2004-1362-Minutes for Meeting November 01,2004 Recorded 11/15/2004DESCHUTES
NANCY BLANKENSHIP,FRECORDS COUNTY CLERKQ��V�-1367
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/1512004 04;44;11 PM
111111111 IN 1111111111111111111
2004-1362
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
Uj
0
C7-
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.oriz
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004
Deschutes Services Center - Second Floor Conference Room
1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan, Circuit Court Judge; Michael Dugan,
District Attorney; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Director; Mike Maier, County
Administrator; Dennis Maloney, Center for Community Governance; Jenny
Scanlon, Juvenile Community Justice Director; Tom De Wolf, Commissioner;
Becky Wanless, Adult Parole & Probation Director; Bob Smit, KIDS Center;
Jacques DeKalb, Defense Attorney; and Jack Blum, citizen member.
Also in attendance were Les Stiles, Sheriff,, Julie Lyche, Commission on Children
& Families; Sandi Baxter, representing Bend Police Department; Ernie Mazorol,
Circuit Court; Kirk Utzinger, Boys & Girls Club; Representative Gene Whisnant
and staff members Woodie Thomas and Leyla Estes; and Lisa Rosetti of the
Bulletin. No other citizens were present.
1. Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m.
2. Approval of the August 2, 2004 Meeting Minutes.
Ernie Mazorol moved approval of the minutes, and Jacques DeKalb seconded;
there was unanimous approval of the minutes as written.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 1, 2004
Page 1 of 5 Pages
3. Overview of the Sheriffs Office Five -Year Plan.
Sheriff Les Stiles presented information that has been distributed to members of
the Sheriff's Office Permanent Funding Advisory Committee for their review.
(A copy of the executive summary of the September 2004 Strategic Plan Update
is attached as Exhibit B.) He said Senator Westlund attended their last meeting
and has been made aware of the local public service funding needs as
anticipated for the next fifteen years.
Most of the key assumptions are included in the Executive Summary.
However, there are others, such as a 19% PERS increase over two years. The
primary driving force for the plan is growth. The revised plan will begin in July
2006. To some point the crime level and service demands can be anticipated
and addressed if the department can increase FTE's as needed for patrol,
training, investigations and records management. Within fifteen years, by
2020/211) 30% growth is expected.
Sheriff Stiles stated that the OMNI Group study that originated in the 1980's
has been very accurate; however, they could not anticipate the ramifications of
Measure 11 and SB 1145. The OMNI study stated that a 400 -bed jail would be
necessary by 2006, and predicted 900 beds would be needed within fifteen
years.
At this time Sheriff Stiles gave a brief overview of the matrixing process. He
said that inmates are matrixed out of the jail almost daily. He noted that Lane
County has now been forced to matrix out A felons. Deschutes County's re -
offender rate is lower than most counties at this time. He added that if
permanent funding is established, the Work Center could reopen, and that
would help alleviate the need to matrix out prisoners.
Jacques DeKalb noted that increasing jail size and opening the Work Center is
still a temporary way to handle the increase in crime. Ernie Mazorol added that
treatment for mental health, drug and alcohol problems should be considered.
Sheriff Stiles explained that the assumption is that nothing else will change, and
there will be no further unfunded mandates.
The group then discussed the effect that methamphetamine use is having on
public safety, including the jail and courts. Dennis Maloney stated that this root
issue needs to be addressed or other public safety issues won't improve. Mr.
Mazorol added that they just can't keep adding capacity to the jail.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 1, 2004
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Sheriff Stiles agreed, and said that probably as much as 90% of property crime,
identification theft and similar problems are related to illegal drug use. The
area is considered HIDTA — a high intensity drug traffic area — and this doesn't
take into account the small-time local dealers.
Sheriff Stiles added that CORE was lost, and it will take years to reestablish.
There is little in place to deal with the mental health issues that can result in
someone ending up in the court system and in jail.
Judge Sullivan asked if there would be equal funding for women; Sheriff Stiles
said that there would be funding available. He stated he is working with Becky
Wanless on pre -transitional leave rather than using the matrix system. Ms.
Wanless added that this allows for monitoring, while matrixing does not.
Jacques DeKalb noted that more beds will be needed because there is a 120 -day
waiting list for drug and alcohol treatment. He said that Lane County and other
jurisdictions have combined law enforcement into one district for funding
purposes; these districts include the District Attorney, Parole & Probation, the
jail and Sheriff's Office. Mike Maier said that the levies for Lane County and
Clackamas County failed, and there doesn't seem to be much community
support.
Mr. Maloney explained that there should be a parallel plan for the treatment
side of the problem or nothing will change. Sheriff Stiles said there is no
money in the rate for this; just for the regional work center. Judge Sullivan
noted that the problem is the same at the state level. There needs to be a base of
services; a wait of 120 days for treatment is far too long. Commissioner
DeWolf stated that for every dollar that goes to Deschutes County, Multnomah
is getting $17. Sheriff Stiles added that further funding for Mental Health and
Parole & Probation is desperately needed; otherwise these offenders will end up
just being warehoused.
Jacques DeKalb said that the recommendations of the Sheriff's Office
Permanent Funding Advisory Committee should be known in a few months.
Sheriff Stiles and Mr. DeKalb will report on these recommendations to the
LPSCC at their April meeting.
4. An Update on the Juvenile Justice Summit.
Jenny Scanlon provided a handout on the 2004 Juvenile Justice Summit — Work
Group Recommendations. (A copy is attached as Exhibit C.)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 1, 2004
Page 3 of 5 Pages
She said the summit was somewhat productive, but with the number of people
involved it is hard to reach agreement. She then gave a brief overview of the
highlights of the discussions.
She added that she had not yet received a final document, but will attempt to
locate a copy and have it distributed to the LPSCC members.
5. A Presentation of Parole and Probation's Performance Measures and
Outcomes.
Becky Wanless gave an overview of performance measures as established by the
Department of Corrections. She then explained information contained in a
comparison study of prison admissions by county. (A copy is attached as Exhibit
D.) This detail is captured and distributed by the Department of Corrections.
Ms. Wanless then went over the five performance measures used. She added
that community service is not being measured at this time. The Department of
Corrections uses convictions of felons for recidivism figures; plea bargaining
and juvenile are not included.
Mr. Maloney pointed out that thorough supervision picks up more technical
violations; therefore, those jurisdictions that don't do home visits or similar
follow-up would not show as many technical violations as Deschutes County
reports. Mike Dugan noted that it is resource intensive to handle these
violations; Sheriff Stiles added that there is no space to hold these individuals if
the courts order them back to jail.
Jacques DeKalb stated that many issues affect the criminal justice system, some
of which are difficult to control, such as employment problems, lack of
treatment programs and lack of family support.
6. Discussion of Boys & Girls Club Re-entry Program at Juvenile Community
Justice (and its relationship with law enforcement)
Due to a lack of time, this item will be addressed at the December 6 LPSCC
meeting.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 1, 2004
Page 4 of 5 Pages
7. Update of National Movement of Accountability Measures
Due to a lack of time, this item will be addressed at the December 6 LPSCC
meeting.
8. Discussion of LPSCC Membership: Makeup, What Constitutes a Quorum,
etc.
Due to a lack of time, this item will be addressed at the December 6 meeting.
9. Other Business.
Being no further items brought before the group, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
The next meeting will be Monday, December 6, 3:30 p.m., in the usual location
(Deschutes Services Building, upstairs conference room).
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in sheets (2 pages)
Exhibit B: Sheriff's Office Strategic Plan Update, September 2004, Executive
Summary (2 pages)
Exhibit C: 2004 Juvenile Justice Summit — Draft, Work Group Recommendations
(8 pages)
Exhibit D: Department of Corrections Documents regarding Prison Admissions
and Recidivism Rates (7 pages)
Exhibit E: Statute regarding Duties of Local Public Safety Coordinating Council
(423.560) (2 pages)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 1, 2004
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Z
0
U)
W
N
a
LU
J
IL
Exhibit
Page _t of
Z
0
U)
w
a
w
J
IL
0
0
N
r
L
=
,�
E
d
>
N
i
O
Z
D
L,
l
,
J
v
C2
v
a
�
Cc
v
a
z
�
C0
a
J
J
V
CL
.O�
C
2
d
O
�
Exhibit H
Page �:— of 1—
Deschutes County Sheriffs Office
Strategic Plan Update
September 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2003 the Sheriff's Office began a strategic planning process to develop the road
map for achieving the Sheriff's Office vision. The strategic planning process determines
where we are now, where we want to be and what we need to do to get there. It develops
the time line for new programs, responsibility for implementing and the resources
required. The initial strategic planning process in 2003 involved all levels of
management from the Sheriff and Command Staff to the first level Sergeants in Patrol
and Corrections. Thirty-four Sheriff Office employees participated in the eleven -week
Strategic Plan project. In addition to the Goals, Objectives and Strategies the initial
strategic planning group developed a list of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats (SWOT) for the Sheriff's Office (see Appendices "SWOT"). The September
2003 Strategic Plan, assumed the Sheriff's Office would have permanent funding
beginning in fiscal year 2004 and timelines for goals and objectives were established
accordingly. Unfortunately, permanent funding of the Sheriff's Office is not yet a reality.
In May 2004 voters passed a three-year operating levy.
In September 2004 the Sheriff's Office Command Staff completed the update to the 2003
Strategic Plan. To facilitate the update the Sheriff provided key planning assumptions to
the Captains of each Division. The key assumptions are as follows:
The permanent funding recommendation of the Sheriff's Office Advisory
Committee will be adopted by the Board of Commissioners and receive voter
approval in May 2006.
2. The population of Deschutes County will increase at the projected growth rates
identified in the 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast.
3. The population of Deschutes County will continue to reflect the national
demographic trends of the Hispanic/Latino population growing faster than the
overall population.
4. The existing law enforcement contract with the City of Sisters will continue for at
least the next five years. Deputies assigned to Sisters will be hired by the City of
Sisters as they staff their police department.
5. Black Butte and Sunriver will continue to have their own police departments.
6. LaPine will continue to use the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement.
Exhibit
Page V_ of Q
7. New resort destination developments will be staffed with their own security -
personnel.
8. The Work Center will be reopened before the end of calendar year 2006.
9. The Adult Jail inmate population will continue to increase and will exceed jail
capacity per the OMNI study (see Appendices "OMNI -Group Study"). The
Strategic Plan needs to include strategies for jail space expansion.
10. There will be no changes to existing Federal and State laws mandating services
the Sheriff's Office provides to citizens of Deschutes County.
11. The county will purchase the State Police land and buildings south of the Sheriff's
Office. The property will be reserved for the expansion of the Adult Jail.
12. Additional property has been purchased south of the law enforcement campus.
Currently the plan is this property will be used to construct a two-story law
enforcement building, which will house the State Police Crime Lab (1St floor) and
Sheriff's Office functions (2nd floor).
13. Projected Staffing Growth Rates over next 15 years:
Division Captains were asked to provide justifications for new staff positions and identify
the results they would use to determine if their goals are being achieved. In conjunction
with the Strategic Planning process the Sheriff and Command Staff has adopted "Results
Based Leadership". Over the next fifteen years, the Sheriff s Office will focus on
producing results that can be measured and integrated into the goals, objectives and
strategies we have identified.
The strategic planning process is never really finished. Each year, the Sheriff's Office
will update the strategic plan to meet the changing environment and refocus the
organization on its vision and priorities. As you read the Strategic Plan, remember the
documents are less important than the quality of thinking and the commitment to the
goals and objectives of the Sheriff's Office.
Exhibit 0—
Page �_ of �_
Employees
Percentage Employees
FY04-05
Growth Rate FY20-21
Patrol/Training
65
30% 83
Investigations/Records
24
30% 31
Corrections
68
(to be determined by Strategic Plan)
Administration
16
25% 21
Total DCSO
173
(to be determined by Strategic Plan)
Division Captains were asked to provide justifications for new staff positions and identify
the results they would use to determine if their goals are being achieved. In conjunction
with the Strategic Planning process the Sheriff and Command Staff has adopted "Results
Based Leadership". Over the next fifteen years, the Sheriff s Office will focus on
producing results that can be measured and integrated into the goals, objectives and
strategies we have identified.
The strategic planning process is never really finished. Each year, the Sheriff's Office
will update the strategic plan to meet the changing environment and refocus the
organization on its vision and priorities. As you read the Strategic Plan, remember the
documents are less important than the quality of thinking and the commitment to the
goals and objectives of the Sheriff's Office.
Exhibit 0—
Page �_ of �_
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit
91 Work Group Recommendations
Track 1 Public Safety Accountability and Resources for High Risk
Youth
► Advocate for sufficient, equitable and stable funding to carry out the purpose of
the juvenile justice system as set forth in ORS 419C.001 and the original. vision
of Senate Bill 1. We need to get back to the basic principles and vision for how
the system should operate. (Legislative issue only)
► We should implement an audit and evaluation system to describe where and
how the juvenile justice system intervenes in criminal conduct by examining the
system from apprehension forward. Assessment should include consideration of
cultural and gender differences. This description will allow a detailed assessment
of multiple causes and intervening variables which should explain what works
and what doesn't work. This review process will create a basis for establishing
public accountability and credibility for the juvenile justice system. It will allow the
assessment of current practices and identification of potential best practices.
This process will look at compliance with federal requirements for fair and
equitable handling of minority groups and will provide guidance to identify areas
for intensive assessment. (Combination of administrative policies and practices
that may need new funding)
The state and counties should identify and assess the continuum of services to
delinquent youth that are mandated in 419C.001. This evaluation should identify
best practices, assess whether the most effective balance between diversion and
formal court intervention is being achieved, and whether youth are receiving
appropriate cultural and gender specific services. (Administrative and policy
issue)
► Much progress has been made in developing partnerships and collaboration. We
need to be sure that DHS is a participating partner. Many cases in the juvenile
justice system start out as dependency cases. We want to be sure that DHS is
involved in developing case planning goals and determining good outcomes for
these youth. (Administrative and policy issue)
We recommend a joint task force of the Oregon Youth Authority, the Oregon
Juvenile Department Directors Association, the Courts, and the Criminal Justice
Council to examine the utilization of detention. The finding of this process would
be reported to the legislature. The current statutes restrict judicial discretion in
this area, especially the ability to keep certain youth longer (create greater
flexibility in the use of detention beds). The issue of funding needs be examined
as well as access to detention across the state. (Legislative issue and also may
require additional funding depending on findings and recommendations)
Exhibit C
Page \ of 4_
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 2
► The juvenile justice system needs to assure the victims of juvenile crime receive
respect, information, involvement, restitution, and community restoration. Victims
need to play a vital, improved, and a more visible role in the system. This will be
an opportunity for youth offenders to develop empathy and a better
understanding of the impact of their behavior on their victims. The Restitution
Reform Act from the last legislative session needs to be more fully implemented.
(May require more restoration of some of the lost funding and some new funding)
The group believes that are some things juvenile departments can do to improve
the status and involvement of victims without new resources.
Track 2 Effective Community Approaches for Reducing "Risk to Re -
Offend"
Evidence -based practice is something that gets positive results cost effectively. Now
is the opportunity to influence the definition process.
► We recommend that state agencies and providers provide technical assistance
to community people about evidence -based practice once these policies are in
place. This emphasis on evidence -based practices should not take away or
divert resources from the local level because of too many reporting
requirements. A word of caution: What is evidence -based may not have been
tested across all of the varieties and diversity of communities (i.e. rural, tribal,
and ethnic communities).
► Community-based approaches are not just agency partners working together.
They need to include community, neighborhood, and grass roots citizen
involvement. Community resource assessments should include more that just
what is in place now. We need to ask community members what they are willing
to do and share and then see what they offer. Resource needs, such as mentors
and tutors, should be explained to people so they have a better understanding of
what is needed and how they can help.
► Family inclusion and involvement are both important in developing and
expanding community approaches to reducing risk to re -offend. In most cases,
in-home services to families are the most effective approaches in the best
practice spirit. These services need to be flexible. We should look to families as
the real experts on themselves. This will help to engage them. These
approaches to working with families should be balanced with parental
accountability and consideration of any victim issues.
Exhibit 0—
Page
Page L of $
:.)
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 3
► When youth are placed out of home, this is the time to start planning for
transition and working with their families. These youth need to come back to a
different environment.
► It is extremely important to remove some of the barriers to using resources
wisely, particularly restrictions on how agencies can use funding. There aren't
enough flexible funds to remove barriers and to individualize services. Rather
than funding either sustainability or flexible funding, we recommend developing
a formula that would create an appropriate percentage of funding that can be
used for sustainability and a percentage of flexible funding that can follow
families and children with individualized services..
► Most of what we do now is collaboration. True integration approaches and
system integration where agencies put their resource on the table with
everybody else's, share power, and share everything else is very rare.
Communities are the best place to develop true integrated service approaches
with state support. We need to figure out how to do more true system integration.
Track 3 Youth Referred to the Juvenile Justice System for Sex
Offenses and Related Behavior Problems
Overall Theme: We need to develop consistency in all phases of our responses to
these youth (consistency county to county in: charging decisions, assessment tools,
treatment and placement resources, data collection and definitions, probation
conditions and safety plans and release and transition planning).
► We need to focus on how to better address youth under 12 who are referred for
sex offenses and related behavior problems. We need to develop more
appropriate responses to these youth and their families as well as the needs of
victims. Often, there are victims and offenders in the same family. Community
education is also important in addressing victims and this age group. Protocol
development is the first step in developing consistency in responses to these
youth
► Developing consistency and standardization in the management of juvenile sex
offenders from investigation to completion of supervision and treatment
statewide is a high priority. There will be some local differences in how things are
managed locally, but there needs to be consistency and standards to guide local
practices. Consistency and standard practices as well as the availability of
treatment resources can be monitored through an auditing process;
Exhibit
Page _ of 9,
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 4
Enhanced victim services are necessary in juvenile sex offender cases. Victim
advocates are very important resources for victims in these cases. Additional
training is needed for victim advocates to better understand this area of the
system and to improve communication. Increasing victim advocacy services
might be possible through new fees and assessments and broadening the
definition of restitution.
Track 4 Youth in the Juvenile Justice System with Mental Health
Service Needs
The issue of youth in the juvenile justice system with mental health service needs is
an important policy area and resource issue to address because:
1. A high percentage of these youth have a diagnosable mental health
disorder;
2. Many youth with mental health needs are inadequately served in the
juvenile justice system. This is a disservice to these youth;
3. Inadequate services for these youth detract from the system's capacity to
appropriately serve high risk delinquent youth;
► Create or strengthen interagency policy and resource partnerships to assure that
youth and their families can receive appropriate community-based mental health
and juvenile justice services (MH, Schools, OYA, JD, DHS, etc.);
► Increase family -focused, culturally competent, community-based mental health
interventions that include services for parents and care givers with mental health
and substance abuse issues using flexible funding sources;
► Comprehensive and confidential screening needs to be done as early as
possible;
► Mental health diversion court throughout the system;
► Forensic Unit;
► All of the above recommendations need followup at the state level and by the
Mental Health Task Force this is coming up soon;
Exhibit C
Page t_ of �_
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 5
Track 5 Youth in the Juvenile Justice System with Substance Abuse
Needs
► The Governor and the Legislature need to make a commitment to juvenile justice
alcohol and drug treatment. Substance abuse treatment is an integral part of the
juvenile justice system. Support for any part of the system should not ignore the
other parts. Any time you add treatment dollars, you need to add funding for
other parts of the system as well.
► Family -based intervention is needed throughout the system. Courts need more
teeth to be able to force parents to be involved with their kids in the juvenile
justice system when they don't respond to positive ways to address family
problems through comprehensive family therapy and. counseling. More skill
training is necessary in positive ways to get more. parental involvement, such as
motivational interview training. Cross training is also important so that we all
know what we are all doing. This also helps to promote collaboration and helps
to prevent agencies from working at cross purposes.
► We need more capacity in cultural, gender specific and co-occurring disorder
treatment services;
► Drug and diversion courts are very effective. They need to be available as a
resource on a state-wide basis.
► To deal with, jurisdictional issues and problems with sharing resources, maybe
we need one single, integrated state agency for children and youth from birth to
age 25. This would put OYA and DHS in one agency so that they both would be
accountable for these kids for everything.
Track 6 Prevention and Early Intervention
We wanted to define prevention for the purposes of our discussion. The core elements
of effective systems include being sustainable, building on natural networks, providing
early intervention and identification, and empowering parents and families to be more in
charge of their kids. Core elements also include being holistic and identifying and
supporting key transitions for young people and families. They support youth being
successful in school. All of these elements are locally driven and accountable.
► Equalize investments in the juvenile justice continuum to balance prevention and
early intervention at the first and early sign of problems. Once these problems
Exhibit C.
Page 5 of
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 6
are identified, services need to be available to prevent youth from entering the
juvenile justice system or prevent youth from penetrating further into the system;
► If any restoration funding or new funding is available, we should invest in
restoring some prevention programs at the local level;
► Develop a state and local partnership to move toward evidence -based strategies
and programming as mandated in S13267. Key elements of this partnership
would be:
1. Develop training in evidence -based models and strategies, as well as how
these practices are adapted to work with diverse cultures, gender specific
populations, and be responsive to local needs and to community specific
issues.
2. Provide support and research assistance to local innovations and
programs that show effectiveness and positive outcomes so that they can
attain evidence -based recognition. Most of these local innovations and
programs do not have the capacity to do the expensive research to
document what is necessary to attain recognition as an effective and
evidence -based program.
Track 7 Building Stronger Partnerships with DHS
General Statement: Juvenile issues are community problems whose solutions can be
arrived at through community collaboration with DHS and their resources as a partner.
► Empower juvenile departments to access and provide resources that are not
dependent on custody. Juvenile departments have to rely on OYA and DHS to
provide resources in the beginning of juvenile cases. Juvenile departments
should have their own funding for these resources.
► There needs to be further development and expanded use of community team
approaches where agencies come together and figure out what they can provide
for an individual youth and family, not what they can't provide. This process
helps to develop a continuum of community resources from prevention to
evidence -based in home services. This also includes mental health, alcohol and
drug, respite, etc. There needs to be an expansion of out -of -home placement
services.
Exhibit C,
Page _L! — of
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 7
► Establish a task force to look at the way funding is funneled to communities for
services for the populations of youth who "slip through the cracks" and nobody
quite knows who is suppose to be serving. This would include funds that come
from DHS, OYA, the Commission on Children and Families and from counties.
Track 8 Building Stronger Partnerships with Schools
► Develop ways to reduce confidentiality barriers between schools and youth
serving agencies;
► Support and promote cross system planning through school-based services,
such as youth service teams;
► Fund and promote evidence -based prevention/intervention services at all levels
(Families and Schools Together [FAST] Program, forme_ r Level 7 programs, and
JCP prevention programs;
► Adopt a cross -system model for statewide youth services that will focus on
common good with common goals for youth and families, such as keeping
families healthy, assisting youth at risk in the community, and providing services
to youth who present a risk to the community. There are multitude of groups and
agencies that are suppose to be doing cross system planning, but there seems
to be no common model for doing this. We need to develop a model for doing
this kind of planning and for triaging services. Schools can be a locus for doing
assessment and coordinating these services.
Track 9 Shelter Care
► The policy of Oregon should be that shelter care is a part of the state and local
continuum of juvenile justice services. Shelter care services should be
community managed, culturally competent and gender specific with base funding
provided by the state and counties. Shelters will provide a safe and structured
setting that will be more cost effective and provide a wide range of services
across the continuum. The shelters can provide assessment of youth in
connection with resources for youth and family services.
Exhibit C
Page —1 of
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit Work Group Recommendations
Page 8
Track 10 Priorities for the Future Direction of the Juvenile Justice
System
All developments, programs, and decision making need to be guided by certain basic
principles in terms of the operation of the system. The juvenile justice system shall base
its policies upon and provide services that consider all of the following factors:
1. Community needs and resources;
2. Family needs and resources;
3. Ability to reduce recidivism;
4. Scientifically supported;
5. Sensitive to culture and to gender;
6. Ability to reduce high risk factors of youth offenders;
► Develop community-based resources before restoring close custody beds. This
includes diversion, basic services, and prevention dollars. Minority opinion:
There has certainly been a loss of beds, but we never really got up to the funding
level that was envisioned in Senate Bill 1 for both close custody and community
resources;
► There needs to be both legislative and administrative action to promote
collaboration and clarify roles among state agencies (i.e. DHS, OYA, Education,
Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug) to prevent service gaps;
► Broaden the scope of OYA to be able serve delinquent youth who need out -of -
home placement with individual flex fund resources. These resources should be
available to the courts and the system after a petition is filed and a youth needs
a placement;
Exhibit C
Page ---a._ of
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PRISON ADMISSIONS BY COUNTY
July 2003 to June 2004
County Name
Prison
County Pop '*
Rate per
Admits*
(July 1, 2003)
1,000 Pop.
Baker
32
16,500
1.94
Benton
57
80,500
0.71
Clackamas
301
353,450
0.85
Clatsop
58
36,300
1.60
Columbia
50
45,000
1.11
Coos
54
63,000
0.86
Crook
27
20,300
1.33
Curry
27
21,100
1.28
Deschutes
192
130,500
1.47
Douglas
106
101,800
1.04
Gilliam
5
1,900
2.63
Grant
6
7,650
0.78
Harney
17
7,300
2.33
Hood River
9
20,500
0.44
Jackson
235
189,100
1.24
Jefferson
22
19,900
1.11
Josephine
145
78,350
1.85
Klamath
119
64,600
1.84
Lake
11
7,400
1.49
Lane
463
329,400
1.41
Lincoln
83
45,000
1.84
Linn
217
104,900
2.07
Malheur
55
32,000
1.72
Marion
812
295,900
2.74
Morrow
7
11,750
0.60
Multnomah
1123
677,850
1.66
Polk
71
64,000
1.11
Sherman
2
1,900
1.05
Tillamook
29
24,900
1.16
Umatilla
93
71,100
1.31
Union
27
24,650
1.10
Wallowa
1
7,150
0.14
Wasco
27
23,550
1.15
Washington
453
472,600
0.96
Yamhill
122
88,150
1.38
Out of State
8
Unknown
11
5077
3,539,950
1.43
*Rentbacks excluded from prison admission totals.
**Source: Population Research Center, Portland State Univ.
Source: DOC Research and Evaluation.
prison -commits -2004
7/12/2004
Exhibit Z>
Page k of �_
1. Reduce Criminal Behavior:
a. Reduce recidivism, as measured by felony convictions from initial admission to
probation, tracking for three years from admission.
b. Reduce recidivism, as measured by felony convictions from first release to
parole/post-prison supervision, tracking for three years from release.
2. Enforce Court and Board Orders:
a. Increase the percentage of positive case closures for offenders on parole/post-
prison supervision.
b. Increase the percentage of positive case closures for offenders on probation.
3. Assist Offenders to Change:
a. Increase employment rates for offenders on supervision.
b. Increase the rate of participation in treatment programs for offenders on
supervision.
4. Provide Reparation to Victims
a. Increase the percentage of restitution and compensatory fines collected, owed to
victims.
b. Increase the number of community service hours provided by offenders on
supervision.
5. Increase the use of community-based non -jail sanctions for first time sanctions above
the baseline of 20% set in 1999-2000
Exhibit n
Page _1 of 1
M
O
O
N
4-
Rf
'a
C
N
L-
0 O
4- O
M
A
0
O s
U v
,Q O
E •co
�a
V
0
LO
M
N
,y
N
s
9
0
0
N
N_
m U U 0 o p o 0 < o Y J n z< 0 F- 2= Q a CL D
3 r
}
Exhiflit n,
Page _ of �_
0
A
E
U
N
0_
.Q
N
■a
.V M ^
0
O n
N -t
O �+- O
■N = U
r R
C N d
Cf)O w
a 4- �.
O
�L
0-
1
Y.
O
L
CL
N
� o
Ct 00
O
M
O
co
A
E
U
N
Q
0_
E
N_
N
�> - \
ami � y
c
0
c
N
a Q
r
In
V
O
O
N
O N
Q Q Q (� (n Q Z Z_ J J J Q (n 2
ti
Q Q O 2 ¢ Q 3
U U O o OD O0 Y < � g a a�
Exl�it �
Page �_ Of �_
O 00 C 0 O O p
d' N
r ,
4UGOJGd
M
O
C
N
M
O
N
r
N
O
C
N
N
0
C:
N
O
O
C
N
I
Exhibit
Page —!5-_ of
O 000 (0 � N
IUGOJad
co
O
C
N
io
co
M
O
co
N
O
C
N
N
O
r
O
N
O
N
T-
O
O_
0
C
N
O
O
Exhibit--,ID-
Page —(.0— of
xhibitPage—(Q—of "
M
O
O
N
4-
N
d
.Y
L-
0 O
C0
V
a
c
_O
w
_C
.j..1
C
V
0-
X x
E -
w
A�
W
E`
_C
CL
E
W
L
V
00 rl_
LO It ( N C) C:)
R
m
C
O
X
C
;ua3Jad
Exhibit
Page _j— of —_
U
U)
w
0
N
X
U)
U
X
C
N
E
0
C—
E w
CORRECTIONS AND CRIME CONTROL
(3) The county may contract with public
or private agencies including, but not limited
to, other counties, cities, special districts and
public or private agencies for the provision
of services to offenders. [1977 c.412 §13; 1987 c.320
§224; 1989 c.613 §2; 1995 c.423 §71
423.540 Program compliance review by
Director of Department of Corrections;
effect of failure to comply. The Director
of the Department of Corrections shall an-
nually review a county's compliance with the
intergovernmental agreement under ORS
423.500 to 423.560. A county must substan-
tially comply with the provisions of its com-
munity corrections intergovernmental
agreement and plan established pursuant to
ORS 423.525 (7). If the director determines
that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that a county is not in substantial compli-
ance with the intergovernmental agreement
or plan, the director shall contact the county
regarding the alleged noncompliance and of-
fer technical assistance to reach compliance.
If the county does not resolve the alleged
noncompliance, the director shall, after giv-
ing the county not less than 30 days' notice,
conduct a hearing to ascertain whether there
is substantial compliance or satisfactory
progress being made toward compliance. Af-
ter technical assistance is provided and the
hearing occurs, the director may suspend any
portion of the funding made available to the
county under ORS 423.500 to 423.560 until
the required compliance occurs. [1977 c.412 §8;
1979 c.487 §14; 1987 c.320 §225; 1995 c.423 §8; 1997 c.715
§5]
423.545 [1977 c.412 §9; 1987 c.320 §226; repealed by
1995 c.423 §31]
423.549 State positions in community
corrections branch; abolishment; county
authority; affected employees; pay. (1)
Notwithstanding ORS 236.605 to 236.640, all
state positions in the state community cor-
rections branch of the Department of Cor-
rections, the funding for which is transferred
to counties, are abolished on January 1, 1997.
Counties have sole discretion in the develop-
ment of methods and means of county com-
munity corrections operation under ORS
423.500 to 423.560 including establishment of
wages, benefits and working conditions and
selection of any employees to operate super-
vision programs or other services and sanc-
tions under ORS 423.478 and 423.525. The
implementation of this section does not give
rise to any bargaining obligation under ORS
243.650 to 243.782. Notwithstanding any col-
lective bargaining agreement, the department
shall first offer to any employee so affected
and not hired by a county a vacant position
in other department branches and operations
for which the employee is qualified. This
preference lapses 90 days after the operative
date of this section. The department has sole
Title 34
42R_RR(1
discretion in selecting and filling vacant po-
sitions from among affected employees hav-
ing preference.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this
section, for each month of employment dur-
ing the period of January 1, 1997, through
June 30, 1997, a county shall pay each af-
fected employee hired by the county in regu-
lar full-time employment to provide or to
support the provision of community correc-
tions programs and services the same mini-
mum gross monthly salary or hourly wage
that the affected employee received in state
employment immediately prior to termination
of the employee's state position. In the event
an affected employee formerly employed by
the state in a supervisory position is hired
by a county in a nonsupervisory position, the
county shall pay the affected employee dur-
. ing this period the same minimum gross
monthly salary or hourly wage to which an
affected employee in the nonsupervisory po-
sition would have been entitled to receive in
state employment at the top step of the state
pay classification for that position imme-
diately prior to its termination. A county
shall also provide to each affected employee
during this period the same benefits provided
to existing county employees performing the
same or substantially similar work, giving
full consideration to the length of the em-
ployee's state service as though the service
had been in and for the county. [1995 c.423 §16
(enacted in lieu of 423.550)]
423.550 [1977 c.412 §10; 1987 c.320 §227; 1989 c.607
§3; 1989 c.614 §3; 1993 c.680 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423
§15 (423.549 enacted in lieu of 423.550)]
423.551 [1989 c.614 §5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §311
423.552 [1989 c.510 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.553 [1989 c.510 §3; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.554 [1989 c.510 §§4,5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.555 Statewide program evaluation
and information system. The Department
of Corrections shall establish and operate,
with the cooperation and participation of
county community .corrections agencies, a
statewide evaluation and information system
to monitor the effectiveness of correctional
services provided to criminal offenders under
ORS 423.500 to 423.560. To the extent of
available information systems resources, the
system shall permit ongoing evaluation of
apparent correlations between services pro-
vided and future criminal conduct. [1977 c.412
§11; 1987 c.320 §228; 1995 c.423 §10; 1997 c.433 §121
423.560 Local public safety coordinat-
ing council; duties. (1) The board or boards
of county commissioners of a county shall
convene a local public safety coordinating
council. The council shall include, but need_
not be limited to:
(a) A police chief selected by the police
chiefs in the county;
Page 821
(2001 Edition)
Exhibit E_
Page � of �_
423.565 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS
(b) The sheriff of the county or, if two or
more counties have joined together to pro-
vide community corrections services, a sher-
iff selected by the sheriffs in the counties;
(c) The district attorney of the county or,
if two or more counties have joined together
to provide community corrections services, a
district attorney selected by the district at-
torneys of the counties;
(d) A state court judge, and a public
defender or defense attorney, both appointed
by the presiding judge of the judicial district
in which the county is located;
(e) A director of community corrections,
a county commissioner, a juvenile depart-
ment director, a health or mental health di-
rector and at least one lay citizen, all
appointed by the county commissioners;
(f) A city councilor or mayor and a city
manager or other city representative, both
selected by the cities in the county;
(g) A representative of the Oregon State
Police, who is a nonvoting member of the
council, selected by the Superintendent of
State Police; and --
(h) A representative of the Oregon Youth
Authority, who is a nonvoting member of the
council, selected by the Director of the Ore-
gon Youth Authority.
(2) The boards of county commissioners
of two or more counties may jointly convene
a single, regional local public safety coordi-
nating council by means of an intergovern-
mental agreement. Local officials may
combine the council with existing local
criminal justice advisory councils established
under ORS 1.851.
(3) The local public safety coordinating
council shall, at a minimum:
(a) Develop and recommend to the county
board of commissioners a plan for use of:
(A) State resources to serve the local of-
fender population; and
(B) State and local resources to serve the
needs of that part of the local offender popu-
lation who are at least 15 years of age and
less than 18 years of age, which plan must
provide for coordination of community -wide
services involving prevention, treatment, ed-
ucation, employment_resources and interven-
tion strategies; and
(b) Coordinate local criminal justice pol-
icy among affected criminal justice entities.
(4) Nonvoting members of a local public
safety coordinating council may not be
counted in determining whether a quorum
exists. [1977 c.412 §12; 1995 c.423 §11; 1997 c.249 §136;
1997 c.698 §11
Title 34
423.565 Additional duties of public
safety coordinating council. In addition to
the duties assigned to it under ORS 423.560,
the local public safety coordinating council
convened by the board of commissioners
shall, at a minimum:
(1) Develop and recommend to the county
board of commissioners the plan for use of
state resources to serve the local youth of-
fender population;
(2) Coordinate local juvenile justice pol-
icy among affected juvenile justice entities;
and
(3) In consultation with the local com-
mission on children and families, develop and
recommend to the county board of commis-
sioners a plan designed to prevent criminal
involvement by youth. The plan must provide
for coordination of community -wide services
involving treatment, education, employment
and intervention strategies aimed at crime
prevention. [1995 c.422 §75; 1995 c.423 §11a]
PAYMENTS BY SUPERVISED PERSON
423.570 Monthly fee payable by person
on supervised release; use; payment as
condition of release; waiver. (1) A person
sentenced to probation or placed by an au-
thority on parole, post -prison supervision or
other form of release, subject to supervision
by a community corrections program estab-
lished under ORS 423.500 to 423.560, shall be
required to pay a monthly fee to offset costs
of supervising the probation, parole, post -
prison supervision or other supervised re-
lease.
(2) A person sentenced to probation or
placed by an authority on parole, post -prison
supervision or other form of release, subject
to supervision other than by a community
corrections program established under ORS
423.500 to 423,560, may be required by the
releasing authority to pay a monthly fee to
offset costs of supervising the probation,
parole, post -prison supervision or other
supervised release.
(3) When a fee is required under subsec-
tion (1) of this section, the fee shall be de-
termined and fixed by the releasing authority
but shall be at least $25, and if the releasing
authority fails to establish the amount of a
released person's required fee, the fee shall
be $25.
(4) Fees are payable one month following-
the
ollowing.the commencement of probation, parole,
post -prison supervision or other supervised
release and at one-month intervals thereaf-
ter. If the released person is supervised un-
der county authority, the county shall collect
or provide by contract for the collection of
the fee from the released person and shall
retain the fee to be used by the county for
Page 822
(2001 Edition)
Exhibit 1:�,
Page 9 of