2005-1313-Minutes for Meeting November 07,2005 Recorded 11/21/2005COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS VV 2005.1313
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1112112005 04;59;06 PM
IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
2005-1313
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Mike Maier, County Administrator; Court
Administrator Ernie Mazorol; Andy Jordan, Bend Police Chief, Jack Blum, citizen
member; Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children & Families; Tammy Baney,
Commission on Children & Families' Advisory Board; and Becky Wanless, Parole
& Probation Department. Also in attendance were Jacques DeKalb, defense
attorney; Les Stiles, Sheriff; Bob Warsaw, Oregon Youth Authority; Bob LaCombe,
Juvenile Community Justice; Scott Johnson and Lori Hill, Mental Health
Department; and Lt. Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police.
Also present were media representatives Mollie Graham and Kelli Anderson from
News Channel 21 and Cindy Powers of The Bulletin; and citizen Andrea Blum of
the League of Women Voters. Accompanying Chief Andy Jordan was John
Picchetti, "Chief for a day".
1. Call to Order & Introductions.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m., at which time the attendees
introduced themselves.
2. Approval of Minutes of September 12, 2005 Meeting.
Becky Wanless moved approval and Mike Maier seconded. The minutes were
unanimously approved.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 7, 2005
Page 1 of 5 Pages
3. Follow-up Discussion regarding Participation in Developing an Anti -Drug
Strategic Plan.
Tammy Baney said that the Meth Action Advisory Council's strategic plan will
be brought to LPSCC for endorsement soon. The idea is for the plan to be
useable with measurable outcomes, and should not be placed on a shelf. The
document will be written through a partnership of the Commission on Children
& Families and the Meth Action Coalition, with information to come from
various entities. It will take an estimated six to nine months for this to be put
together.
Hillary Saraceno stated that LPSCC has never had a strategic plan like this one,
but meth issues affect all of the agencies. In addition, meth is not the only
problem substance so the group will be looking at the issue in a more
comprehensive way, and hopes to get public safety agencies, schools, youth
groups and others more involved in it.
This will be discussed further at the next meeting.
4. Report regarding King County Justice System Site Visit.
Scott Johnson said because of the efforts of Sheriff Stiles, an opportunity
presented itself for Mr. Johnson and others to take a look at the King County
system. He and another Deschutes County representative, Julianne Fouts,
visited their facilities.
Sheriff Stiles added that when the Sheriff's Office lost the use of the work
release center, programming alternatives were also lost. Those programs
cannot be used now because matrix does not allow time to schedule adequate
programming. If the work release center comes back on line, this work will not
stop at the jail. Most of the programs addressing the meth problem reach much
farther than just the jail.
Lori Hill said that site visits were conducted at Marion County and King
County. Seattle has a system that is much bigger than that in Deschutes
County. This visit included of an overview of the jail, mental health and law
enforcement.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 7, 2005
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Some information is available for LPSCC members to review. The information
addresses, among other things, secure detention, the number of beds,
alternatives to incarceration, treatment options, jail and mental health program
funding, prioritizing treatment over detention, and the criminal justice
continuum.
She pointed out that there is a significant difference if the mental health court
system is used, including a reduction in jail bed days and the number of violent
crimes committed. She added that Deschutes County has some of the same
pieces in place, and is heading in the right direction. However, there is a long
way to go. Other issues to be addressed are mental health services after
incarceration, educational opportunities, housing and transportation.
Ms. Fouts noted that about 17% of the jail population has mental health
problems. Sheriff Stiles added that the cost of medications per year is about
$100,000, and 75% of those are psychotropic.
A brief discussion took place regarding the different aspects of the programs.
Judge Sullivan asked that this item be placed on the January 2006 agenda.
5. Update regarding Family Drug Court Proposal.
Ernie Mazorol stated this is a reoccurring issue, and is moving from concept to
implementation. The Drug Court is important, but additional funding is needed.
Much depends on how much funding is available and how many cases come
before the court. Judge Sullivan said that it should start with about a dozen
families.
Mr. Mazorol stated that jail would be a last resort as a sanction. There are a
number of alternatives. Ms. Wanless added that the issue is not black and
white, and all of the circumstances need to be examined. Mr. Mazorol said that
the District Attorney understands relapse is often part of recovery. There needs
to be treatment on demand. He will try to estimate potential costs and revenue.
Federal grants for drug court are being sought.
Sheriff Stiles noted that there are other costs besides dollars and cents. There
are many social consequences, and there need to be measures taken to keep the
recidivism rate down. Judge Sullivan added that positive action must be taken
on this costly problem.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 7, 2005
Page 3 of 5 Pages
6. Comments regarding October 17 Statewide LPSCC Meeting.
Tammy Baney said the County has received a letter of thanks for a job well
done. Hillary Saraceno stated that the meeting addressed membership,
activities, and common interests and problems. Jacques DeKalb added that
some LPSCC groups are very active with projects. Mike Maier noted that some
of these groups have staff, which allows them to be more involved.
Judge Sullivan stated that this group tries to bring people on board when there
are specific projects. Mental health court was one of the projects that started
here. Mr. DeKalb added that this LPSCC does an excellent job and can be
promoted as a model.
7. Comments regarding October 20 Justice Center Open House.
Judge Sullivan said that the remodeled building has a good security area, a
lobby better suited to privacy, two new courtrooms, a larger holding cell, video
links to the jail so offenders do not have to be transported, a jury assembly area
that can hold about ninety people, and much better work stations. The Chief
Justice visited as well. Overall everyone seems very pleased with the facilities.
Visitors from other Sheriff's Offices were truly amazed at how well the video
system works. Some are going to recommend it to their Commissioners, as it
saves money over time and lessens risk.
8. Update regarding Dedicated Courthouse Parking for Law Enforcement
Personnel.
Andy Jordan said he is waiting for the application to be handled. Ernie Mazorol
stated Susan Ross has delegated this to Renee Warner, who needs to contact
Mr. Jordan. He needs to know the timing — the sooner, the better — for law
enforcement personnel. This addressed a security issue and also gives law
enforcement access to some permanent parking. Mr. Jordan added that this has
to go to the City for approval, but probably not before the Council.
Judge Sullivan said that six spots need to be set aside for marked units. Mike
Maier stated he would follow up with Ms. Warner.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 7, 2005
Page 4 of 5 Pages
9. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (December 5 ).
The group appointed Commissioner Mike Daly as the representative for the
Board of Commissioners.
Becky Wanless said she attended the "What Works" conference in Portland,
and Hillary Saraceno will talk about it at the next meeting.
Tammy Baney will also present the preliminary outline for the strategic plan.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B: Agenda (1 page)
Exhibit C: Information from King County regarding various programs (19 pages)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 7, 2005
Page 5 of 5 Pages
j�
Z
ui
Q
w
J
a
O
O
N
ti
L
E
C
Z
L
ti
I
p
v
v
J
�
cJ
C1
.�
Cl)
o
�y�llzl�
Exhibit
Page _� of /
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore
MEETING AGENDA
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
3:30 P.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor
1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
1. Call to Order & Introductions
2. Approval of Minutes of October 3, 2005 Meeting
3. Follow-up Discussion regarding Participation in Developing an Anti -Drug
Strategic Plan — Tammy Baney and Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children
& Families
4. Report regarding King County Justice System Site Visit - Lori Hill, Deschutes
County Mental Health; Julianne Fouts, Deschutes County Jail Services
5. Update regarding Family Drug Court Proposal
6. Comments regarding October 17 Statewide LPSCC Meeting
7. Comments regarding October 20 Justice Center Open House
8. Update regarding Dedicated Courthouse Parking for Law Enforcement
Personnel — Ernie Mazorol, Andy Jordan
9. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (December 5
Exhibit 6—
Page of /
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
lif
Proposed No. 2002-0251.2
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
September 21, 2005
Ordinance 14430
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Sponsors . Gossett and Hague
AN ORDINANCE approving the Adult Justice Operational
Master Plan.
PREAMBLE:
King County's criminal justice system; that includes law enforcement,
secure detention, prosecution, indigent defense, and adjudication of
criminal matters in superior and district courts, accounts for over two
thirds of the county's discretionary expenditures. While these
responsibilities are mandated by constitutional, statutory, and other
requirements, the county has a great deal of flexibility in establishing
levels of service. In recognition of the fact that increases in criminal
justice expenditures are outpacing the county's ability to pay for these
increases, the county council required the development of master plan for
the county's adult criminal justice system in hopes of duplicating the
successes of the juvenile justice master plan that reduced juvenile crime
and the need for new juvenile detention facilities. As a result, King
County's adult justice system has been engaged in an intensive effort to
explore alternative types of sanctions, identify justice system process
improvements that will reduce costs and make the best use of limited
detention resources in order to promote public safety and preserve jail
capacity for those offenders for whom jail is the only option and reduce
the useof secure detention in the county.
This effort is in accordance with K.C.C. 4.04.200, which provides that an
operational master plan set forth how an organization will address its
workload now and in the future.
Through Motion 11001, the King County council approved the work plan
for developing the Adult Justice Operational Master Plan.
The Adult Justice Operational Master Plan was directed by an advisory
committee made up of elected officials and agency heads from county
government, cities and state criminal justice agencies, and human and
community service providers.
The recommendations of the advisory committee to the executive that are
contained in the three project work group reports, the alternatives work
Exhibit
Page —
Of
Ordinance 14430
IF—
35
group, the felony work group, and the Misdemeanant work group, resulted
36
from the work of nearly one hundred participants representing local,
37
regional and state criminal justice and health and human services agencies.
38
The recommendations contained in the Adult Justice Operational Master
39
Plan Report titled King County Capacity Options: 2002 — 2010 represent
40
recommendations on King County detention capacity options from the
41
King County executive to the King County council.
42
Plans submitted for'approval under K.C.C. 4.04.200 are generally
43
followed by subsequent planning documents for the development of
44
capital improvements. Each of these plans would also be subject to
45
council approval. In addition, the council required in the 2002 Budget
46
Ordinance that the district court develop plans that reduce jail utilization
47
for offenders adjudicated in these courts. The response and plan have
48
been included as part of this master plan and is included as an attachment.
49
These plans are submitted as Attachment A to this ordinance, and if
50
implemented, would improve system efficiencies, improve public safety,
51
avoid the need for new jail capacity and should lead to an overall
52
reduction in the need for secure detention..
53 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
54 SECTION 1. In accordance with K.0 C. 4..04.200, the Adult Justice Operational
55 Master Plan, Attachment A to this ordinance, dated May 2002, is hereby approved.
56 SECTION 2. The council ordains that, with the approval of the Adult Justice
57 Operational Master Plan, it is the policy of King County to establish standards for the use
58 of secure detention capacity, emphasize system and process efficiencies that reduce the
59 utilization of jail and reduce overall criminal justice expenditures, encourage alternatives
60 to the use the secure detention for adult offenders in order to make best use of limited
61 detention resources and preserve public safety, and to establish as a county policy the
62 requirement for the use of integrated and coordinated treatment of offenders whose
63 criminal activity is related to substance abuse or mental illness in order to avoid future
64 system costs, reduce jail utilization for these groups, and reduce future criminality.
65 SECTION 3. The county recognizes that the provision of secure detention for
66 felons and some misdemeanants is a county responsibility that is subject to federal and
67 state requirements. Nevertheless, the use of secure detention has not demonstrated
68 effectiveness in reducing recidivism except during the time that inmates are incapacitated
69 in j ail. The Adult Justice Operational Master Plan does not identify any evidence that the
70 use of j ail has decreased recidivism in King County. Instead, the plan shows evidence
71 shows that for certain offender groups recidivism is as high as 95 percent.
72 The council acknowledges that secure detention is effective for individuals who
73 are a flight risk and must be detained. Nevertheless, data indicates that the threat of jail
74 does not necessarily increase offender accountability when individuals have a history of
75 failing to appear for court appearances. Rather, other process changes have been shown
76 to be much more effective in reducing failure to appear rates. Consequently, the council
77 intends that secure detention be used for those whose history demonstrates that they
78 would flee the jurisdiction in order to avoid prosecution and not for those whose failure
79 to appear history can be addressed more effectively with other process changes.
2 Exhibit
Page A of
Ordinance 14430
80 The plan does show that the use of secure detention may be necessary for those
81 who have failed all other graduated sanctions and intermediary punishments.
82 Consequently, it is the intent of the council that secure detention should be used in
83 measured way to ensure compliance with other sanctions.
84 Federally sponsored research recommends as a best practice that counties
85 establish policy for the use of secure detention. King County's legislative_ authority has
86 not formally established a policy for the use of secure detention for adults, but has for
87 juveniles. Consequently, the council finds that as county policy, the county's secure jail
88 facilities should be used for:
89 A. Those individuals who can be objectively shown as posing a threat to public
90 safety if not detained in secure detention;
91 B. Those individuals who can be objectively shown as a flight risk from the
92 jurisdiction if not detained; and
93 C. Those offenders who have failed intermediary sanctions..
94 Therefore, the council requests that the county's criminal justice council prepare, and the
95 King County superior and district, courts adopt, jail use criteria and procedures that limit
96 the use of the jail for those individuals who. are a public safety or flight risk, or for those
97 who require secure detention as a graduated sanction having failed other intermediate
98 punishments. Alternatively, the criminal justice council may wish to propose other
99 policy options that would also limit the use of secure detention.
100 SECTION 4. It is the intent of the council that the courts, prosecutor, sheriff, and
101 all other agencies involved in the criminal justice system emphasize system and process
102 efficiencies that reduce the utilization of jail and reduce overall criminal justice )
103 expenditures. The council intends that the courts, prosecutor, sheriff, and all other
104 criminal agencies identify areas for efficiency that benefit the system as a whole, in
105 addition to the individual agency.
106 SECTION 5. The council also encourages the development and use of
107 alternatives to the use of secure detention for adult offenders in order to make best use of
108 limited detention resources and preserve public safety. These intermediate sanctions
109 should be used in a graduated and measured manner, appropriate to the offense and
110 cognizant of the cost effectiveness—measured through lower costs, or reducing the costs
111 of future offending.
112 SECTION 6. It is the intent of the council that the county provide treatment
113 options, within the constraints of existing current expense and other funding sources, for
114 persons who are significantly impaired by substance abuse and/or mental illness and
115 involved repeatedly or for significant duration in the criminal justice system.
116 The council recognizes the value of the county therapeutic courts for substance abusing
117 and mentally,ill offenders. It is the intent of the council that the successful process and
118 programs of these courts become a regular component of the county's criminal justice
119 system and that the courts, prosecutor and executive, consider using the successful
120 components of these courts as the basis for planning how best to integrate adjudication,
121 sanctioning and treatment of these significantly impaired persons. Further, it is the intent
122 of the council that the benefit of these courts be made available to significantly impaired
123 offenders regardless of offense or court jurisdiction.
124 It is the intent of the council that treatment options for persons significantly
125 impaired by substance abuse and/or mental illness emphasize community based
3 Exhibit
Page 3, of _�
Ordinance 14430
,126 alternatives to incarceration, as well as treatment in conjunction with incarceration where
427 public safety risk or flight risk so requires, and are coordinated with on-going community
128 care wherever possible. It is the intent of the council that existing current expense and
129 other funding sources be used to implement these policies, but the council recognizes that
130 because of continuing fiscal_problems with.the. current expense fund no new current
131 expense funding will be available to expand programs. Nevertheless, the council
132 recognizes that the county should continue to pursue other funding sources for treatment
133 and that as savings are achieved in the criminal justice system, that consideration be
134 given to reallocating resources for treatment programs for these populations.
135 In addition, the council also recognizes the benefits of the district court's
136 consolidated domesticviolence court. Similarly, the county should develop plans for.
137 expanding and duplicating the methods and benefits from this court program for other
138 appropriate offender populations.
139 It is the intent of the council that the county substance abuse, mental health, and
140 community services programs, including veteran's programs, domestic violence and
141 work training programs, give priority to referrals from the criminal justice system in
142 accord with needs and to the maximum extent allowable within the parameters of their
143 categorical funding sources and shall partner with the criminal justice system to jointly
144 develop treatment options and screening, assessment and referral protocols.
145 It is the also intent of council that the county help provide access to information, -
146 treatment and other rehabilitative services for persons with other substance abuse and
147 mental health concerns as, part of its programming both within secure detention and in
148 community corrections options.
149 SECTION 7. To ensure the application of the council's adopted criminal justice
150 policies contained in sections 3 through 6 of this ordinance and the continued
151 implementation of the Adult Justice Operational Master Plan submitted as Attachment A
152 to this ordinance, the King 'County Criminal Justice Council shall develop and submit an
153 implementation plan to, the council by September 1, 2002, for review and approval by
154 motion. It is the intent of the council that the plan identify responsibility for
155 implementation of criminal justice policy and master plan recommendations (including
156 criteria and procedures identified in section 3 of this ordinance related to jail use
157 policies), schedule for implementation, and the estimated reduction of jail utilization
158 associated with each recommendation. In addition, the executive, in consultation with
159 the Criminal Justice Council, shall regularly report on the status of the implementation of
160 plan recommendations. The executive shall also prepare an annual report summarizing
4 Exhibit
Page _L of
-h Ordinance 14430
-161 the status of the population of adults in detention and in alternatives, and identifying
162 workplan goals for the next year.
163
Ordinance 14430 was introduced on 5/28/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 7/22/2002, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 1 - Mr. Pullen
Excused: 0
ATTEST:
APPROVED this 1st day of August, 2002.
Attachments ***AttachmentList***
5
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Exhibit
Page
G
of l g
King County
Criminal Justice Continuum of Care Initiative
September 2005
The intent of the King County Criminal Justice Continuum of Care Initiative is to assure that persons who are
significantly impaired by substance abuse, mental illness or both and involved repeatedly or for significant
duration in the criminal justice system "receive a continuum of treatment services that is coordinated, efficient,
and effective, and that reduces their rate of re -offense and jail time." This model requires that services begin pre -
incarceration and continue through post -release, community-based treatment with few if any gaps in service.
Such offenders should have access to coordinated housing, pre -vocational, employment, crisis, and treatment
services that are continually evaluated for effectiveness in reducing the rate of re -arrest.
Project Com onents:
1. Treating Co-occurring Disorders (COD)
Community Psychiatric Clinic (CPC) and Seattle Mental Health (SMH) provide integrated mental health and
chemical dependency treatment for eligible adult offender -clients referred from a local specialty court (Drug
Court or Mental Health Court). The treatment services, including housing stabilization, are organized for
individuals with co-occurring mental health and chemical dependency/substance abuse problems. The services
are co -located and treat both disorders equally. Over 170 clients were served from Aug. 2003 through August
2005.
2. Community Linkages via Criminal Justice Liaisons
SMH provides three criminal justice liaisons to work with the King County Jail (Seattle and Kent facilities) and
the King County Community Corrections Division's Community Center for Alternative Programs (CCAP) to
engage, refer, and link eligible offenders to post -release treatment and support services. Combined, .the liaisons
received over 3,100 referrals from September 2003 through August 2005.
3. Enhanced Screening & Assessment in the Jail, and Placement
Jail Health Services and the Mental Health, Chemical Abuse & Dependency Services Division (MHCADSD) are
assisting the King County Community Corrections Division in a process to enhance the screening and assessment
of offenders in the jail with possible mental illness and/or chemical dependency treatment needs. The pilot
program was fully implemented in the King County Jail in August 2005.
4. Assistance in Applying for Publicly Funded Benefits
An Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act (ADATSA) case monitor and a state Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) financial services specialist are assisting potentially eligible offender -clients
in applying for publicly funded treatment services while still incarcerated. The assigned financial services
specialist processed over 400 DSHS applications from May 2004 through August 2005. The assigned case
monitor conducted nearly 300 ADATSA assessments from February 2004 through August 2005.
5. Methadone Dosing and Voucher Services in the Jail
Therapeutic Health Services (THS) currently provides methadone dosing to opiate -dependent inmates in the King
County Jail. Eventually, Jail Health Services (JHS) will become certified to provide methadone dosing directly.
Exhibit _C'_
Page (o of /
Social Workers with the Jail -based Opioid Dependency Engagement and Treatment team (JODET) began
distributing vouchers for treatment and providing discharge. planning services in May 2004 (Phase 1). JHS
medical staff began to work with JODET to document opioid withdrawal among voucher recipients. This
coupling of activities has significantly increased access and ease of entry into treatment for many opioid -
dependent inmate -patients. Over 190 voucher recipients have successfully entered treatment through August
2005.
With Phase 1 of JODET fully implemented, development of Phase 2 (licensure and accreditation as an opioid
treatment facility with the capacity to dispense methadone) and Phase 3 (inducting opioid -dependent inmate -
patients into treatment and dispensing methadone to them) is underway with Phase 3 projected to be implemented
in the summer of 2006.
6. Other Voucher Services
Enhanced access to mental health treatment is available via the Mental Health Voucher Program. The mental
health vouchers are provided to offender -clients referred from jail that are not currently receiving Medicaid
benefits but are likely eligible for Medicaid. The criminal justice liaisons at KCCF and the RJC, along with the
District Mental Health Court monitor, began issuing mental health vouchers to eligible offenders in October
2003. Over 80 voucher recipients successfully entered treatment through August 2005.
Dedicated housing options are available for eligible specialty court and CCAP clients in King County via the
Housing Voucher and Case Management Program. The program managed by SMH provides housing search, case
management and stabilization services to clients who are homeless, substance abusing, chemically dependent
and/or mentally ill. Nearly 450 clients were referred to the program through August 2005.
7. Intensive Outpatient Chemical Dependency Treatment at CCAP
Intensive outpatient (IOP) chemical dependency treatment services are available to eligible and clinically J
appropriate offender -clients who arecourt-ordered to CCAP by King County District or Superior Courts. IOP
treatment services are provided via contract with CPC. Over 125 clients were admitted to the treatment program
from April 2004 through August 2005.
8. Certified Chemical Dependency Treatment at the Regional Justice Center (RJC)
Chemical dependency treatment services are provided at the RJC to inmate -patients referred from King County
Drug Diversion Court via contract with Pioneer Human Services. Over 120 inmates were admitted to the
program from February 2005 through August 2005.
9. Project Outcomes Evaluation Report
Debra Srebnik, Ph.D., was hired as the Project Evaluator in July 2003 and her work will attempt to determine
whether the Criminal Justice Continuum of Care Initiative has a positive impact on lowering re -arrest rates over
time among project participants and, as a result, reduce criminal justice system costs associated with this
population. If successful, King County hopes the initiative, sentencing alternatives, and jail use limits will avoid
or significantly delay the need to build another detention facility for adult offenders. The first year process
evaluation report was issued in July 2005. The first year outcomes report was issued in September 2005.
For additional information contact:
L. David Murphy
Criminal Justice Initiative Project Manager
King County MHCADS
(206) 205-0848
dave.m=hhvna,metrokc.gov
09/19/05 Page 2
Exhibit C
Page _ 7 of
r�
20
9z
0 LU
w V
CL LU
Z
J
W
LU 0,
Z
wa
a
N
_ C
o
I
O
C
N
Q
0 `
Opp
0
O)
'
E
N
i5
V
O`
O
=
CL
C V
0 0
.0
' o
E2T3
maf6i
• p
p•mC0
Lo0.0 :
m
�aO
0 0
Uu
N
O2*:
O.WL
NN
UE
v
u
Q
N
_ C
o
I
O
C
N
o
N
E :
'
E
N
i5
N
O`
O
N
CL
=
f6
G
EO
m
Nm
' .NO
0000)
O
C 2
m
�aO
0 0
Uu
v
Q
'
N
_ C
N w
C
I
O
C
N
U
N
E :
'
E
N
i5
N
_y
CL
7
O
N '
m
Nm
N
m
C O
YU
Uv
v'
v
Q
'
N
_ C
N w
C
��
O -a
N
a. Q
4)U•apQ
IL y
OV
M. 6 C 7
�S D cO:C=-> c
U
0.0. 'p •� l6 0 N N
CL D0 0 E 0 0
2 ��mC.
LD (A
Exhibit C
Page of
r• ,
By John R. Neiswender, Principal Investigator
Washington State University
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004 1
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit
Rabe -- of
EXECUTNE SUMMARY
Seven years ago a retired Seattle firefighter was murdered by a man with a history of
violence and multiple psychiatric hospitalizations. In the midst of a psychotic episode, the
man committed the murder within two weeks after his release from jail on a misdemeanor
charge.
The incident galvanized the community and became the impetus for the formation of a
task force that studied how the mentally ill defendant was treated in the criminal ustice
system. One of the numerous recommendations of the task force was to establish and test
a pilot mental health court. The 18 -month study revealed that the program was feasible
for mentally ill misdemeanants and in February 1999, King County District Court Mental
Health Court held its first hearing.
Now five years old, the King County Mental Health Court (MHC) has seen significant
increases in its caseload, oftentimes doubling the number of clients seen from the
previous year. As one of the first mental health courts in the nation, King County Mental
Health Court has received a large number of accolades and much positive press coverage.
Citations in the USA Today, Honolulu -Star Bulletin, Christian Science Monitor, Seattle
Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have featured stories on King County
Mental Health Court. Furthermore, the Mental Health Court has been observed by a
number of national and international visitors who have considered replicating the court in
their own jurisdictions.
The goal of the King County Mental Health Court is to increase public safety and
humanely deal with individuals with mental disorders who enter the criminal justice
system. This court is committed to focusing resources, training, and expertise on the
unique needs of these individuals.
In the Mental Health Court, incarceration is the exception, not the rule.
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit C_
Page / of
■
King County's Mental Health Court works by offering misdemeanor defendants with
mental illnesses a single point of contact with the court system. During the process, the
defendant works with the court's dedicated team consisting of the judge, prosecutor,
public defenders, treatment court liaison, and probation officers.
Defendants may be referred to the Mental Health Court from a variety of different
sources. In -custody defendants are often referred by jail staff who have screened for
mental health issues. Defendants also may be referred for consideration by police,
attorneys, family members, advocacy groups, or probation officers. A defendant may be
judge feels the defendant could be better served by the Mental Health Court. In addition,
the Mental Health Court handles all cases in which competency is an issue for the District
Courts.
The Mental Health Court reserves the right to refuse cases into its jurisdiction if a person
does not meet eligibility criteria. Likewise, participation in the program is voluntary, as
} defendants may be asked to waive their rights to a trial on the merits of the case and enter
into a diversion or plea agreement, with a community-based treatment emphasis. The
exception, however, is that cases in which competency issues have been raised are always
eligible for transfer to Mental Health Court. If a person is treated and restored following a
competency proceeding they then have the right to decide whether to opt -in to the court.
The Court holds daily (Monday - Friday) first appearance hearings for defendants newly
booked into jail. The Court hears status and review hearings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays,
and Thursdays (in addition to those days' first appearance hearings).
A court liaison to the treatment community is present at all hearings and is responsible
for linking the defendant with appropriate services and for developing an initial treatment
plan with the treating agency.
Defendants participate in court ordered treatment plans and successful participation may
result in dismissed charges, early case closure, or reduced sentencing.
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit
Page _
C
!! of / q
Defendants are placed on probation and the case is assigned to a Mental Health Court
Mental Health Specialist Probation Officer. These probation officers have graduate
degrees in mental health and they carry substantially reduced caseloads in order to be
able to provide a more intensive level of supervision and expertise to this traditionally
high -needs population.
The purpose of this outcome evaluation is to report information showing the successes of
King County Mental Health Court. The data presented in this study show that the
program is compliant with meeting its goals as an organization, with respect to client and
an alternative to incarceration that not only is cost effective but that also significantly
reduces recidivism. Additionally, the study provides data on the nature of cases faced by
the court and on client approval data.
1. King County Mental Health Court significantly reduces recidivism
(a 75.9% decrease in the number of offenses committed).
j 2. King County Mental Health Court significantly reduces
incarceration rates (a 90.8% reduction in days spent in jail).
I King County Mental Health Court successfully provides a means
to significantly reduce the occurrence of violent criminal activity
among its participating defendants. Data indicate an 87.9%
decrease in the percentage of violent offenses committed by its
graduates.
4. The clients who graduated from the MHC had a 75.5% reduction in
criminal charges compared to the group who opted out of the
court.
5. The clients who graduated from the MHC had an 88.4% reduction in
jail days compared to the group who had opted out of the court.
6. The results of the preliminary findings of a client survey study,
unsolicited letters and praise, along with the absence of formal
complaints indicate that the King County Mental Health Court
exhibits a high level of customer and consumer satisfaction.
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit C
Page (Z, of t
FINDINGS
The focus of these findings is to report the successes of King County Mental Health
Court as it relates to recidivism, violence de-escalation and consumer satisfaction.
Recidivism has been defined for the purposes of this study to mean "reconviction" of the
mental health court graduate.
To determine the significance of these findings, the researcher compared the results of the
clients who opted in to the court (e.g., "graduates") versus a control group of clients who
chose not to participate in the MHC (e.g., "opt -outs,,).
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
GRADUATES
Incarceration Time (Days)
ONE YEAR DURING MENTAL ONE YEAR
BEFORE OPTING HEALTH COURT AFTER
IN GRADUATION
outcome Evaluation - February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
ONE YEAR BEFORE OPTING
IN
DURING MENTAL HEALTH
COURT
ONE YEAR AFTER
GRADUATION
:Exhibit (f -
Page
Page _ l 3 of 2 9
The above chart indicates not only a significant drop in the time of incarceration one
Year prior to opting in to King County Mental Health Court and the time
but also a continued drop one year after the client has graduated from K ngrogramCounty
Mental Health Court.
Reconviction:
i
6 9 1 "
O
The above chart indicates that over half of all graduates of King County Mental Health
Court were chronic recidivists prior to opting in to the program.
NUMBER OF OFFENSES ONE YEAR AFTER GRADUATING FROM
PROGRAM
The above chart indicates that over 75% of ging County Mental Health Court
graduates have not committed an offense one-year folloWn their
g graduation from
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit (f -
Page
Page i Y of
King County Mental Health Court. Over 85% committed only one offense or less one-
year following graduation from King County Mental Health Court
Besides success being measured in terms of reconviction, success of King County Mental
Health Court can also be seen in the reduction of jail time for those who have graduated
from King County Mental Health Court.
Jail Time:
Statistics
161't
Year Prior to
KCMHC
❑ Days in Jail Since
Opt -in
® Days in Jail One
Year After KCMHC
DAYS IN JAIL ONE YEARDAYS IN JAIL SINCE OPT4N
PRIOR
Mean 15.54
2.19
DAYS IN JAIL ONE
YEAR AFTER
1.80
The above table indicates that graduates averaged approximately IS days in jail one year
prior to opting in to King County Mental Health Court. Following their completion of
the King County Mental Health Court program, graduates spent less than two days in jail
- a reduction in jail time by 90.8%.
Moreover, success of King County Mental Health Court is being measured in terms of
de-escalation of new charges levied against King County Mental Health Court graduates
(if new charges were in fact levied). De-escalation here relates to graduates tending to
commit less violent offenses, if they commit any offenses at all.
Out0me Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit___GL_
Page 1SOflq
De-escalation:
"m;t-0:
PAST OFFENSE (VIOLENCE)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid NO 48 42.1 42.1 42.1
YES 66 57.9 57.9 100.0
Total 114 100.0 100.0
The above chart indicates that over half of King County Mental Health Court graduates
had committed violent offenses during some point prior to opting in to King County
Mental Health Court.
NEW OFFENSES (VIOLENCE)
No
93%
Frequency
Valid NO 106
YES 8
Total 114
Percent
Valid Percent
93.0
93.0
7.0
7.0
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
93.0
100.0
The above chart indicates that over 90% of King County Mental Health Court graduates
HAVE NOT committed a new, violent offense. This is a 8Z9% decrease in the
Percentage of violent offenses committed by King County Mental Health Court
graduates
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
8
Exhibit
Page 16' of --f—
OPT -OUTS
Figure 1: Control group
Incarceration Time (Days)
35 ........................... .
25
20
15
10
5
0
ONE YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEARS
BEFORE AFTER OPTING AFTER OPTING
OPTINGOUT OUT OUT
—+— ONE YEAR BEFORE OPTING
OUT
ONE YEARAFTER OPTING
OW
TWO YEARS AFTER
OPTING Our
The above chart indicates that there is no significant difference in incarceration
rates in the year before the defendants opted out compared to the years after
opting out of the MHC.
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
9
Exhibit G
Page — of l i
e
s a
Besides measuring client satisfaction in terms of unsolicited remarks, King County
Mental Health Court has also begun a more rigorous study of client appraisal.
Begun in
the late Fall of 2003, King County Mental Health Court has distributed a survey to
current and past clients in order to more objectively determine their thoughts towards the
program. The final version of this report is set to be completed by March 2004.
The survey that was distributed contains primarily objective questions regarding the
clients' level of satisfaction with King County Mental Health Court. In addition, open
ended questions were included to garner some of the client's more personal opinions and
feelings with respect to their participation in King County Mental Health Court. Those
comments include the following:
" When I first entered Mental Health Court, I did not want to be there, I didn't like it.
When I started to realize that they weren't there just to put me in jail, but to try to help
me, I started to turn my life around Now I have two jobs, I keep myself busy, and I'm
independent again, that's important to me. "
"I simply thank this program for the help I did receive."
"They didn't treat me as a "criminal ", it was a sympathetic process where people were
more concerned about me getting better than punishing my crime. "
Preliminary results from the client satisfaction survey reveal a strong level of support for
the MHC from its client participants. When asked their overall impression of the MHC,
61.5% found it to be Very Good and 38.5% rated it as Good. None of the respondents
were dissatisfied with the AMC. Over 92% maintained contact or reconnected with their
family members.
Over 90% felt that their life was better after their involvement with the MHC and 92.3%
would opt in to the court if given another chance.
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental. Health Court
Exhibit C
Page _L of t
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this outcome evaluation show that King County Mental Health Court
significantly reduces criminal activity. The MHC graduates displayed a 75.5% reduction
in the number of offenses committed and a 90.8% reduction in days spent in jail. When
compared to a control group of opt -outs, the MHC graduates displayed a 75.5% reduction
in criminal charges and an 88.4% reduction in jail days as a result of their involvement in
the MHC.
compliance with the goals of its mission statement. Furthermore, King County Mental
Health Court stands as one of the more effective programs of rehabilitation and crime
control that has been studied thus far in the field of public policy and criminal justice
science.
The researcher would like to thank Judge Mark C. Chow, MHC Program
Coordinator/Manager Fredese Whitsett, MHC Manager Karan Waterman, and the entire
King County Mental Health Court staff for their candor and input. Additionally, much
credit should go to Derrick Tomasa of Seattle University for his very hard data entry
work on this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Neiswender, ABD
Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice
Washington State University
Email: jneiswender@hotmail.com
Outcome Evaluation — February 2004
King County Mental Health Court
Exhibit C.
Page -?Of