Public Safety and Justice

1. Public Safety and Justice Community of Interest Policies, Systems, and Issues for Adult Criminal System April 8, 2004

2. Today’s Outcomes • Update on Board Areas of Consideration and Community of Interest Issues • Update on Public Safety & Justice workgroups and initiatives • Resolution on consensus recommendation: a Criminal Justice Collaborative Council

3. Public Safety and Justice:Adult Criminal System • Part 1: Background on policies, systems, and issues (today) • Part 2: Jail operations and key components (May 6) • Part 3: Capacity options (May 20)

4. Board Areas of Consideration • Continuum of Sanctioning Options • Jail overcrowding emergencies • State sentencing guidelines • Mental Health Services and Corrections • 30% of inmates are on psychotropic medication • “Gaps” in mental health code • Information and Referral • Two core technologies; 30+ data systems for information and referral • Difficulty in gathering “intelligent” data

5. Members of Community of Interest • Sheriff police services and municipal police agencies • Sheriff Corrections (pre-arraignment) • County Prosecutor • Public Defender and private defense • District Court • Circuit Court • Sheriff Corrections (sentenced & holding) • Community Corrections • MDOC Probation and Parole • Various human service agencies

6. Seven Key Decision Points • Arrest decision • Pretrial detention decision • Decision to release from pretrial jail • Decision to prosecute • Adjudication decision • Sentencing decision • Sentence modified

7. Justice System

8. Sentencing Options: Current Reality Sentencing Criteria: • What does the law mandate? • What is in the best interest of community? • What is in the best interest of offender? Local Options

9. How are Offenders Sentenced? Court Dispositions in Washtenaw County • 17.3% to prison (21.8% statewide average) • 20.2% to jail • 16.8% jail/ probation • 45% probation • .7% other Note: data from Michigan Department of Corrections; data is January through September 2003

10. Impacts on Prison Commitment • PA 317 of 1998 – Sentencing Guideline Reform • Felons sentenced to fewer than 18 months  jail, not prison • Current State reforms • “Straddle Cell” offenders • Currently, judge’s discretion to sentence to jail or prison • Reforms will send offenders to jail, not prison • Submitted with State budget • Estimated Impact: net transfer of 11 offenders from prison to jail • Portion of State savings reinvested locally

11. Jail Capacity • Rated capacity: 332 (282 male and 50 female) • 34 maximum security, 298 medium-low • 2003 average daily population 334 • 25 early releases in 2003; overcrowding emergencies • Per capita .993 beds/ 1,000 • Mid-size county average 1.715 Handout: Comparative jail population data for mid-size Michigan Counties (pop. 150,000-600,000)

12. Probation Supervision Rates • Monthly average high risk felony probationers under supervision: • 1999 168 • 2000 152 • 2001 185 • 2002 198 • 2003 226 • Average increase of 8.6%

13. Community Corrections Core Functions: • Tethering – 200 in 2003 • Drug testing – 1800 per month • Day reporting Additional Services Include: • Successful thinking, living skills, employability skills • Substance abuse programming • Probation Residential placements

14. Sentencing Options: Current Reality Local Options

15. Public Safety and Justice Community of Interest Improvement Efforts and Work Groups

16. Ongoing Work Groups • Jail Overcrowding Task Force • Pre-Trial Diversion Subcommittee • Overview analysis by Community Corrections • Jail Mental Health Diversion Task Force • Jail Population Management Team

17. Analyses and Initiatives • National Institute of Corrections • Jail Space Options • Community Corrections Strategic Plan • U-M Ford School for Public Policy • State Court Administrative Office (state-wide analysis and recommendations)

18. National Institute of Corrections • Considerable policy changes have been implemented to alleviate jail crowding • Suppressed usage (police and courts) • 6,324 outstanding warrants • Targeted police operations • Jail not always a viable sentencing option • Lack of decision support information • Criminal Justice Collaborating Council • Expand jail space • Expand programming into community

19. Jail Space Options • Four sets of accreditation and building codes a jail must meet • Facility has “good bones” but operating beyond capacity • More detail at next Working Session

20. Community Corrections Strategic Plan • Cross-system criminal/ social justice policy issues group • Review organizational structure to assure it is the proper “fit” • Develop a technology plan • Redesign organizational processes

21. U-M Ford School: Probation Residential Center • Broader sentencing guidelines for PA 511 • Improve data management systems • Communicate purpose, benefits and proven successes of a local Probation Residential Center

22. State Court Administrative Office • Convene stakeholders • Jail facility population review • Constant communication/ collaboration • Caseflow management • Effective media relations • Develop appropriate alternative sanctions Note: SCAO presented information to MAC at 2003 convention

23. Jail Overcrowding Task Force • Several process improvements • Develop a probation residential center • Expand use of alcohol tethers • “Bench book”= awareness of options • Jail population management committee • Unified criminal justice information system • Develop mental health resources for assessment and pre-trial monitoring • Establish Collaborative Council

24. Mental Health Diversion Task Force • Human Services, Public Safety “meeting of the minds” • Few services in community, so jail becomes last resort • Researching strategies to fill gaps and funding those strategies • Police awareness training

25. Conclusions • Two major sanctions gaps • Available jail beds • Local probation residential options • Two major mental health diversion gaps • Law enforcement awareness/ training • Local substance abuse and mental health treatment options • Information gaps at key decision points • Broader system reform issues

26. Public Safety and Justice Consensus Recommendation: a Criminal Justice Collaborative Council

27. CJCC: Purpose Maximize efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and cooperative efforts . . . in concerns of a multi-disciplinary criminal justice application Note: purpose statement taken from Kalamazoo’s criminal justice collaborative council (kcjc.org)

28. CJCC: Function • Meet regularly • Establish policies for issues that cross mandated areas • Coordinate efforts and support one another • Provide cohesion and structure to ongoing improvement efforts

29. Population mgmt Inmate reintegration Domestic violence prevention Balanced and restorative justice Pretrial diversion Mental health diversion Information management Process improvement Public relations and education Jail space Probation residential CJCC: Possible Committees Note: committees taken from CJCCs found in Kalamazoo, St. Clair, and Waukesha (WI)

30. Sheriff District Court presiding judge Circuit Court chief judge Prosecutor Public Defender/ Defense Attorney CCAB Chair City or Township Police Chief County Board Chair County Admin. City mayor or twp supervisor Clerk of the Court Bar Association CMH Representative Two public representatives CJCC Proposed Membership

31. CJCC Executive Committee • Establishes CJCC agenda • Keep process moving • Includes Chief Judge, Prosecutor, Sheriff, and County Administrator

32. Next Steps • Board of Commissioners establish Collaborative Council • Collaborative Council establish by-laws, committees • Become a working body • Feedback to Board of Commissioners