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

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:  1999168  2000152  2001185  2002198  2003226  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 Improvement Efforts and Work Groups Community of Interest

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. 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)

30. 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

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