Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restorative Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County receives annual restorative justice update; DA cautions limits for domestic and child‑abuse cases
Summary
The committee received an annual report summarizing restorative justice programs across county departments, heard impact figures from South County programs and asked staff for off‑agenda reports on recidivism data and funding vulnerability tied to federal legislation.
County officials presented an annual summary of Santa Clara County restorative justice programs on Sept. 12 and the committee approved receipt of the report with two off‑agenda follow‑up requests: recidivism impact data and a breakdown of funding sources and potential vulnerability to proposed federal legislation (referred to as HR 1).
Casey Halkin, deputy county executive, described restorative justice programs across probation, reentry services, the sheriff’s office, county counsel’s Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) program, the South County Youth Task Force and the district attorney and public defender offices. “What restorative justice really functions on is the accountability between the person who experienced the harm and the person who committed the harm in order to bring another level of healing,” Halkin said.
The report included summary metrics for several programs. County staff said the VOM mediators engaged 242 victims, offenders and other parties referred by probation; approximately 60 people participated in mediation sessions. The South County Youth Task Force reported an 87 percent graduation rate from its diversion program and that 92 percent of graduates were offense‑free after one year; committee members described those figures as evidence the model may reduce youth recidivism and foster restorative practices in schools.
District Attorney Jeff Rosen cautioned the committee that restorative justice is generally appropriate in cases where both parties are willing and that it is often used in less‑serious cases. “They tend to be cases that are, less serious, frankly,” Rosen said, and he urged caution about applying restorative approaches to domestic violence or child‑abuse cases, noting historical misuses of family‑reunification strategies in other systems.
Committee action: A member moved to receive the report and requested two off‑agenda reports: (1) recidivism impact data and (2) identification of funding sources — including which federal grants might be affected by HR 1, state grants and county general‑fund reliance. Vice Chairperson Lee seconded; the committee recorded affirmative votes by Vice Chairperson Lee and Chairperson Ellerberg and the motion carried.
Next steps: County staff agreed to return with the requested materials and to provide more detailed program data as available. The report’s authors noted restorative services are supported by a mix of private, state and federal grants and county general fund allocations and are not universally mandated by statute.
