City of Seattle

Edward B. Murray, Mayor

Seattle Office for Civil Rights

Patricia Lally, Director

Racial Equity Analysis Of

King County Children And Family Justice Center

Seattle Office for Civil Rights

For submission to Seattle City Council
June 23, 2015

810 Third Avenue, Suite 750, Seattle, WA 98104-1627

Tel: (206) 684-4500, Fax: (206) 684-0332, TYY (206) 684-4503, website http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/
An equal opportunity affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to Seattle City Councils request, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) conducted a racial
equity analysis on King Countys proposed Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC). SOCR engaged
various stakeholders including City and County representatives, subject matter experts and community
members to assess the impact of the proposed building. Our assessment generated rich feedback and
many ideas, which we have compiled in this report.
The Citys process precedes King Countys Race and Social Justice Action Plan in order to submit ideas in
sufficient time to inform the CFJC design verification period, which ends on July 6. Additionally, King
County plans to conduct its own process with a stated goal of identifying ways to eliminate racial
disproportionality in the juvenile justice system. This report is intended to inform and assist the Countys
efforts.
The work group assessed the proposed CJFC with regard to seven racial equity outcomes, three of which
became the focus for this process:1

Outcome 1: Eliminate the need to detain or incarcerate youth.

Outcome 2: Eliminate racial inequities in arrest rates, detention, sentencing and prison
population.
Outcome 3: Center communities of color and other youth facing oppression in the provision,
creation and use of community-based alternatives to secure confinement

The stakeholder engagement process, coupled with emerging best practices in juvenile justice systems
transformation, has led us to put forth the following three recommendations, which are specific to King
Countys design of the CFJC. The first three are the result of ideas that received overwhelming support
(78%) from stakeholder work group members with the exception of some King County participants.2
1. Design all detention space to allow for conversion to non-detention purposes in future.
2. All youth subject to processing in the adult system (what is termed decline) should be held
in a youth facility instead of an adult jail.
3. Provide readily available, quality medical, mental and behavioral health services on site,
particularly those related to substance abuse and domestic violence utilizing nationally
certified programs and staffed with MDs. These services should be available for the use of all
young people when needed, inside and out of detention.
We appreciate that the recommendation to design flexible detention spaces that can be used for nondetention purposes is consistent with the Countys recently published commitments to address racial
disproportionality in the juvenile justice system and to fight for a world where detention for young
1

This was due to time constraints, as explained in the body of the report.
As explained in the body of the report, King County participants other than the Department of Public Defense
acknowledged that all ideas generated in the racial equity analysis are good starting points that require further
discussion, and therefore declined to register agreement or disagreement with the ideas.
2

people is no longer needed.3 The Office for Civil Rights, in compliance with our directive from Seattle
City Council to conduct a racial equity analysis of the proposed CFJC, and based on ideas shared by
various community members of the stakeholder work group, offers a fourth recommendation specific to
the CFJC design:
4. Design all aspects of the Children and Family Justice Center to support a goal of zero use of
detention.
This recommendation directly supports Outcome 1 - eliminate the need to detain or incarcerate youth
by linking it with the CFJC design. Data and stakeholders lived experiences compiled for this report and
in many other, exhaustive studies from across the country reiterate the detrimental impacts of
centralized and secure confinement.4 In its place, government should focus on community-run and
neighborhood-based alternatives5 for youth that are adequately resourced to address youth needs and
support families, foster care providers, law enforcement, probation counselors, and others. This is a
significant undertaking that requires immediate action and full participation from all systems and
community stakeholders, and investments from government and foundation sources.
Stakeholders also put forth the following building design ideas:
Decrease the number of cells: reduce the number of rooms to serve only high-risk offenders.
Expand rehabilitative functions.
Utilize the hiring of people of color in the building construction.
Establish culturally relevant and welcoming spaces that foster self-determination and are
available for community use.
Design courtrooms to visually establish equitable footing between community and the court.
The Office for Civil Rights shares the Countys vision for a community in which race and other social
identities do not determine whether a youth or family experiences true justice. As the County finalizes
the design for the CFJC and embarks on its assessment of this facility and our juvenile justice system as a
whole, we submit these recommendations in the spirit of partnership and mutual support.

Craighead, Susan, A Call to Action to Address Racial Disparity in the Juvenile Justice System, The Stranger,
February 16, 2015, http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/02/16/21710313/guest-editorial-a-call-toaction-to-address-racial-disparity-in-the-juvenile-justice-system (accessed June 13, 2015); King County, Race and
Social Justice Assessment and Action Plan, March 31, 2015.
4
Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention: the Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other
Secure Facilities, November 28, 2006, http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/0611_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf (accessed June 13, 2015).
5
Stakeholders urged for these services in multiple work group meetings.

I.
Background
Community opposition to King Countys Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC) led the County and
City of Seattle to sign a Statement of Shared Commitment to produce a race and social justice analysis of
the proposed juvenile court and detention facility. Pursuant to a green sheet approved by the Seattle
City Council in the fall of 2014, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) led stakeholders in a process that
culminated in this report. The Citys process precedes King Countys Race and Social Justice Action Plan
in order to submit ideas in sufficient time to inform the CFJC design verification period, which ends on
July 6. To meet this deadline, our process, while thorough, was necessarily compacted; challenges
related to this effort are discussed throughout the report. Additionally, King County plans to conduct its
own process with a stated goal of identifying ways to eliminate racial disproportionality in the juvenile
justice system. This report is intended to inform and assist the Countys efforts.
A. Alignment of Vision
The vision of the City of Seattles Race and Social Justice Initiative is that racial disparities have been
eliminated and racial equity achieved. Similarly, King Countys 2024 Vision Statement (Appendix C)
envisions a fair and just community where all children are safe, thriving and ready to learn, while
institutions focus on dismantling institutional racism. However, data indicates that race-based
disparities persist: for example, Black youth make up just eight percent of King Countys youth
population, yet 50% of those incarcerated.6 As King County Executive Dow Constantine proclaimed in his
State of the County Address, These kids arent failing uswe are failing them.7 This race-based crisis
grounds both community opposition to the CFJC and efforts of the City and County to address these
inequities.
B. Process and Participants
As described in the Phase I report (Appendix A), the Office for Civil Rights contracted with consultant
Sumayyah Waheed to coordinate and facilitate this racial equity analysis process. A work group of 17
members met for six sessions in April and May. The stakeholders were:

Shannon Perez-Darby, The Northwest Network of Bisexual, Trans, Lesbian & Gay Survivors of
Abuse
Anne Lee, TeamChild
Marisa Ordonia, TeamChild
Sean Goode, Seattle YMCA
Tess Thomas, Thomas House
Talya Miller, Miller's Care
Ada Shen-Jaffe, Race Equity & Leadership Consultant

For a further discussion of disproportionality causes and data, see King County, Race and Social Justice
Assessment and Action Plan.
7
Constantine, Dow. 2015 State of the County Address. April 27, 2015.

Pam Jones, King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention

Jorene Reiber, King County Court Director of Family Law and Dependency
Bruce Knutson, King County Director of Juvenile Court
Jimmy Hung, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Paul Daniels, King County Juvenile Probation Counselor Supervisor
Elinor Cromwell, King County Department of Public Defense
Katie Hurley, King County Department of Public Defense
David Chapman , King County Office of Performance, Strategy, and Budget
Darby DuComb, Seattle City Attorneys Office
Sgt. Adrian Diaz, Seattle Police Department

A note taker from SOCR was present but not counted as a participant and only occasionally contributed
facilitation support.
The group reflected diverse perspectives from inside and outside government systems, with seven
participants representing community, eight representing the County, and two representing the City. We
also solicited direct community input through one focus group and interviews with 12 youth in King
County detention. Appendix B discusses details about work group membership, community input, key
perspectives missing, and other challenges.
Best practices indicate that a racial equity analysis such as this should be conducted before major policy
and project decisions such as building the CFJC, to ensure that unintended consequences are identified
and opportunities to mitigate negative impacts are addressed. The CFJC project was approved and
began to move forward before such an analysis had been done. This perceived oversight created
tensions in work group discussions; some community members who oppose the project chose not to
participate.8 In addition, many stakeholders in the work group had previously participated in other
processes and meetings with similar goals concerning juvenile justice and youth and community
prosperity.9 Thus, while this process enabled an expansive discussion about systemic issues, it also
raised concerns and frustrations about duplicating and coordinating the work in progress.
II. Racial Equity Analysis
A. Outcomes
The work group agreed to the following outcomes set out in the Phase I report, with slight revisions:
Outcome 1: Eliminate the need to detain or incarcerate youth.
Outcome 2: Eliminate racial inequities in arrest rates, detention, sentencing and prison
population.
8

See Appendix B for more details on this.

See King County Youth Action Plan, April 2015 http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues/YouthActionPlan.aspx
(accessed June 4, 2015); and King County, Comprehensive Plan to Prevent and End Youth and Young Adult (YYA)
Homelessness in King County by 2020-Comprehensive Plan Refresh, May 2015,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/socialservices/Housing/ServicesAndPrograms/Programs/Homeless/HomelessYouthan
dYoungAdults.aspx (accessed June 4, 2015).
9

Outcome 3: Center communities of color and other youth facing oppression in the provision,
creation and use of community-based alternatives to secure confinement.10
Outcome 4 Child Welfare: Eliminate racial inequities in child welfare contact; increase
opportunities for families of color to remain whole, healthy, safe and supported.
Outcome 5 Education: Achieve racial equity in graduation rates, and eliminate the need for
exclusionary school discipline practices.11
Outcome 6 Equitable Development: Achieve racial equity in the provision of infrastructure
(e.g. parks, transportation, sidewalks, access to technology, public art) in all neighborhoods, in
order to promote community safety and wellbeing (e.g. Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design [CPTED], safe routes to schools, etc.).
Outcome 7 Environment: Achieve equitable access for communities of color to healthy, clean
environments, free of pollutants or toxins.

The process focused primarily on the first three outcomes, particularly Outcome 1: Eliminate the need
to detain or incarcerate youth. Despite initial discomfort and divergent perspectives, the work group
achieved consensus on Outcome 1 as a vision for King County. Some work group members qualified
their support with the caveat that community safety should not be compromised. At the same time,
members noted that the term community safety often is not applied to those in detention, even
though the lack of emotional and physical safety and risks of violence in such spaces have been
documented for youth and adults alike.12 This is discussed further in the next section.
B. Benefits and Burdens
The entire community and system is sick. Very sick reality.
Community focus group participant
We put so many of societys woes on the back of the juvenile justice system.
Juvenile probation worker
I would love more tools for supporting youth with different mental health problems ... At this point, the
only place I have for this is detention.
Community member in work group
The City of Seattles racial equity analysis process asks us to consider benefits and burdens using a racial
equity lens. Therefore, this report assesses the benefits and burdens of the proposed CFJC project.

10

This outcome originally read, Increase racial equity in community-based alternatives to secure confinement.
The work group suggested rewording it to reflect not just parity of numbers, but a community-centered approach.
11
This outcome originally read, Achieve racial equity in school discipline rates, and has been edited to reflect
work group members input.
12
Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention.

King Countys data indicates that youth of color, particularly Black youth, are disproportionately caught
up in the juvenile justice system.13 Furthermore, juvenile justice system involvement and its attendant
stigma result in legal and social barriers to jobs, housing, and financial aid. The economic and social costs
include recidivism, lost wages, increased health care costs and ultimately, social isolation. In Washington
State, this economic cost has been calculated at an estimated $95,805 for every year that a youth is
incarcerated.14
Input from the work group, focus group and interviewed youth indicate that these burdens are not
limited to detention. Historic and ongoing policies that fail to, or inadequately, address systemic bias
and structural racism have created a toxic stew15 for families and communities of color in King County
and across the United States. Too often, families and youth navigating structural racism are impacted by
crises characterized by violence, incarceration, and premature death. Even in its most ideal form, a
Children and Family Justice Center does not change the fact that incarceration serves as a default for
systemic failures that target people of color.16
Some community members analysis can be synthesized by the following paraphrased statement:
The system sets us up to fail. We cannot resolve that simply with programswe must
dismantle the system itself. All system stakeholders must acknowledge their roles in
contributing to inequities in criminal justice, and be accountable for eliminating negative
outcomes for youth of color and other youth facing oppression, including LGBTQ and
low-income youth. We must affirm the values and strengths of youth and communities
of color; then, together, we can develop a holistic continuum that invests in
communities to ensure healthy mental, physical and emotional development for youth,
and prevent adverse childhood experiences.17
Work group members acknowledged that this viewpoint presents a tension between the current crisis
and changes necessary to mitigate that crisis, and a vision for a community-led transformation of society
to reverse the status quo.18 (Recommendations germane to both types of change are presented below.)
Community focus group participants overwhelmingly voiced their collective view (12-2) that, given the
present lack of resources to support youth and their families in community settings, detention cannot be
13

Pullman, Michael D., et al., Washington State Disproportionate Minority Contact Assessment, January 2013,
http://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/DMC_Final_Report_2013.pdf (accessed March 24, 2015).
14
Justice Policy Institute, Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration, December 2014,
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sticker_shock_final_v2.pdf (accessed March 24,
2015). The average length of stay in King County detention is about two weeks, far short of a year, but this yearly
estimate sheds light on the cumulative and long-term impacts of the justice system that are otherwise difficult to
quantify.
15
Work group member statement.
16
Work group member statement.
17
Compiled from comments of work group and community focus group participants.
18
King Countys community-led 2024 Visioning Statement provides this vision, and can serve as the basis for
transformative visioning further into the future.

eliminated at this time. This reflects the initial responses of some work group members. Given the
structural conditions discussed above, stakeholders such as foster parents saw detention as a necessity
(rather than a benefit) for youth with acute needs that they are otherwise unable to address. Youth
themselves were split: five of 12 felt that detention fails to help them, while four felt that it does; the
remaining three were uncertain.19
The task of identifying benefits offered by a youth and family justice facility has sparked controversy in
the community, most notably by those opposed to the CFJC. According to King County, the CFJC will help
support and heal its most vulnerable residents by providing alternatives to incarceration and programs
in a respectful and healthy environment; it will also allow families facing both the dependency and
delinquency systems to access referrals to resources and services in a coordinated fashion under one
roof.20 Community and work group members voiced a variety of opinions: a new building is absolutely
necessary to replace the current dilapidated one; the workers (not the youth) will reap the primary
benefits; the funding for the CFJC reflects an overall investment in lockup at the expense of
communities; and a centralized, Seattle location does not meet the needs of youth and families who live
in the outer County and are increasingly of color, due to structurally racist factors that are exacerbating
displacement from Seattle.
The need for detention cannot be adequately assessed without an understanding of structural racism
and the roles of systems in perpetuating it. The complexity of structural forms of oppression such as
racism, classism, sexism and heterosexism is among their most insidious characteristics. Multiple
systems such as education, child welfare, juvenile court, and policing intersect to have particular impacts
on youth of color, LGBTQ youth, youth from low-income families, youth with disabilities and youth in
other groups targeted by oppression or at their intersections. Neither the focus group nor the youth
interviews were sufficient forums for all participants to develop a structural racism framework. Moving
forward, the Countys assessment process must provide stakeholders with an opportunity to learn and
apply a structural racism framework to their perceptions of the need for detention.
C. Strategies to Maximize Opportunity, Minimize Harm
An alternative to the juvenile system would be that communities would step up and take care of kids,
just like how it used to be [nods of agreement]. Thats what we would do if we didnt have the juvenile
system at all. Get back to the basic principles of not being selfish.
Community focus group participant
The vision for where were heading is essential. It takes courage, creativity, thinking long-term ... Family
connections and real-time feedback. Its a multi-generational task. People need to have enough money
to meet their basic needs.
19

While not statistically representative, the youth interviews are a rich source of information; complete survey
questions and responses are provided in Appendix B. These conversations should expand and continue.
20
King County, Race and Social Justice Assessment and Action Plan. King County work group members noted that
these referrals will be for services in individuals communities.

 Community member in work group

The third step of the City of Seattles racial equity analysis process calls for developing strategies to
maximize opportunity and minimize harm. Throughout this racial equity analysis process, work group
members shared many ideas for maximizing opportunities and minimizing harm. All of the ideas
generated were compiled into a survey to measure participants agreement.21 In lieu of taking the
survey, some King County participants submitted a written response22 stating that they agree with
many of the statements, but believe further discussion is needed concerning the details of
implementation, as well as the impact on diverse communities, whose feedback they would prefer to
solicit first.23 Many participants expressed similar concerns about implementation. As stated earlier, this
report is intended to support these discussions. Given the Citys limited scope, we appreciate King
Countys stated commitment to collaboratively address these critical details, and the gaps in community
engagement, as its plan proceeds.
The recommendations presented below were ideas that received at least 80% agreement from the work
group members who responded to the survey.24 Ideas fall into the following categories:
Guiding principles that articulate a vision to transform society.
Ideas for meeting peoples basic needs.
Short-term reforms to minimize harms.
Intermediate-term reforms to help advance opportunity and systemic transformation, and
accountability measures and funding strategies necessary to achieve both.25
These ideas are color-coded according to the following key:
Guiding Principles visions to transform society
Basic needs26
Short-term measures
Intermediate-term measures
Accountability
Funding strategies
Work group members agreed that accountability is critical to achieving the vision of eliminating youth
incarceration, no matter what ideas are implemented. In addition, all CFJC programs must be reviewed
21

The full survey and its results are included in Appendix E.

This letter is the official response of all King County participants with the exception of the Department of Public
Defense.
23
King County statement.
24
Of the eleven work group members not represented in the letter from King County, one was unable to
participate in the survey. Because the two Department of Public Defense participants submitted one unified
survey, a total of nine people took the survey. The ideas shared here received agreement from at least eight of the
nine.
25
Some recommendations may reflect resources that are currently available to some youth; these
recommendations call for consistent provision of resources for all youth.
26
While not a comprehensive list of basic needs, those listed reflect measures that should be targeted to reduce
youth justice involvement.
22

to identify unintended consequences on racial and economic equity prior to and throughout
implementation. Data collection is critical to both of these elements.
1. Youth development and positive behavior support principles guide all programs and
institutions.

a. Measure success in ways other than current court terms: Reframe probation
plan to be about what youth can do with the support that they have.27
b. Provide adequately resourced, holistic defense/advocacy teams28 to support
youth and family throughout their contact with the juvenile justice system.
c. Provide trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate care and
treatment for any youth who is arrested and detained.
d. Provide educational support, assessment, tutoring, advocacy and special
education for all students having contact with the juvenile system.
e. Enhance juvenile record-sealing: fund and expand eligibility andaccess.29
2. Youth are not punished for the failures of child-serving systems to meet their needs.30
Accountability for improving the housing, health care and other basic needs of young people
should be placed on child-serving systems. All systems share the goal of eliminating youth
detention.

a. Provide mentorship and after-school activities staffed by people who have

faced similar challenges, can relate to youth and reflect their experiential
diversity.
b. Address gun violence and the availability of firearms.31
c. Do not deny foster care to youth.32
d. Fund evidence-based and quality health, behavioral/mental health, and
substance abuse care that is readily available when needed; ensure that no
youth is denied appropriate care.
e. Provide Rapid Supportive Housing, rental assistance, shelter, and other
housing programs.
f. Prioritize and direct Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) funds to
27

This recommendation is based on comments from the stakeholder work group that probation plans focused on
drug tests, curfews, attendance at school and treatment programs may be insufficient to motivate young people or
set them up to succeed.
28
The Bronx Defenders model was cited as an example. See http://www.bronxdefenders.org/holistic-defense/.
29
The Washington State Supreme Court recently expanded the legal availability of juvenile record sealing, Carter,
Mike, State Ruling Affirms Easier Sealing Of Juvenile-Court Records, The Seattle Times, June 11, 2015,
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/state-ruling-affirms-easier-sealing-of-juvenile-court-records/
(accessed June 16, 2015). Work group stakeholders reiterated the need to further address collateral consequences
of a juvenile record.
30
King County stated agreement with this: We agree that detention should not be a place where people are
funneled after other public systems have failed them. However, the County feels bound to detain youth in the
absence of better alternatives.
31
Concern over the presence of guns in the community came up repeatedly in the interviews with youth.
32
Youth commonly refers to those under 18, but as foster care is available to some youth up to age 21, those
young persons would be included here.

10

address the acute and chronic needs of youth who are detained for serious
offenses.
g. Implement restorative justice responses for crimes of poverty and other
crimes, especially Theft 3.
h. Sustain and expand evidence-based services in post-detention transition
planning, reentry and aftercare to reduce homelessness and recidivism.
i. Enhance services to prevent gang involvement and provide options for safe
exits from gangs.
j. Expand diversion to include felonies and multiple misdemeanors.
k. Create exception for youth to Shopkeepers statute.33
3. All programs must be culturally appropriate and accessible to the populations they are
intended to serve. This is best accomplished by supporting, consulting, and partnering with
community members most impacted and organizations that support those communities.

a. Hire more staff and law enforcement of color, with multilingual abilities, to
reflect the communities served.
b. Provide mandatory training on cultural competence and humility, undoing
institutional racism, and implicit bias.
c. Utilize performance management to ensure juvenile justice staff applies any
training and best practices.
d. Apply public accountability measures to ensure systems are anti-racist,
equitable, and non-oppressive to youth, families, and communities.
i. Review data quarterly with every judge and probation counselor on
race disparities and overall numbers, compared to peers.34
ii.

Set measurable targets for probation counselors and judges on race

and numbers of youth sent to detention.

4. Center youth, families, and communities of color.35 Build on strengths of youth and
families as partners whose voice, choice and ownership are honored at every stage of
involvement within governmental systems.

a. Adopt a racial impact review process for legislation and funding of programs
that impact youth at risk of or in the juvenile justice system.
b. Match investment in the CFJC dollar-for-dollar with investment in programs
serving the most high-need populations.
c. Reinvest cost savings from the operation of the building and detention
reforms to home- and community-based programs.
33

Revised Code of Washington 4.24.220 allows a shop owner or employee to detain a person based on reasonable
belief that the person was committing or attempting larceny or shoplifting.
34
This idea received 100% consensus from those members who took the survey, but King County specifically
referenced it as problematic: [W]e cannot and should not arbitrarily compare the metrics of judges or probation
officers who are doing the same work but are in different zip codes. King County statement.
35
I.e., center in decision-making regarding policies, programs, services, and budget.

11

d. Include in the proposed King County Best Starts levy a dedicated dollar ($)
or percentage (%) commitment to fund community-based services for youth
and communities to reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color and
poor youth in the juvenile justice system.
e. Implement Family Intervention and Restorative Services (FIRS) for family
violence offenses.36
f. Fund local resources, services and programs by and for community.
i. Provide transportation to prevention and alternative programs.
ii. Provide neighborhood-based court services as needed.
iii. Create community-based, non-secure reception centers for youth in crisis,
located throughout the community.
iv. Identify and pay for additional community supports that youth and
families need. Tap into existing social services (mental health, child
welfare, school, etc.) and develop a plan to incentivize progress.
5. Children and youth are supported in schools. They do not lose access to education
because of school discipline or juvenile justice involvement. Strategies for addressing
behavioral needs of youth emphasize strengths-based and positive supports, and include
family and community as resources.37

The overarching goal of this report is to provide recommendations that inform the design of the
Children and Family Justice Center, in order to eliminate racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice
system and advance racial equity. 78% of the members who took the survey agreed with the following
recommendations pertaining to the CFJC building itself. Given the purpose of this abbreviated process to
inform the design of the CFJC building, they are presented here as immediate items for consideration.38

Design all detention space to allow for conversion to non-detention purposes in future.
All youth subject to processing in the adult system (what is termed decline) should be
held in a youth facility instead of an adult jail.
Provide readily available, quality medical, mental and behavioral health services on site,
particularly those related to substance abuse and domestic violence utilizing nationally
certified programs and staffed with MDs. These services should be available for the use
of all young people when needed inside and out of detention.

36

Although King County plans to implement FIRS, a juvenile diversion program geared to provide services to
families who are struggling with domestic violence, in the short-term, it is coded as an intermediate-term measure
because the model can be expanded to other offenses.
37
Further discussion of school discipline policies was limited in the group, due to time constraints and lack of
education representatives.
38
As mentioned, part of the challenge with building-specific recommendations is the contention over the building
itself.

12

We appreciate that the above recommendation to design detention space for conversion to nondetention purposes in the future is consistent with statements in King Countys recently published
commitments to address racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice system and to fight for a world
where detention for young people is no longer needed.39 The Office for Civil Rights puts forth this
additional recommendation regarding building design:
Design all aspects of the Children and Family Justice Center to support a goal of zero use of detention.
This recommendation is informed by comments from the stakeholder work group and supports
Outcome 1 by linking it directly to the CFJC design. Quantitative data and lived experiences, including
the experiences of those consulted through this process and through multiple studies from across the
country, reiterates the detrimental impacts of centralized and secure confinement.40 In its place,
government should focus on community-run and neighborhood-based alternatives41 for youth that
provide needed support for youth, families, foster care providers, law enforcement, probation
counselors, and others. This is a major shift that must be made with intention and urgency; it will
require dedicated and consistent participation from community stakeholders and multiple systems (the
courts, County and local city governments, school districts, child welfare agencies, police, community
youth providers, and others) as well as long-term investments from government and private
foundations.
Other building design ideas mentioned by stakeholders include:
Decrease the number of cells: reduce the number of rooms to serve only high-risk offenders.
Expand rehabilitative functions.
Utilize minority hiring in construction of buildings.
Establish culturally relevant and welcoming spaces that foster self-determination and are
available for community use.
Design courtrooms to have a less hierarchical, more equitable spatial layout so that community
members and court representatives are on more even footing.
D. Unresolved Issues
i.
EPIC/YUIR Questions
An update on the responses to the questions submitted by YUIR is included in Appendix D. The first set
of questions regarding Seattle land use was of particular relevance, but data is still outstanding. Before
additional actions on the site, questions regarding the use, sale and zoning for surplus land should be
answered.
ii.

Ongoing Engagement

39

Craighead, A Call to Action to Address Racial Disparity in the Juvenile Justice System; King County, Race and Social
Justice Assessment and Action Plan.
40
Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention.
41
Stakeholders urged for these services in multiple work group meetings.

13

The community engagement challenges in this process are instructive for King County as it moves
forward with its Race and Social Justice Assessment and Action Plan. All relevant stakeholders should
develop an ongoing engagement plan that builds cross-sector, cross-jurisdictional support that centers
community. The City of Seattles Guide to Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement42 sets out
principles to follow, many of which correspond with King Countys Community Engagement Guide.43 The
ideas presented here reflect repeated appeals corresponding to the County and community work
together end of the continuum, which the County has indicated interest in following.44 In addition, it
would be wise to poll community members, including those actively opposed to the CFJC project, to
solicit recommendations for participants. Allocating staff time to coordinate logistics and ensure turnout
will also be critical.
Successful engagement requires resolving one issue that repeatedly arose: community members
skepticism that their feedback will lead to tangible results outside of what the County has already
planned.45 King County has expressed frustration that its stakeholder engagement since 2002 on the
CFJC proposal has not satisfied community members. Part of the challenge cited by community is that
conversations specifically about the racial equity implications of the CFJC plan have only begun recently.
Community members and County leadership will have to build trust in the midst of contention over this
issue.
iii.
Data Analysis
Much of the needed data listed in the Phase I report was not available for this racial equity analysis.
Strong data analysis will enable stakeholders to make data-driven decisions to achieve progress.46 Data
also can help resolve the mistrust and perception challenges cited above of the system vis--vis
community members.
iv.
Child Welfare, Education, Equitable Development, and Environment Outcomes
The work group discussions touched on child welfare; given time constraints, this work group process
was unable to address this issue area comprehensively. Child welfare is a key function of the CFJC and its
involvement can have devastating effects, disproportionately on families of color; both education and
child welfare systems currently serve as pipelines to the justice system. The development and
environmental impact of a new capital project have significant equity implications. The County has an
opportunity to more fully address the concerns raised and comprehensively examine these systems in
partnership with community.

42

http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/RSJI/GRE/IOPEguide01-11-12.pdf.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/tools-resources.aspx
44
See King County, Race and Social Justice Assessment and Action Plan.
45
This sentiment was expressed by a community organization that declined to join the work group, community
focus group participants, and a work group member.
46
This must include better tracking of racial groups; the 2013 state DMC report, supra note 7, recommended
tracking additional racial and ethnic groups. Without adequate data on race and ethnicity, a racial impact analysis
is severely limited.
43

14

E. Evaluation
In partnership with Seattle City Council and stakeholders, goals and targets must be set for achieving
racial equity outcomes, with mechanisms for tracking and reporting on progress over time, and
achieving quarterly benchmarks.
II.
Conclusion
This report reflects the work of stakeholders situated differently in relation to the juvenile justice
system, who, despite their varying perspectives, agreed on short notice to offer their input and
constructively engage with one another. The principles and ideas presented here are offered as a
starting point for the County as it proceeds with its Race and Social Justice Assessment and Action Plan.
We hope that this report helps community members, government, and other stakeholders undertake
the challenging and groundbreaking task of transforming child-serving systems to create a more racially
equitable reality for our youth.

15

Acknowledgements
The Seattle Office for Civil Rights would like to thank the following stakeholder work group members for
their time and valuable insights:
Shannon Perez-Darby, The Northwest Network of Bisexual, Trans, Lesbian & Gay Survivors of Abuse
Anne Lee, TeamChild
Marisa Ordonia, TeamChild
Sean Goode, Seattle YMCA
Tess Thomas, Thomas House foster home
Talya Miller, Miller's Care foster home
Ada Shen-Jaffe, Race Equity & Leadership Consultant
Pam Jones, King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Jorene Reiber, King County Court Director of Family Law and Dependency
Bruce Knutson, King County Director of Juvenile Court
Jimmy Hung, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Paul Daniels, King County Juvenile Probation Counselor Supervisor
Elinor Cromwell, King County Department of Public Defense
Katie Hurley, King County Department of Public Defense
David Chapman , King County Office of Performance, Strategy, and Budget
Darby DuComb, Seattle City Attorneys Office
Sgt. Adrian Diaz, Seattle Police Department
Thanks are also due to:
Pam Jones, DAJD, for facilitating access to youth in detention;
Greg Terry, MSW, for conducting interviews with youth in detention; and
Sean Goode, YMCA; Monika Mathews, Life Enrichment Group; and Teddy McGlynn-Wright and Mariko
Lockhart, Seattle Youth Violence Prevention Initiative, for helping recruit community members to
participate in focus groups.
Finally, we thank the youth and community members who contributed their time and invaluable input
for this report.

16

Appendices
A: City of Seattle Phase I Report
B: Stakeholder involvement
C: King County 2024 Visioning Statement
D: Updated questions from YUIR
E: Complete survey with responses

17