Common use of Compliance Rating Clause in Contracts

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 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 Coupe (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 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 Coupe (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 Page 11 – First Compliance Report Equal Protection 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.