vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
California Pretrial Release Program - criminal_justice
Pretrial Release: Risk Assessment Tools (SB 36)

Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act (SB 678)
Data Dashboards: Trends in Felony Court Case Processing
MyCitations – Can’t afford to pay your ticket?
Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Prior Reforms

Print

“Across California and the nation, pretrial release and detention primarily based on cash bail are slowly being replaced with safer and fairer alternatives. In California, we are leading and experiencing reforms driven by best practices, but also pilot projects, court decisions, and legislation,” Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye 2019

Enacting Legislation
The Budget Act of 2021 (SB 129) provided funding for “the implementation and operation of ongoing court programs and practices that promote the safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail.”  
The Judicial Council of California is responsible for distributing funding to the courts to provide every superior court with information and resources to support judicial officers in making pretrial release decisions that impose the least restrictive conditions to address public safety and return to court, and to implement appropriate monitoring practices and provision of services for released individuals.  
What is Pretrial Release?
Pretrial Release is when a person is accused of a crime, who has been booked into custody, is then released from custody, with or without conditions, before trial, with charges pending. 

What is a Pretrial Release Program/ Pretrial Services? 
Pretrial services provide information to judicial officers to assist in pretrial release decision making and/or to assist a person accused with any conditions of release.
How do I find out about Pretrial services in my county?
You will find information about your county’s Pretrial services on your county’s website. In line with SB 129, courts were mandated to contract with any “county department, including county probation departments, to provide pretrial services.” *
* The Superior Court of San Francisco and the Superior Court of Santa Clara are allowed to contract with the Office of Pretrial Services in that county.
History of Pretrial Release in California

Pretrial Case Law
Notable California cases

In re Humphrey (2021)
Traffic | Superior Court of California | County of Tuolumne
You must deposit the bail amount due at the time of your request for a Trial by Declaration pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 40519.
California Vehicle Code section 40519 states in part that the deposit of bail “shall be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the appearance of the defendant at the time and place scheduled by the clerk for arraignment and for trial and to apply toward the payment of any fine or assessment prescribed by the court in the event of a conviction”.
Once your payment is received the court will mail you and the officer the declaration forms to complete.  These must be filled out completely and returned to the court by the Due Date listed on the form. The court will decide the case based upon the documents and declaration in the file and you will receive notice of the court’s decision by mail.
If you are found Not Guilty, your bail deposit will be returned to the depositor by mail within six to eight weeks.
If you are found Guilty the sentence imposed will be a fine not exceeding the amount of bail deposited.
Failure to return your declaration timely may result in a finding of guilty and forfeiture of the bail deposited.  No monthly payment options are available for Trial by Declaration cases.

Why is my Bail so High?

Fine, Assessments, Penalty Assessments and Fees; 
What is a Penalty Assessment?
The amount added to the base bail and base fines on infraction, misdemeanor, and felony offenses.  The current penalty assessment (effective June 10, 2010), is $26 for each $10, or portion of $10 of fine or bail, as set by the California State Legislature.  The $26 Penalty Assessment is charged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1469 and Government Code Sections 76000, 70372, 76104.6, 76104.7 and 76000.5.
In addition to the penalty assessments:
Effective June 27, 2014, a $40 court security fee will be added for each infraction, misdemeanor, or felony violation resulting in a conviction pursuant to Penal Code Section 1465.8.
Basics of Criminal Court - criminal_selfhelp
Basics of Criminal Court - criminal_selfhelp

Skip to main content
Skip to topics menu
Skip to topics menu

Home

 Courts
 

 Self-Help
 

 Forms & Rules
 

 Opinions
 

 Programs
 

 Policy & Administration
 

 News & Reference
 

Cancel
Print

Advanced Search

Courts

Supreme Court
Courts of Appeal
Superior Courts
Jury Service
About California Courts 
Find Your Court
FAQs

Self-Help

Getting Started
Small Claims
Families & Children
Divorce or Separation
Abuse & Harassment
Eviction & Housing
Name Change
Traffic
Seniors & Conservatorship
Problems With Money
Criminal Law
Civil Appeals
Gender Change
Wills, Estates, and Probate
Test Feedback Form (formerly Self-Help Feedback Form)
Self Help A-Z Index

Forms & Rules

Find Your Court Forms
Rules of Court

Opinions

Published / Citable Opinions
Unpublished / Non-Citable Opinions

Programs

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Collaborative Justice Courts
Criminal Justice Services
Domestic Violence
Equal Access
Families and Children
Judicial Fellowship
JusticeCorps
Language Access Services
Tribal/State Programs

Policy & Administration

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
Judicial Council
Budget & Finance
Facilities
Invitations to Comment
Public Records
Governmental Affairs

News & Reference

Reports & Publications
Research & Statistics

Self-Help>Criminal Law>Basics of Criminal Court
 

Basics of Criminal Court

	 Topics
	

Criminal Law
Basics of Criminal Court

How Criminal Cases Work
Clean Your Record
FAQs

Print

Español

READ FIRST: In any criminal case other than most infractions, where the potential for jail or prison time exists, a defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney, even if the defendant cannot afford one.
Traffic | Superior Court of California | County of Tuolumne
The citation is deemed paid and the resulting conviction will be reported on your driving record.  When you elect to forfeit bail, you are waiving your right to a trial, entering a plea of guilty to the charges, and paying the fine without appearance in court. If you elect to proceed by this option, you may sign the options/remittance portion of your Courtesy Notice and provide to the court the total bail amount indicated on the Courtesy Notice, along with any proof of correction that is required prior to the due date. If no proof of correction is required on any violation, you may also pay on-line or by telephone.
If there are any mechanical, registration, or insurance violations included in the citation, proof of correction will be required before you can pay the amount due, with the completed proof of correction found on your Courtesy Notice.  Proof of correction must be submitted by mail or in person.  For additional information regarding proof of correction, please refer to the section below entitled "Proof of Correction".
There are four alternatives for paying a citation:

Online: Tuolumne County Superior Court Online Payment Website

By phone at (209) 533-5671.

In person at: Superior Court, 12855 Justice Center Drive, Sonora, CA, 95370.

By mail: Superior Court, 12855 Justice Center Drive, Sonora, CA, 95370. (If you pay by mail and need a receipt, enclose a self addressed and stamped envelope with your payment.)

NOTE: If paying by check or money order, please make payable to "Tuolumne County Superior Court" and write your case number in the memo section.

If you are unable to pay the entire fine prior to the due date, you may request to pay in monthly installments. If you elect to pay your fine in monthly installments, you must contact the court clerk. The clerk will mail you an Agreement to Pay. You must return the signed agreement prior to your due date on your Courtesy Notice. Payments are made to the Office of Revenue Recovery.
Some violations require a mandatory court appearance and cannot simply be paid.
Criminal Justice Services - criminal_justice
SB 129 appropriated funding to the Judicial Council of California for distribution to the courts to provide every superior court with information and resources to support judicial officers in making pretrial release decisions that impose the least restrictive conditions to address public safety and return to court, and to implement appropriate monitoring practices and provision of services for released individuals.  
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act (SB 678)
The Judicial Council is involved in the administration of two community supervision initiatives that promote the use of evidence-based practices in the sentencing and supervising of felony offenders.
MyCitations – Online Ability to Pay (Can’t afford to pay your ticket?)
MyCitations allows litigants experiencing financial hardship to look up their citation(s), answer a series of simple questions, and submit a request to the court for a possible reduction in the amount owed completely online.
Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Effective November 9, 2016, Proposition 64 legalized specified personal use and cultivation of marijuana for adults 21 years of age or older; reduced criminal penalties for specified marijuana-related offenses for adults and juveniles; and authorized resentencing or dismissal and sealing of prior, eligible marijuana-related convictions. The proposition included provisions on regulation, licensing, and taxation of legalized use. 
Report on the Compassionate Release Program – 2023
Penal Code section 1172.2 authorizes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to recommend that the courts recall prison sentences in instances in which an incarcerated person has a serious illness with an end-of-life trajectory or is medically incapacitated. It also requires the Judicial Council to publicly release data regarding these release decisions. 

Contact Information

 
 
 
 Criminal Justice Services
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: 415-865-8994
Fax: 415-865-8795 
crimjusticeoffice@jud.ca.gov

Data Dashboards: Trends in Felony Court Case Processing

 
 
 
 Interactive dashboards display quarterly court data on felony sentencing, petitions for modifications/revocation of supervision, and presentence warrants for failures to appear in felony cases.  
 
 
 MORE »

Red Light Camera
Prior Reforms - criminal_justice_prior_reforms
Kind of sanction, incentive or additional service to be ordered upon a violation of probation; and 
Whether or when to revoke probation. 

In the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in the case of Malenchik v. State of Indiana, the court observed that "the concept of evidence-based sentencing practices has considerable promise for the goal of reduced offender recidivism and improvement of sentencing outcomes." 

The California Risk Assessment Pilot Project (CalRAPP)

CalRAPP Final Report 
The California Risk Assessment Pilot Project: The Use of Risk and Needs Assessment Information in Adult Felony Probation Sentencing and Violation Proceedings, December 2015 
The California Risk Assessment Pilot Project (CalRAPP) began in 2009 as a joint project of the Judicial Council of California (JCC) and the Chief Probation Officers of California, and is funded by the National Institute of Corrections and the State Justice Institute.
 This pilot project, which took place in four California counties (i.e., Napa, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Yolo), focused on evidence-based practices and the ways in which risk and needs assessment (RNA) information can be incorporated into adult felony probation sentencing and violation proceedings. Some highlighted findings include: 

Probation departments in the pilot sites sentenced a significantly lower proportion of adult felony probationers to prison and jail compared to probation departments in the rest of the state; and 
Individual-level findings support the predictive validity of the RNA tools utilized by the pilot sites as tools that are able to predict the occurrence of future noncompliant behavior. 

Criminal Justice Services

Behavioral Health Education and Resources
California Pretrial Release Program
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act (SB 678)
Data Dashboards: Trends in Felony Court Case Processing
MyCitations – Can’t afford to pay your ticket?
Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Prior Reforms

© 2024 Judicial Council of California

Site Map 
 | Careers 
 | Contact Us 
 | Accessibility 
 | Public Records 
 | Terms of Use 
 | Privacy 
 | Newsroom

Site Map 
 | Careers 
 | Contact Us 
 | Accessibility

 | Public Records 
 | Terms of Use 
 | Privacy

 | Newsroom

 	© 2024 Judicial Council of California
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
Disproportionalities persist at all levels of the child welfare system, alongside disparities in outcomes. A disproportionality occurs when a group’s percentage in a target population (for example, California’s child welfare population) differs from that group’s percentage in the base population (for example, the state of California), while disparities refer to groups experiencing inequities relative to one another (for example, children of different racial/ethnic groups experiencing different outcomes). This report focuses on disproportionalities and disparities at the front end of families’ involvement with the child welfare system—that is, allegations, investigations, substantiations, and decisions to place a child in foster care—as well as families’ circumstances prior to system involvement. We focus on these areas as the subject of this report because addressing front‑end system issues could help mitigate disparities at later stages of the system, which are greater. In addition, a number of recent legislative actions already have aimed to address challenges at later stages of the system. 
Roadmap for This Report. After providing background on the child welfare system and recent areas of legislative focus, this report examines some of the complex factors contributing to the pervasive disproportionalities and disparities across California’s child welfare system. The report then identifies specific policy and implementation areas that may be contributing to front‑end disproportionalities and disparities. Finally, the report presents options for the Legislature to consider to begin to help address disproportionalities and disparities, while maintaining a system that ensures and prioritizes the safety and well‑being of children. 
Background
Child Welfare System Overview
Child Welfare and Foster Care Programs Serve to Keep Children Safe and Strengthen Families. When children experience abuse or neglect, the state provides a variety of services to protect children and strengthen families. The state provides prevention services—such as substance use disorder treatment and in‑home parenting support—to families at risk of child removal to help families remain together, if possible.
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Support
The state collects these debt payments regardless of whether a current support order is in effect. When the debt payments are made toward a court order that is no longer active, they are referred to as arrears-only cases.
Current Support and Past-Due Payments for Current CalWORKs Families Are Retained by the Government First. A family who currently receives CalWORKs cash aid (referred to as a current CalWORKs family) typically is required to sign over their child support payments to the state. However, a portion is retained by families. Specifically, up to $100 of the current support payment is directed or “passed through” every month to families with one child (increasing to $200 for families with two or more children). This initial passthrough amount is disregarded in terms of determining what is owed to the government. The remaining portion of the current support payment goes toward CalWORKs recoupment. In addition, any arrears or past-due payments collected first are withheld by the government to pay off past-due CalWORKs costs. Once the government-owed debt is paid in full, arrears payments then are directed to the family to pay off any pre-existing family-owed child support debt (this would be debt incurred from missed child support payments that accrued prior to the family receiving CalWORKs aid).
Federal rules allow states to pass through up to the full amount of monthly child support payments received to currently assisted families. However, to do so, states are required to pay back, or backfill, the federal government for the amount of the passthrough payment that otherwise would have been federally recouped (45 percent of the remaining payment beyond the $100/$200 initial disregarded amount).
Current Support and Past-Due Payments for Former CalWORKs Families Are Directed to Families First. Once a family exits CalWORKs (referred to as a former CalWORKs family), they begin to receive the full amount of current support payments. Additionally, any payments towards past-due amounts are directed first to families to pay off any family-owed debt. Past-due CalWORKs recoupment is paid last (although this portion of past-due payments soon will be passed through to families as well, as described in the next section).
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
Families living in high‑crime neighborhoods and areas otherwise experiencing higher levels of criminal justice system involvement—which tend to be lower‑income Black, Native American, and Hispanic/Latino communities—are more likely to come into contact with police. Police officers commonly refer families to the child welfare system in situations of domestic violence, substance use, and other circumstances when children may be unsafe in their home. In addition, arrest and incarceration rates in California for Black and Native American men and women, as well as for Hispanic/Latino men, are significantly higher than for other racial/ethnic groups. When a parent/caregiver is incarcerated and no other caregiver is present, foster care placement may be necessary. Overall, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American communities’ disproportionate exposure to and involvement with the criminal justice system may contribute to disproportionate child welfare system involvement by resulting in additional referrals and necessitating foster placement when a parent/caregiver is incarcerated. 
Role of Implicit Bias
Implicit Bias May Impact Child Welfare Decisions. Psychological and sociological research has documented that all individuals have biases, including implicit/subconscious biases, which impact individuals’ decision‑making. Research has tried to identify the role these implicit biases may have on child welfare‑related decisions. For example, some studies find that despite similar assessment of risk and other family characteristics, caseworkers were more likely to substantiate allegations for and remove Black children compared to white children, and less likely to offer preventative services to Black families. In contrast, however, other research finds that accounting for family and case characteristics explains most racial disparities in substantiations and removals. Other research examining decisions made by medical professionals finds implicit bias may play a role. For example, research found that medical professionals examining similar injuries were significantly more likely to report suspected abuse for Black children compared to white children.
Front‑End Policies Impacting Child Welfare System Involvement 
In this section, we lay out “front‑end” child welfare system policy areas potentially impacting disproportionalities and disparities.
2001 Budget Analysis:Department of Child Support Services
increase in total administrative spending in the FFY 2001 (October 2000 through September 2001), based on the actual increase in spending between 1998-99
and 1999-00. We believe this estimate is inflated because it has not been adjusted downward to reflect a number of one-time expenses in 1999-00. In addition,
our examination of historic trends in the "core" administrative functions of the program found that expenditures increased at a lower rate of approximately
14 percent. A federal penalty based on this slower rate of growth would be $155 million, resulting in a General Fund savings of approximately $7.9 million.
Accordingly, we recommend that the budget be reduced to reflect the lower cost for the federal penalty.
Child Support Automation Proposal Lacks Detail 
The budget proposes $16.5 million ($5.6 million General Fund) for interim child support automation improvements over the next three fiscal years,
2001-02 through 2003-04. Without prejudice to the merits of the proposal, we recommend that the Legislature (1) delete this multiyear funding request and
(2) instruct the department to include a specific interim automation proposal for 2001-02 only in the May Revision to the Governor's budget that is
consistent with federal guidelines. (Reduce Item 5175-101-0001 by $5,600,000.) 
The Governor's budget for 2001-02 proposes a total of $18.1 million for support of an interim child support automation system. This amount consists of
$16.5 million for local assistance and $1.6 million for state operations. We discuss the local assistance proposal in this write-up and the state-operations
proposal in the following write-up.
Background. Pursuant to federal law, the Statewide Automated Child Support System (SACSS) was intended to provide automated child support enforcement
tracking and monitoring capability through local child support offices. Following several years of difficulty, the state terminated the SACSS project in late
1997. The cancellation of SACSS resulted in the need for California to implement interim automation systems until a new statewide system is functional. The
new statewide system—known as the California Child Support Automaton System (CCSAS)—is scheduled to be fully implemented in 2005.