 However, a defendant pleading guilty gives up most of his or her rights to appeal. This is one of the reasons guilty pleas are good.


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 19

    The appellate workload has increased in virtually all areas. Below is a summary of the number and type of appeals that the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney=s Office has opened in 1998 as compared with 1997. (ACollateral attack@ is the term describing a challenge made by a defendant after exhaustion of the regular channels of appeal. It is most often used in the very serious cases.)


    &NBSP TOTAL
    APPEALS
    LOWER
    COURT
    APPEALS
    SUPERIOR
    COURT
    FELONY
    APPEALS
    JUVENILE
    APPEALS
    COLLATERAL
    ATTACKS
    AMICUS
    CURIAE
    1997 63 16 35 8 6 2
    1998 102 45 43 5 10 1

    Advisory Case Processing Time Standards have been endorsed by the Board for Judicial Administration for RALJ (appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction--the District and Municipal Courts) appeals. These standards mandate the following filing-to-resolution time standards for RALJ appeals: 90 percent should be completed within 4 months, 98 percent completed within 5 months, and 100 percent completed within 6 months. Delays in meeting these benchmarks can occur when defendants do not file their briefs in a timely manner, when transcriptionists are backlogged, or when a court takes a case under advisement for a lengthy period of time.

    Our office instituted a policy of aggressively monitoring RALJ appeals to ensure prompt filing of briefs in 1997. Motions to compel compliance with the court rules are brought in every appropriate case. The 1997 Caseloads of the Courts of Washington report is the first report to include data regarding how well counties are meeting these benchmarks. Statewide, Kitsap County ranked number four overall and number one among the eight counties with the largest number of new RALJ filings in 1997. The policy begun in 1997 has been continued in 1998. As a result, 32 of the 45 RALJ appeals that were filed in 1998 have already been completed in the Superior Court.

    This past year has resulted in some victories and some losses for our appellate unit. Two cases were issued by the Court of Appeals that strengthen our ability to protect public servants and judges from the threat of paper terrorism. See State v. Knowles, 91 Wn. App. 367 (1998) (intimidating a judge predicated upon threats of contempt orders in the common law court and threats of criminal charges in the common law court); State v. Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. 794 (1998) (intimidating a public servant predicated upon the filing of liens). Public safety was enhanced in City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wn.2d 141, 949 P.2d 347 (1998), when the Washington Supreme Court upheld the mandatory motorcycle helmet law.

    The Washington Supreme Court dramatically rewrote the rules governing consent searches of homes in State v. Ferrier, 136 Wn.2d 103 (1998). Information regarding how to implement the changes was sent to all Kitsap County law enforcement agencies within days of the opinion. This speed hopefully


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 20


    prevented the suppression of evidence in new investigations.

    The Washington Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 opinion, held that nonjudicial punishment administered by the military authorities will preclude subsequent civilian prosecution under our state=s double jeopardy statute. See State v. Ivie, 136 Wn.2d 173 (1998). Corrective language has been proposed and a bill was recently introduced in the Washington Legislature that will abrogate this decision.






    1998 Year End Review
    Page 21

    The Civil Practice:

    The division enjoyed a year of stability in terms of attorney and support staff and client assignments. It has become a cohesive unit which works together easily, confidently and effectively. The year also provided challenges for experienced and less experienced attorneys alike, and most would regard 1998 as a year of real professional growth for themselves and, by extension, for the division.

    Billable Hours.

    The civil division included 8 attorneys during 1998 except for a period of three months, during which one of our attorneys moved to the District and Municipal Court division to get some experience trying cases. Even with one attorney gone for three months, the civil deputies worked a total of 13,815 hours for the year, or an average of 1,727 billable hours per attorney. Had all eight deputies worked full time in the civil division for the year, billable hours per attorney would have averaged approximately 1,766, equal to division=s billable hours for 1997. Our billable hours, (those which, in a private law firm, would be billed to a client), remain equal to or exceed the hours required of attorneys at law firms of similar size in the Seattle-Tacoma area.8

    The table below summarizes how our civil work load changed in 1998.


    Client Increase or Decrease
    in Hours
    % Increase or Decrease
    Public Works 264 +29%
    Risk Management 1273 +59%
    DCD 724 +83%
    Assessor 327 +130%
    Sheriff 316 +359%
    Risk Management -
    Hazardous Waste
    (369) -44%
    Fair and Parks (256) -51%
    Boundary Review Board (248) -86%

    Most of the increases and decreases are easily accounted for. Attorneys for the Public Works Department spent many hours working with their clients on the Solid Waste Management Plan and a possible solid waste disposal district, as well as revisions to improve the Stormwater Ordinance.



    8 Our personnel records show 3,685 overtime hours attributable to civil deputy prosecutors, nearly the equivalent to two FTEs.

    1998 Year End Review
    Page 22


    The County also received a increased number of damage claims related to stormwater last year, and the division spends a considerable amount of time on such claims when they first come in. The hours for Risk Management increased because of the significant increases in litigation. The Department of Community Development spent much of the year devoted to revising the County=s comprehensive plan and development regulations to comply with the state Growth Management Act, and this work required a great deal of attorney time. Many of the Assessor=s hours are attributable to the successful suit we brought on behalf of her and other assessors in the state challenging part of Referendum 47 (summarized below). And the increase in hours for the Sheriff=s Office was probably attributable to both the extensive amount of litigation involving that office and to the period of transition they experienced last year.

    With interim urban growth areas in place, there were few annexations last year, which contributed to the Boundary Review Board=s decrease in attorney hours. I expect that trend to reverse this year, now that the county=s comprehensive plan is in place. The hazardous waste hours were down for Risk Management because the year was largely devoted to successfully settling the county=s longstanding hazardous waste insurance case (summarized above), rather than to preparing for trial. And the Fair and Parks Department was also undergoing a period of transition during much of 1998 which involved a focus on the basics and required little legal input.

    Litigation.

    Litigation increased significantly in 1998 in terms of the number of cases that were active during the year and the percentage of attorney time spent on them. The division had 139 active litigation cases during the year, and spent 6,289 attorney hours on them, equivalent to nearly 4 attorney positions. This is 1,779 hours more (the equivalent of one full attorney FTE) than deputies spent on the 125 cases active in 1997. Fewer new cases were opened last year, however, which is an encouraging sign for the future for both the county and the office. The increase in litigation over the last three years may have reached its peak. We opened only 50 new cases during the year, down from the 70 new cases opened in 1996, and equal to the number of new cases opened in 1995. The litigation cases which came in during 1998 were largely tort and employment cases, but the end of the year saw an increase in land use cases. We expect this trend to continue as the County implements its new comprehensive plan and development regulations and the land use procedures ordinance, all adopted in 1998.

    Tort cases in 1998 required the time equivalent of approximately 1 1/3 attorneys. One of the more unusual tort cases arose from the service of an out-of-state arrest warrant by county sheriff=s deputies. The case was actually two companion cases involving the man arrested by the deputies and his girlfriend, with one case being filed in federal district court and the other in Pierce County Superior Court. The plaintiffs both alleged civil rights violations and various state tort claims. The county filed motions for summary judgment in both cases, prevailed in both, and successfully opposed motions for reconsideration in both. The two cases are now on appeal, one in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the other in Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals.

    In other litigation, the division successfully represented the Kitsap County Assessor, who took the lead in an action brought by ten counties in the Washington Supreme Court challenging the property


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 23


    tax Avalue averaging provision@ of Referendum 47, which was passed by the voters in 1997. The challenged provision was a technique to shift taxes from rapidly appreciating properties to those where the values are rising more slowly, or not at all. In a unanimous decision, the State Supreme Court declared value averaging a violation of the constitutional requirement that property taxes be uniform, and directed the state department of revenue not to implement it. The decision was a victory for the average homeowner. (Belas v. Kiga, 135 Wn.2d 913 (1998)).

    In 1998, the County also successfully resolved longstanding litigation with its former insurance carriers over coverage for the clean-up of three former landfills and several related personal injury lawsuits. This office began to take a more active role in overseeing the case, and the management of outside counsel, at the beginning of this administration. After years of little movement on the case, the County changed outside counsel and began to negotiate settlements with the insurers. Last year, the County agreed to mediate with the remaining twelve insurers for a global settlement. After four months, the parties agreed to a substantial settlement sum, which the county believes will cover its costs for cleanup of the three sites, including the relocation of residents of a mobile home park, as well as other related costs.

    Last year also saw the culmination of four years of work on the County=s comprehensive land use plan and development regulations adopted pursuant the state Growth Management Act. The first two plans, adopted in 1994 and 1996, were appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board, and both were invalidated. In 1998, the civil division worked closely with the County=s Department of Community Development, and with a respected land use consultant hired by the commissioners, to overhaul the plan. The plan and regulations were adopted in May. By the end of the appeal period, 26 parties had filed petitions for review of the plan and regulations with the Hearings Board, in a case which ultimately encompassed nearly eighty issues. The Hearings Board itself described the proceedings in the case as Aunparalleled in their magnitude and complexity.@ Given the magnitude of the case and the County=s confidence in this plan, the commissioners agreed with the civil division=s suggestion that the division associate private counsel on the defense. The defense entailed hundreds of hours in review of the record and briefing and arguing the county=s case to the Hearings Board. The reward was a decision issued early this year: For the first time in four years, the County has a valid comprehensive land use plan and implementing regulations.

    Of the 139 active civil cases in 1998, we handled all but 14 entirely within the division. One case which was sent to outside counsel after budget cuts within the civil division in 1996 remained with outside counsel. Two other tort cases were sent to outside counsel at the request of the Washington Counties Risk Pool, which expressed concern about our litigation team being stretch too thin by the bulge in the County=s active cases last year. And the County's hazardous waste insurance case, and two related cases, have also been handled largely by outside counsel, although with more oversight from the civil division than in the past. In the remaining 8 cases where private counsel were assigned, they were acting as co-counsel and/or advisors, with civil deputies handling at least half of the work on the cases.

    The civil division has continued to build its "litigation group", with the office=s primary litigator


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 24


    reviewing much of the work of two less experienced attorneys who are responsible for part or all of several litigation cases. We have made significant strides in training our own litigators, which will enable the division to continue to handle the county's litigation in-house, at great savings.

    Work Requests and Contract Reviews.

    Fortunately, the increase in the number of active litigation cases was offset by a reduction in the number of work requests and contract reviews received by the civil division in 1998. The number of work requests was down by 22%, from 858 in 1997 to 665 in 1998. Contract reviews were also down, from 681 in 1997 to 628 in 1998, an 8% reduction. The number of hours attorneys spent on non-litigation work, however, was down only 5% for the year, from 7,935 hours in 1997 to 7,526 hours in 1998. We believe that for the most part, the decrease in work request numbers is attributable to the increasing proficiency we have in a more experienced core of deputies who are able to handle matters quickly and efficiently in person, or over the telephone, without needing to open a work request file on them.

    Mental Health and Asset Forfeitures.

    Mental health hearings were up significantly in 1998. The civil division handled 418 such hearings in 1997 and 553 of them in 1998. The number of attorney hours required for the hearings increased by 75, from 350 hours in 1997 to 425 hours in 1998. Asset forfeitures also increased, requiring 25 more attorney hours in 1998 than they did in 1997.

    The Daily Practice.

    Despite the increase in active litigation cases, the division was able to keep the number of hours spent in litigation-related tasks at 46% of its total attorney hours. This allowed us to continue our focus on preventive law--the day-to-day time spent with clients to avoid litigation. Deputies also found time to do some training seminars for clients on topics such as sexual harassment, the legal issues involved with entry onto private property for civil enforcement purposes and the legal issues associated with claims for unconstitutional takings of private property. We are currently in the planning stages for seminars during the first half of this year on records management and retention, public disclosure, open public meetings issues and sexual harassment.

    The division benefited greatly last year from our motivated and skilled legal assistants. One has completed her basic paralegal training and continues to support much of the litigation in the office. We are hopeful that she can take on full paralegal duties sometime this year. Another legal assistant has taken on more responsibility for the daily functioning of the office and its systems. She has been instrumental in setting up the division=s brief bank and its bank of legal opinion memos, and has played a key role in working with a consultant to get the division=s time keeping system converted to an electronic format.

    Client Evaluations.

    As we do each year, we asked our clients to rate our services in several categories, such as clarity of advice, turn around time, problem solving ability, etc. The comments on the evaluations were again very positive overall. Our clients found most categories of our service either Agood@ or Aexcellent@, although a few would like to see turn around time continue to improve. Whether or not we can improve on that part of our practice in 1999 will depend largely upon the division=s litigation load for the year.


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 25


    Health District.

    The Health District and the civil division remain enthusiastic about the office=s legal services contract with the District, which was just renewed for another five years. The District continues to have access to the expertise they need in all fields of law, at a very good price, and with accountability. Because the District funds one attorney position, the division has been able to devote the necessary time to the District=s work without shortchanging county clients. It is the model of the Awin/win@ situation.

    Child Support Division.

    The child support division continues to operate efficiently and effectively in establishing, modifying and enforcing child support obligations within the county. In 1998, child support opened 599 new cases and carried 677 cases to disposition. It has an open caseload of approximately 800 cases. In 1998, the regional field office in which Kitsap is included, achieved and exceeded its goal for paternity establishment percentage (PEP), a federal performance-based incentive requiring that 90% of referred cases have paternity established within one year.

    In cooperation with the Superior Court, child support achieved its goal of obtaining more courtroom time for support modification cases, which enabled child support to comply with federally imposed timelines. This also resulted in the removal of state cases from the general support modification calendars which, in turn, helped to alleviate calendar congestion for the private bar. More court time was also allotted for child support=s contempt calendar.

    The goals for the upcoming year will mirror those of the state Division of Child Support. Federal funding incentives are now tied to the percentage of collections on existing orders and to cost effectiveness. At the local level this means that we must focus on obtaining realistic judgements for back support, and recognizing when orders may need to be referred for modification or to administrative conference boards for adjustment of arrearages.

    An additional goal of the child support division is to concentrate on more aggressive collection of arrearages in the contempt caseload. We hope to impress upon the bench, bar and public in general, the importance that both the federal and state government has placed on collection of outstanding child support obligations. With the passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, which adds new penalties for egregious failure to pay child support, and the creation of a national new hire directory for locating parents and employers across state lines, the government has sought to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children, and has emphasized that increased child support collection is a top priority. The child support division is committed to carrying out that program.


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 26


    Conclusion:

    Over the last four years this office has earned the right to refer to itself as a first-rate, professional law firm. We have identified and addressed most of the systemic problems that stood in the way of discharging our duties as an office. We believe that we have done what we can to live up to our Mission Statement.

    However, what 1998 showed us is that systemic change, reshuffling and juggling assets to squeeze out more performance, has limits. The increase in criminal referrals last year stretched us to, and perhaps beyond, those limits. Our goal for next year therefore becomes procuring what it will take to meet our obligations.

    We will, of course, continue to push our organization toward greater efficiencies. For example, at the start of 1999 we reorganized in order to give more immediate attention to criminal referrals. We continue to work with the Superior and District Courts to find ways to process criminal cases more effectively. We will maintain our ability to provide our clients with excellent service in our civil role. Our pledge is to do the best we can with what we have.



    Russell D. Hauge Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney


    1998 Year End Review
    Page 27