Loading...
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