Public Safety and Justice

Policies, Systems, and Issues forAdult Criminal System

April 8, 2004

Community of Interest

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

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)

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

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

Seven Key Decision Points

Arrest decision Pretrial detention decision Decision to release from pretrial jail Decision to prosecute Adjudication decision Sentencing decision Sentence modified

Justice System

Incident Investigation Hearing Trial/ Adjudication Sanctions

Response ArrestRelease, Hold, or

DivertSentence if guilty

Sentencingmodification

Police, Fire, EMSPolice,

Prosecutor, Jail

District Court,Prosecutor,

defense

Court,Prosecutor,

defense

Jail, CommunityCorrections,Probation

Mental HealthDiversion

Continuum ofSanctions

Information and Referral

Sentencing Options: Current Reality

Prison

Fine

Probation/CommunityCorrections

Probation withRestrictions

Probation/ JailSplit Sentence

Jail

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

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

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

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)

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%

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

Sentencing Options: Current Reality

Prison

Fine

Probation/CommunityCorrections

Probation withRestrictions

Probation/ JailSplit Sentence

Jail

Local Options

Sentencing Guidelines &Prison Commitment

Probation Supervision

Public Safety and Justice

Improvement Efforts and Work Groups

Community of Interest

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety and Justice

Consensus Recommendation: a Criminal Justice Collaborative Council

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)

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

CJCC: Possible Committees

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

Note: committees taken from CJCCs found in Kalamazoo, St. Clair, and Waukesha (WI)

CJCC Proposed Membership

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 Executive Committee

Establishes CJCC agenda Keep process moving Includes Chief Judge, Prosecutor,

Sheriff, and County Administrator

Next Steps

Board of Commissioners establish Collaborative Council

Collaborative Council establish by-laws, committees

Become a working body Feedback to Board of

Commissioners