Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006-1063-Minutes for Meeting December 04,2006 Recorded 12/21/2006
DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS el X006'1063 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/21/2406 03;00;34 PM 111111111111111111111111111 II 11111 2006-1063 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , ~~K Es C G a Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.oriz MINUTES OF MEETING LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioners Bev Clarno,, Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke; Commissioner-elect Tammy Baney; Becky Wanless, Parole & Probation Department; Bend Police Chief Andy Jordan; County Administrator Dave Kanner; Sheriff Les Stiles; Bob Smit and Elaine Knobbs, KIDS Center; Chief Jim Soules, Redmond Police Department; Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police; and Rick Treleavan, Best Care Treatment Services; Bob LaCombe, Juvenile Community Justice Department. Also in attendance were Scott Johnson, Mental Health Department; Jacques DeKalb, Indigent Defense Attorney; Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children & Families; Roger Olson, Bob Marble and Pam Marble, representing NAME; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Lisa Marx, Courts; Jack Blum, citizen member; Mike Schmidt, Bend Chamber of Commerce; and Bob Warsaw, Oregon Youth Authority. Also present were media representatives Cindy Powers and Keith Chu of The Bulletin and Amy Aimsley of News Channel 21; no other citizens were present. 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 the November 6, 2006 Meeting. Becky Wanless moved approval; Jack Blum seconded. Approval was unanimous. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 1 of 9 Pages 3. Presentation of "Alternatives to Incarceration" Subcommittee Recommendations. Bev Clarno began the presentation with an overview of the members of the committee and the work they have accomplished thus far. She said Bob LaCombe reviewed and Deevy Holcomb compiled the information received. She then conducted a PowerPoint presentation. (A copy is attached as Exhibit C.) She added that the issue of viable funding brought a lot of discussion to the table, and agreement was not reached on what this should be. This will be addressed in the future with more input. At this time the Committee's report was addressed. (A copy is attached as Exhibit D.) Tammy Baney stated that several services are no longer available, and much is happening in the jails and in hospital emergency rooms at a great cost to taxpayers. Adult programs now in jeopardy are the Bridge program, the Mental Health Court program, Drug Court, the Bethlehem Inn and the Family Resource Center. Barriers to success often relate to inadequate housing and transportation. She explained the Juvenile system information, especially what was once available but since has been lost. There are potential losses relating to family therapy, early intervention, and parenting; these are evidence-based programs but funding will run out in the next year. Mike Schmidt said it became very clear that each group is doing a yeoman's job, given the resources and manpower available. These services cut across boundaries. There are a lot of touch-points, but there seems to be very little collaboration. The groups may be heavily dependent on each other but are not fully aware of the details of each group. The most important part of the continuum of services is consistency; each group should pull together quarterly, possibly under the County Administrator or an outside consultant. Communication needs to continue. Per page 7 of the report, there are many opportunities for improvement all levels; the actions of one group can impact the others. This is recommendation #1. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 2 of 9 Pages The second recommendation is to focus on the fundamentals first. There are four adult and three juvenile programs in jeopardy now. For instance the Drug Court program can save $2,329 in jail costs and $1,339 in future victimization costs. People should not be sent to prison to learn more about crime. Evidence based actions need to be utilized; if it works, it's needed. These are effective dollars. The third recommendation is to do what works. For safety reasons, there are offenders who need to be in jail. What needs to be known is what works best to reduce recidivism, with enough documentation showing that it is also cost- effective. Commissioner Clarno noted that it is apparent that there was a lot of interesting debate. It was very valuable having people from the private sector participating. The next steps are to adopt the recommendations; implement a system based on collaboration; and seek sustainable funding, especially for those programs that are in jeopardy. She added that LPSCC is a very dynamic group and can make important changes in the community. Judge Sullivan pointed out that LSPCC does not have authority over funding, but could adopt a recommendation to pass on to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Clarno replied that a systems collaboration committee, perhaps with the County Administrator providing oversight and staffing provided by the County, could look at sustainable options and make specific recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Judge Sullivan said that LPSCC members could look at this as representatives of various entities, and make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that they work with the committee and take appropriate action. Jack Blum stated that all LPSCC can do is advise. Ernie Mazorol stressed that to get it into the planning process, LPSCC should look at it one more time and then have it go to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Luke noted that most of the programs that have been eliminated or that are in jeopardy usually rely on federal or state funding. He asked if the committee is suggesting that the County provide funding in the future. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 3 of 9 Pages Commissioner Clarno stated that there are a lot of evidence-based programs that should be sustained, but those will have to be prioritized and others funded if possible. Commissioner Luke said that when the State considered budget cuts, they met with the Commission on Children & Families and other non-profit agencies. Budgets were cut substantially. All of the groups do good work, but some services overlap; and sometimes the boards of the various non-profits believe they can do it better. Mike Schmidt explained that is why a board of non-profits was formed to examine the situation. They all want to be able to account to the public that funds are being used as efficiently as possible. The group has identified ways the agencies can work together. There has been some talk of mergers, but most of the boards don't want to do that. The advisory committee will pursue this further. Commissioner Clarno said that some testimony was received from a group that said every County department and law enforcement group should get together to figure out how best to use their money. This is a huge step, with all of the individual departments' concerns. A lot of different options were discussed. Judge Sullivan asked how essential services as well as others that are good and others that are not as critical had been identified. He queried how the most essential were prioritized. Commissioner Clarno replied that you wouldn't try to prioritize your own agency or department; this advisory group would decide what is most urgent. This is very difficult, but is part of the collaborative process. Commissioner Luke asked who would establish the systems collaboration committee. Ms. Clarno stated that the thought was to have the County Administrator oversee and direct the group. Ernie Mazorol indicated that there needs to be some way to come up with broad policy direction from the group's work. The committee's findings would come back to LPSCC. Ms. Clarno said that it would be helpful to know that LPSCC wants this group to go forward with its work, and LPSCC could make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. She stressed that the goal of the committee is that this work not be shelved. It has potential to benefit the community long-term. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 4 of 9 Pages Dave Kanner asked whether he, as County Administrator, could delegate oversight to someone with more expertise. Judge Sullivan said that the committee would do the strategic planning, but it would be up to the Board of Commissioners to decide authority. Mr. Kanner indicated that running and coordinating a committee is an administrative function, and he would rather see someone who has the training and experience necessary to oversee this effort. He added that he could chair it, but does not have the expertise. Commissioner Clarno stated that they realize Mr. Kanner is busy, and a lot of discussion took place about this issue. Someone needs to make sure that it happens. Mr. Kanner added that the cities would derive a great benefit from this work and should be involved. Tammy Baney said that the committee needs to examine solutions. (A discussion then took place regarding detox facilities and how law enforcement deals with people on the street with substance abuse problems. Also discussed was possible expanded access to mental health court.) Judge Sullivan sated that it is his understanding that LPSCC would recommend that the Board of Commissioners set up a committee to do strategic planning, overseen by the County Administrator with these objectives in mind. Sheriff Stiles suggested that perhaps the County department heads should be included for goal setting purposes. Commissioner Clarno added that there is a great need for collaboration. Sheriff Stiles added that a set of goals and objectives regarding priority funding has not yet been fleshed out. Mr. Kanner noted that ultimately it would be the Board's call regarding prioritization. Scott Johnson said that there are some possible limitations, including time and the fact that most funding involves cities or other agencies. Commissioner Luke stated that he doesn't see a downside for LPSCC to make a recommendation. Commissioner Clarno indicated that one thing the group liked about the ongoing process was the input received from each. The group needs to get to the point where there is a lot more private sector input, especially in regard to housing and jobs. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 5 of 9 Pages Jack Blum stated that with all the work that has been done, how can LPSCC not support this and make a recommendation. BLUM: Move that the alternatives to incarceration program be recommended to the Commissioners and overseen by the County Administrator. SMIT: Second. A lengthy discussion then took place. Chief Jim Soules noted that the document will change regularly, but the group is asking for adoption of the concept. Judge Sullivan said the recommendations could come back through LPSCC, which could then recommend what and how things should be adopted. Commissioner Clarno agreed that it is a fluid document. Ernie Mazorol said that he echoes what has been said; the criminal justice system doesn't have boundaries. He knows the Court would want to be involved. Decisions could be made at all levels that affect each group. Commissioner Clarno added that the private sector needs to be included, as they are affected as well. Bob Smit noted that there are significant community issues, and these impact each entity in a different way. Chief Andy Jordan said that he and others have been on LPSCC for a long time, and one reason he attends is to learn what everyone else is doing. He is concerned that the group stay on task and not waste everyone's time. Bob Warsaw said that the message to the leaders at the table is to emphasize cooperation. Commissioner Daly noted that after the first of the year more will be known about funding from the State and Federal. Hillary Saraceno stated that she is encouraged by the involvement of the private sector, which is different than in the past. Sheriff Stiles praised the work being done by the group, but said he would abstain from voting. At best this would impact only about 4% of the total population in the criminal justice arena, as was stated in the OMNI report. But this doesn't mean the group shouldn't try to do something. He said he values the work but is concerned about what can actually be done. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 6 of 9 Pages Tammy Baney explained that the document is a beginning and not an end; not all information could be captured and contained in the document. This is an opportunity to broaden the scope and go forward. This needs to be established so that a continuum of services can be discussed. Judge Sullivan said that he envisions the group looking at the mental health crisis with prisoners. Sheriff Stiles stated that he would vote yes for it if a subcommittee could address pieces of it and in particular look at the mental health crisis in the jails. Ernie Mazorol stated that some programs are in jeopardy but the committee may determine others are more important at this time. This work will provide a chance to lay it all out. Judge Sullivan observed that it is his expectation that the mental health crisis will be addressed in this plan. Pam Marble said she hears the Sheriff loud and clear. Mental health needs to be a priority; this is a group of people who does not have a strong voice, and most don't realize they have a problem. This problem tears apart families and impacts communities. Sheriff Stiles stated that he doesn't want to belabor the issue, but has seen problems over the past six months that he hasn't seen before. Mental health problems are moving up the scale in frequency and severity, and it is a tragedy in the making. He said he feels this is almost at a crisis level. Tammy Baney said that the plan was to be established in July 2007 but some solutions could be addressed right away. Judge Sullivan noted that it is obvious that a lot of folks feel there is a mental health crisis. He asked the Sheriff if this would address his concerns. Sheriff Stiles replied he agrees, only if it would be addressed and won't get lost. Commissioner Daly asked if the mental health problems are manifested due to substance abuse. Sheriff Stiles replied that many prisoners have co-occurring problems. Meth abuse is still the number one problem, followed by alcohol. Many are self-medicating and are using street drugs. One of his primary concerns is recent violent confrontations with officers, and self-inflicted injuries in the jail. Judge Sullivan said that many of the cases on his docket involve mental health issues. Sheriff Stiles confirmed that these answers address his concerns. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 7 of 9 Pages Judge Sullivan stated that forced releases are going up; this is a crisis as well. Without the incentive of an empty bed, people don't comply. For instance, someone who was sentenced to six months was out of jail after nine hours. He said this committee should address this problem. Sheriff Stiles said that they would be able to stop matrixing with the addition of ninety beds, and can also bring back some of the programs. They will be able to outsource some services as well. In the long term, though, it is unknown how long this will keep them from having to matrix, since the growth rate is going up so quickly. Bob Warsaw noted that those with mental health problems don't do well in jail and need other services, while others that should be in jail get matrixed out. Judge Sullivan asked if anyone had other concerns to bring up. Being none, the group unanimously voted in favor of the committee going forward with the program as discussed. 4. Update (continued) regarding Dedicated Courthouse Parking for Law Enforcement Personnel & Emergency Vehicles. This will be discussed at a future date. 5. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, December 4). Scott Johnson said that he will be attending a meeting regarding the revamp of the Oregon State Hospital. This is a regional effort. He will advise LPSCC in January when the legislative session begins. The group congratulated Tammy Baney on her election to the Board of Commissioners. They also congratulated the Sheriff on the passage of the two district levies, which will have a long-term positive impact. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 8 of 9 Pages Respectfully submitted, &M~ 61ktA- Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign-in sheet (1 page) Exhibit B: Agenda (1 page) Exhibit C: PowerPoint presentation (4 pages) Exhibit D: Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee report on mental illness, addictions and the criminal/juvenile justice system (32 pages) Exhibit E: Demographic Snapshot: Offenders (1 page) Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 9 of 9 Pages ~`JT Ea C 0 z{ 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 MEETING AGENDA LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL 3:30 P.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend 1. Call to Order & Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes of Monday, November 6 Meeting 3. Presentation of "Alternatives to Incarceration" Subcommittee Recommendations - Bev Clarno, Jail Alternatives Subcommittee (30+ minutes) 4. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, January 8) Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. N z z 0 V , W 4 J L1. v c 0 m 0 Y C L N L co N 0.. W O ~ N L lz~ J E C WWW Q) v Q) oj Q) Q) , J p 1\ ` ~ J J L- ti F d C Cv Q) J co ~ vU n CY y 1~ 4 ; d , -8 z z v W v , Q W J a O N d' L Q) G C C ~ cu i co C *,nI v V 00 c c v v aj EE V a m Z -Ac ~ N 1 0 4= m ai 'c c 0 m L 7 L N Q) CL LPSCC Alternatives Subcommittee Report December 4, 2006 Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report to LPSCC Committee Charge Prioritize key services and programs that: • Promote public safety and personal accountability; • Treat and assist special populations in contact with the criminal justice system; • Reduce recidivism; and • Identify viable funding. Acknowledgement 40 hours information gathering June to December 06 11 agency, business and community leaders from - Bend Chamber of Commerce - Circuit Court - City of Redmond - Commission on Children and Families - District Attorney - Juvenile Community Justice - Mental Health - Nat'l Alliance for the Mentally III - Parole / Probation ■ ti 3 • Testimony from 15 local and state experts 12/4/06 1 LPSCC Alternatives Subcommittee Report Overview • 17 Recommendations in Report - System Collaboration - Prevention / Juvenile Community Justice - Pre-booking Diversion - Sentencing/ Adjudication Options - In-Custody - Re-entry • Presentation focus - Systems / Services Maps - Top Three Recommendations , Adult System Map bs ;s..m N, ~ tD ........ems Client Arrest/ Incarceration Re- Other Diversion Entry o,i, i.n<airn_ sn~;i ~ Feu niP j ~musinR • - Pr - - - a 7~ Barr~^rw* K,nFCess T.T I ~Programx In ifOPeRDrI Neigneor Y>5e"c 300] to Current Resources Lost Juvenile System Ma _~,oP 1 GuncTM1eraPY m Y enael~ foNaY+,~ n„""N" - N ~ka, [ A6 o Client e 1 1 Prevention / Probation I O LV"Detention State ~ t5 n Diversion ;Court Services Re-Entry Supervisr eus,n"y .m a= ~ qP 11-R "t [ TER >dp,e.r. ALERT i e", ee e, R"nl i Proora n i Evi Se,vicev s<d (eramPF R Beal ■ i .G 12/4/06 2 ■ LPSCC Alternatives Subcommittee Report Recommendations 1. Improve System Collaboration 2. Fundamentals First 3. Do What Works 1. Improve System Collaboration • Problem cuts across traditional boundaries • Vertical and horizontal integration needed: - Planning and Goal Setting - Budgeting - Implementing - Monitoring - Improvement • Through county-supported and staffed entity 2. Fundamentals First • Four adult programs, three juvenile crime prevention programs in jeopardy • All researched, evidence-based and/or cost-effective means to prevent, reduce crime 12/4/06 3 LPSCC Alternatives Subcommittee Report 3. Do What Works 12 Safety: adequate capacity to contain dangerous offenders vital ❑Recidivism: adopt and prioritize programs that work to end cycle of offending ❑Cost-effective: adopt and prioritize programs that use tax-dollars wisely Next Steps 1. Adopt recommendations 2. Implement System Collaboration structure July 2007 3. Sustainable funding for programs in jeopardy FY 07/08 12/4/06 4 Alternatives to incarceration Subcommittee Mental illness, addictions and the criminal / juvenile justice system y+► sa i '4 Report to Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 H. Introduction 3 A. Background / Committee Charge B. Values and Principles C. Acknowledgement D. Subcommittee Findings III. Summary of Evidence Based Practices 8 IV. Recommendations 10 V. Resources 27 VI. Citations 29 Appendix A. Data Examined 2001-2005 B. Juvenile Justice Systems Map C. Adult Criminal Justice System Map Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Committee Report December 2006 I. Executive Summary People living in Deschutes County with mental illness and chemical addictions comprise a growing percentage of criminal offenders under the supervision or incarceration of public safety agencies. • Last year, the jail reported 25% of inmates as having a mental illness'. • The percent of inmates with a psychiatric medication prescription jumped 57% between 2005 and 2006, with a corresponding 154% increase in psychiatric medical costs incurred by the jailz. • Adult Parole and Probation reports that approximately 85% of offenders under supervision are challenged by addictions3. • Nearly 90% of juvenile offenders with primarily felony property offense histories admitted to a long-term, secure treatment program since 2003 have a chemical dependency diagnosis. More than half of those youth had a mental health diagnosis as well4. This report focuses on foundational strategies for immediate and medium-term implementation based on evidence about the problem we gathered in the summer and fall of 2006. We hope they facilitate a philosophy, method and continuous feedback loop for an ongoing and effective response to a serious, multidimensional community crisis. There is an entire class of offenders who offend primarily because of a chemical addiction and will likely not stop offending unless the addiction is addressed. Testimony from Circuit Court Judge Michael Adler or funded to appropriately address their criminogenic or treatment needs. The various "arms" of the criminal justice system tend to operate more like independent entities instead of inextricably connected points on a continuum through which most offenders pass. An increase of specialized medical and treatment needs along with public safety and accountability demands further exacerbates the situation by adding to the mix agencies not traditionally considered part of the public safety continuum - mental health, health, treatment, etc. Almost all those who testified urged us to "do what works": • Effectively treat and support people with addictions or mental illness so they can be effective in community life. • Do what works with offenders to reduce re- offending and victimization. • Do what works for the taxpayer's pocketbook. • Fund prevention and intervention with at-risk individuals before an arrest is made. The majority of experts who gave testimony to this committee (see page 4) shared three broad areas of concern. Dwindling public resources for appropriate, affordable, community-based treatment for mental illness and addictions have corresponded with a dramatic increase in the general population, and an increase in people with mental illness and/or addictions in a criminal justice system ill-prepared 12005 Oregon OMHAS Jail Survey. 2 2004-06 Aggregate Jail Medical data. Ruth Jenkin. 3 Becky Wanless August 2006. 4 Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice Wellspring Annual Report March 2006. A philosophy, method and continuous feedback loop is needed for an ongoing and effective response to this serious, multidimensional community crisis. Final 2 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Based on this information and our charge, this report contains recommendations for improvement on each point in the justice continuum, including early intervention and prevention. Recommendations are summarized in Table 1 below. Two are highlighted here. 1. We recommend immediate improvement of system collaboration among public safety and treatment agencies and between these agencies and community and business leaders. We recommend immediate formation of a formal, Deschutes County staff-supported structure whereby Deschutes County public safety and treatment agencies jointly create, implement, monitor and troubleshoot multi-disciplinary policies and practices aimed at cost- and outcome- effective practices with offenders who demonstrate chemical addiction and/or mental illness. This includes joint strategic planning, joint goal-based budgeting recommendations among Deschutes County agencies and ultimate oversight by the Deschutes County Administrator. This structure will work in partnership and support of the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. See pages 9-11 for more detail. 2. "Fundamentals first" - We recommend prioritizing support to statutory and existing evidence-based program obligations before taking on further program development. These include shoring up sustainable funding for four important programs either currently on a shoe- string budget, or solely dependent on grant funding: • Jail Bridge Program (p. 23) • Mental Health Court (p. 19) • Family Drug Court (p. 20) • Transitional Housing for Offenders (p. 24) A number of anchor juvenile crime prevention efforts also face future uncertainty in public funding. All evidence-based, cost-effective and showing strong results, they are an integral part of the continuum of services to ensure a healthy, safe community (p.13): First Step to Success (early child behavior support) Family Trax (parent skills training) Home-visiting to newborns in at-risk families Table 1. Alternatives to Incarceration - Summary of Prioritized Recommendations Priority System Prevention Pre-Booking Sentencing / In-Custody Re-entry Ranking Collaboration Diversion Adjudication #1 Staff supported Community, Annual Crisis' Mental Health Earle, multi- Jail Bridge county oversight / evidence-based Intervention Court (p.101) di~ciplin.m, Program (p.23) planning structure juvenile crime Training with area tram (p.10) prevention Law Enforcement management of programs (p.13) (p.16) inmate ith addiction (p.22) #2 Comprehensive, Programs that Detox Bed Family Drug Transitional integrated public address root of expansion (p. 17) Court (p.20) - Housing (p.24) safety budget juvenile analysis ( .11) offending (.14) #3 Uniform, early risk - Dual-diagnosis Pre-Trial Release Expand SAB release needs assessment treatment for Monitoring Electronic criteria and (p.12) across juveniles (p.15) Program (p.18) Monitoring and process (p.25) departments Day Reporting (p.21) #4 Employment support (p.26) Final 3 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 II. Introduction A. Background / Subcommittee Charge The Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) for Deschutes County recognizes that a continuum of services, programs and facilities is essential in order to deal effectively with those individuals who come into contact with law enforcement and may be booked into jail and/or sentenced to a term of local incarceration. In spring 2006, the LPSCC requested that key stakeholders convene a focused, time-bound committee to identify and prioritize a list of key services and programs that: • Promote public safety and personal accountability; • Treat and assist special populations in contact with the criminal justice system; • Reduce recidivism; and • Identify viable funding. The Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee identified key services and programs to be developed in the following categories: 1. System Collaboration 2. Prevention (Juvenile) and Pre-Booking Diversion 3. Sentencing / Adjudication Options 4. In-custody Services 5. Release/Re-entry The following agency and business representatives participated in the Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee and the drafting of this report, under the leadership of Bev Clarno, Deschutes County Commissioner: • Becky Wanless, Director, Parole and Probation • Bob Lacombe, Acting Director, Juvenile Community Justice • Charity Hobold, Supervisor, Parole and Probation • Deevy Holcomb, Staff to Subcommittee (Juvenile Community Justice) • Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator, Circuit Court • Mary Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney's Office • Mike Patterson, Manager, City of Redmond • Mike Schmidt, CEO, Bend Chamber of Commerce • Roger Olson, Chair, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill - Deschutes County Chapter • Ruth Jenkin, Sheriff's Office, Deschutes County • Scott Johnson, Director, Mental Health • Tammy Baney, Chairperson, Commission on Children and Families Final 4 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 B. Values and Principles The Alternatives Subcommittee utilized the following value and principles in discussing and formulating its recommendations. Public Safety - Incarceration is an appropriate and necessary immediate public safety response to those who commit offenses that endanger the community and others. Adequate capacity to secure the public and hold offenders accountable is fundamental to alternative programs work. The community is also interested in the prevention of future crime. Community-based services that address root and correlating causes of criminal behavior in a risk-driven manner have been shown to be more cost effective and at least as effective in reducing recidivism, than prison and jail terms. Seamless Continuum - The committee values the creation and sustaining of a seamless continuum of services and supports related to mental illness and addictions, as well as public safety. The committee has examined existing programs and gaps within each identified area of this continuum: prevention, pre-booking / diversion, sentencing and adjudication, in-custody and re-entry. Each point on the continuum relates to the others. There are identified evidence-based practices within each point. Adequate capacity in each area is important if we are to effectively address the intersection of mental illness, chemical addiction and criminality. Collaboration - Deschutes County has a strong history of public and private agency collaboration to advance the greater good. The distinct duties required by public safety partners historically make collaboration difficult between and among public and private / community entities. The committee values a coordinated and, where possible, uniform approach to identifying, managing and treating offenders at all levels within the system. We believe in an open and reciprocal relationship between community members and public agencies. We hope these recommendations strengthen solution-oriented collaboration between public safety agencies and community and business leaders to address current and future community safety. Doing What Works - There is a strong commitment among organizations and jurisdictions in this community to work towards provision and access to services that are effective and either very promising or documented to be evidence-based. Evidence suggests that an increase in numerical jail capacity does not by itself reduce recidivism. We strongly recommend that any expansion of jail facilities based on the adopted OMNI report of 2005 must be balanced by incorporation and expansion of programs, services and treatment options that offer strong cost and/or outcome effectiveness with offender populations. Accountability - Change of any kind can be hard to both predict and measure once its taken place. As the OMNI Report (2005) says, though alternative programs "make logical and fiscal sense, programs which have presented themselves as alternatives in the past, in numerous jurisdictions, have often been disappointing.115 We strongly urge Deschutes County and the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) oversight on any recommendations adopted from this Report, that evidence-based programs are implemented with clearly stated short and long term goals and objectives, and that programs regularly measure and report back on progress made and make changes where necessary along the path towards cost and outcome effectiveness. Social and Economic Context - Employment that supports safe and stable housing is a minimum requirement for stability in the lives of offenders, particularly those with mental illness and/or chemical dependency. The Subcommittee recognizes these pressures and encourages the LPSCC to consider and address with the community their relationship to criminality. 5 Omni-Group, INC - KMD Justice. 2005. Correctional Needs Assessment - Deschutes County Final 5 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 C. Acknowledgement The Subcommittee thanks the following experts and professionals who took the time to give testimony and information during the summer and fall of 2006. • Amber Clegg, Deschutes Cty Mental Health Court • Camille Morgan, Bend Police Department • Colin Taylor, BestCare Treatment Services • David Kanner, Deschutes County Administrator • Gary Danielle, Employment Department • Gary Smith, Deschutes Cty Comm. on Children and Fam. • Jeffery Davis, Oregon Partners in Crisis • Judge Alta Brady, Deschutes County Family Drug Court • Judge Michael Adler, Deschutes County Circuit Court • Julianne Fouts, Mental Health Specialist, Jail • Kara Cronin, Deschutes County Bridge Program • Pat Nichols, Deschutes County Mental Health • Pat Tabor, Deschutes County Probation Officer • Patrick Treleaven, BestCare Treatment Services • Richard Gorby, State Veterans Svcs/Employment Dept Final 6 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 D. Findings In addition to the testimony of those individuals listed on page six, we consulted dozens of publications and research documents concerning local, state and national trends and issues in finding effective alternatives to incarceration for people with mental illness and/or addictions. Based on this information, we make the following findings: Data on what works insufficient: There is a strong community commitment to provide access to services that are cost-effective and documented to be either very promising or evidence-based. Yet, in examining existing and needed programming, we have not found an adequate level of documentation regarding target populations' characteristics, needs or program success rates because this administrative function is continually de-prioritized when operating programs on minimum funding levels. System collaboration needs improvement: There is opportunity for improvement in coordination and collaboration at all levels of the public safety system, including understanding how the actions of one impact the others. From the effect new police officers or sentencing guidelines has on jail capacity, to misunderstandings in policy or definitions that have an impact on the smooth management of offenders as they move from one status to the other, it is crucial that stakeholders, in partnership with members of the community, regularly meet to trouble-shoot, innovate, solve problems and hold each other accountable. Public / private partnerships key: The current employee shortage in the community highlights the need and opportunity for business leaders to join and be welcomed into the conversation around improving outcomes for offenders in the community. Key programs in jeopardy: Four existing programs that have served adult offenders in our community effectively, are either operating on a shoestring or solely de endant on grant funding: The Bridge Public funding is threatened for three anchor, evidence-based juvenile crime prevention programs in the next fiscal year. It is imperative to find sustainable funding for these programs. p Program, Mental Health Court and Family Drug Court. The Transitional Housing space currently occupying a portion of the Work-Release Center will lose space in March 2007 when that program re-opens. Three anchor juvenile crime prevention efforts in the county face threatened public funds in the next fiscal year. It is imperative that we find sustainable funding for existing levels of service in these programs as a first step in creating a healthy continuum of appropriate services for at-risk and vulnerable populations in the community. Need to act now: At the time of this writing, at least three years will pass before more jail space becomes available. The rising number of inmates who are being released early due to overcrowding indicates the immediate need to move on sustaining and expanding services to offenders in the community. Evidence-based programs unfunded mandate: There have been historical and recent insufficient levels of resources prioritized locally and at state level to adequately develop evidence-based programs. Based on past practice, realignment of existing resources to address these needs will be a serious but necessary challenge. Final 7 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 III. Summary of Evidence Based Practices Until recently, the criminal justice field has suffered from a lack of research that identified proven methods of reducing offender recidivism. Recent research indicates no single program clearly stands out as the most effective for reducing recidivism for all offenders, there is a set of principles that characterize the most effective correctional interventions and can reliably produce sustained reductions in recidivism. Evidence-based practices are a significant trend through all human service fields that emphasize the importance of outcomes. Evidence-based Practices: Techniques or programs shown through rigorous scientific study to effectively meet desired outcomes, such as reduction in recidivism. This committee has also heard that an examination of cost effectiveness is useful when reviewing a program or approach. This is particularly important because many evidence-based programs are much more expensive to operate than "status quo" programming. In other words, if two programs have similar recidivism outcomes, it is worthwhile and in the public interest to select use of the more cost effective model. Likewise, not all public safety practices target recidivism as their primary aim, but instead focus on containment of offenders who threaten the safety of others. Even in this area, cost-effectiveness is an important factor to examine, as there are a number of ways along the cost continuum to effectively contain an offender: home arrest; electronic monitoring; day reporting, incarceration, etc. Cost-effective Practices: Techniques or programs that produce equitable or better desired outcomes with more efficient use of resources. Finally, research about evidence-based practices is a dynamic process. A program shown effective may, over time and further study, prove to not be so and vice versa. "Promising practices" are those which contain elements of evidence-based practices, or which are showing positive results without the benefit of rigorous, scientific study and replication and are important to support, albeit with strict monitoring. It is crucial for public agencies to dedicate time and resources to the continual monitoring of research and outcomes in the field of public safety, both in local implementation and rigorous academic research. This committee amassed knowledge about evidence-based practices and programs for offenders with mental illness or addictions, as well as cost-effective practices and programs for the same population. Table 2 below summarizes our findings. While not an exhaustive list of available researched programs, we recommend using the table as a dynamic guide to remain focused on "what works". "Fidelity", implementing an evidence-based program correctly, is essential. Evidence-based practices delivered incorrectly can actually increase recidivism. Final 8 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Table 2. Summary of select Evidence-based and/ or Cost-effective Practices for Offenders with Mental Illness and/or Chemical Dependency System Sentencing / Area System Prevention Pre-Booking Adjudication In-Custody Re-entry Collaboration Diversion Options Evidence- Botvin's Life "Drug Court; In-prison *Drug Based Skills; therapeutic treatment in Practices Strengthening communities the Families parent w/ aftercare, community9 education drug treatment curricula; and cognitive- Functional Functional Family behavioral Family Therapy; drug treatment Therapy; Multisystemic in jail; M Ultisystemic Therapy' Vr,catior:al Ld Therapy1D in jail`; Promising "System-wide *Crisis *Mental Health Therapeutic Practices collaboration, Intervention Court Community particularly Training12 programs for between Mental Mentally Ill Health/Treatment Offenderst3 and Law Enforcement" Cost Jail Diversion *Electronic Short jail Effective for offenders Monitoring; Day sanctions16 Practices with co- Reporting'-' occurring disorders14 NOTE: Italicized programs are currently in operation in Deschutes County. Asterisked programs recommended in this re ort. On Drug Courts ...One definitive evaluation study of drug courts estimated the average investment per participant was $5,928. Savings were $2,329 in avoided costs and $1,301 in future victimization costs over a 30- month period. More than two-thirds of participants who begin treatment through a Drug Court program complete, a six-fold increase compared with programs outside the justice system.17 On Mental Health Courts... Involvement in Mental Health Court predicted statistically significant decreased in re-arrests and severity of re-arrests compared to traditional criminal justice involvement. The "fuller" the dose of Mental Health Court, the better the results.18 6 Blueprints for Violence Prevention, University of Colorado; Surgeon General's Report on Violence Prevention 7 Evidence-based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Doesn't. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. January 2006 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Blueprints for Violence Prevention, University of Colorado; Surgeon General's Report on Violence Prevention 11 Council of State Governments Consensus Project on Criminal Justice and Mental Health. http://consensusproject.org/ and Davis, J. cement 12 Ibid 13. Evidence-based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Doesn't. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. January 2006 14 Ibid 15 Evidence-based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Doesn't. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. January 2006; Oregon Department of Corrections. September 5, 2002. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Sanctions in Reducing Recidivism. 16 Oregon Department of Corrections. September 5, 2002. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Sanctions in Reducing Recidivism. 17 National Institute of Justice. June 2006. Drug Courts: The Second Decade. 18 Marlee E. Moore and Virginia Aldige Hiday. Journal of Law and Human Behavior. "Mental Health Court Outcomes: A Comparison of Re- Arrest and Re-Arrest Severity Between Mental Health Court and Traditional Court Participants." V30:6. December 2006. Final 9 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 IV. Recommendations A. System Collaboration Priority One: Implement a formal structure within Deschutes County and advisory of the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) tasked with oversight, monitoring and reporting on common public safety system goals and efforts. Current Practice Per ORS 423.560, the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) is the statutory venue in which agencies responsible for public safety convene to discuss issues that affect each arm of the system. LPSCC meets once per month without dedicated staff support, other than secretarial functions donated by Deschutes County. The Problem Historically there has been a lack of coordination between the agencies and departments responsible for public safety, such as law enforcement and prosecution, and agencies and organizations dedicated to providing public health services. The result is a disjointed and ineffective approach to reducing recidivism among people with mental illness or addictions appearing at alarming rates in the criminal justice system. Evidence Effective, regular system collaboration involving law enforcement and treatment agencies is cited nationwide as the single most important element determining the effective management of mentally ill and people with substance addictions in the criminal justice system.19 Much progress can be made by regular troubleshooting, communication and solution building, including development of new resources, re- allocation of existing resources and trust-building between entities responsible for different aspects of public safety. Recommendation Immediate (By July 1, 2007) formation of a formal, Deschutes County, staff-supported structure whereby Deschutes County public safety, treatment and prevention agencies jointly create, implement, monitor and troubleshoot multi-disciplinary policies and practices aimed at cost- and outcome-effective practices. This includes joint strategic planning, goal-based budgeting recommendations among Deschutes County agencies and ultimate oversight by the County Administrator. This structure will work in partnership and of the LPSCC. Represented will be: • Mental health • Law enforcement • Court • Juvenile justice • Corrections • Prosecution • Treatment agencies • Communitv and business leaders 19 See Council of State Governments Consensus Project on Criminal Justice and Mental Health. http://consensusproject.org/ and Davis, J. Oregon Partners in Crisis (OrPIC) 2006 Priority Recommendations. Final 10 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 System Collaboration/Priority Two: Annual Comprehensive Analysis of Public Safety Expenditures across departments Current Practice Currently each agency involved in public safety is individually responsible for prioritizing, budgeting and reporting on resource allocation at an agency level. Public safety agencies in the county operate under a number of different governing bodies and funding sources. The Problem Public safety resources come from a variety of sources, making holistic analysis of public safety expenditure difficult. Evidence See above Priority One evidence note. Recommendation Deschutes County Administrator, through the collaborative structure in Priority One shall convene an annual meeting of public safety agencies to develop common budget goals that include developing/sustaining effective, research-based programs and protocols aimed at avoiding unnecessary incarceration and reducing recidivism among people with mental illness and/or addictions. Deschutes County should consider imposition of a "One Percent" principle: each agency dedicates at least one percent of its annual budget on evidence-based programs that utilize cost- effective measures to reduce inappropriate incarceration and recidivism. This set spending formula would promote sustainability of alternatives programs by providing an identifiable and secure fund source and insulate them from changes in leadership and agency direction. Cost One percent of the estimated 2006/07 Deschutes County approved public safety budgets (Adult Parole and Probation, Juvenile Community Justice, District Attorney, Deschutes County Sheriff) of $35 million total equals approximately $350,000. Final 11 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 System Collaboration/Priority Three: Uniform, early risk / needs assessment integrated through all levels of the public safety system Current Practice Law enforcement, corrections, prosecution, and the courts do not use or share assessment information unless it is generated within their own agency. Rules of confidentiality often prevent relevant information being shared between these members as offenders move through different phases of the criminal justice system. The Problem This approach blurs the real risks and needs of offenders that can be described by a number of scientifically validated risk assessments currently available. When different vocabulary and assessments are used, it compromises the success of changing offenders' behavior and addressing the issues that may be contributing to criminal behavior and the risks presented to the community by the offender. Evidence A principle of evidence-based correctional practices is the accurate assessment, intervention based on assessment, and continual re-assessment of offender's criminogenic (contributing to crime) risk, protective and need characteristics.20 The more that public safety partners can appropriately share these characteristics as an offender moves throughout the system, the better chance that appropriate strategies will be employed to reduce incarceration and recidivism. Recommendation Structure identified in Priority One identify and implement a uniform needs / assessment protocol to identify appropriate candidates for alternative to incarceration programs. System members have to agree upon and have confidence in who participates and that participation promotes public safety. A risk assessment tool that will meet the needs of all of the system members needs to be identified and accepted. Public safety and offender accountability are best reached through incarceration for many offenders. Using jail beds for an offender with an addiction or mental health issue as the cause of criminal behavior is not an effective use of resources; the priority is identifying as early as possible the category in which offenders fit. Cost N/A, unless the identified tool comes with a copyright or usage fee. Minimal costs for paper copying and processing. 20 Latessa, E. 2002. "Beyond Correctional Quackery - Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment." Federal Probation. V66:2 and Redding, R. 2000. "Characteristics of Effective Treatments and Intervention for Juvenile Offenders." juvenile Forensic Evaluation Resource Center. Final 12 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 B. Prevention Priority One: Sustain anchor, evidence-based juvenile crime prevention programs currently in operation: • First Step to Success • Family Trax • ReadySetGo home-visiting to parole/probation families Current Practice As a result of intensive community planning in the late 1990's, Deschutes County has supported and funded since 1998 three evidence-based juvenile crime prevention programs: First Step to Success, offering family, school and child support for kindergarteners with behavior problems; Family Trax, offering a menu of parent skills training curricula across the county and ReadySetGo home-visiting to parole/probation families with newborns. The Problem County funding for these programs comes through state formula juvenile crime dollars that the Juvenile Community Justice department and Commission on Children and Families successfully petition use for early intervention and remaining funds from the former Community Youth Investment Program (CYIP). The CYIP portion of funding ends in fiscal year 2007/08 and the remaining state formula amounts will not sustain current levels of funding. Evidence The three programs are among the first evidence-based juvenile crime programs to be implemented in this region and continue to show strong results. First Step is an evidence-based program under the Hamilton Fish Institute (school violence research agency) and was recently awarded a five-year replication study from the federal Department of Education. Family Trax utilizes Surgeon General and Blueprints/University of Colorado approved evidence-based curricula and ReadySetGo has adapted the David Olds home visiting model also appearing on the Blueprints for Violence Prevention model programs list. Recommendation Support community-wide and public safety agency prioritization of these evidence-based, cost effective programs operating for nearly 10 years in the community. Cost Current funding levels: • First Step to Success: $64,000; • Family Trax: $66,000; • ReadySetGo: $ 79,000 Final 13 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Prevention/Priority Two: Address root and systemic causes and correlatives of offending by moderate and high risk youth in the juvenile justice system. Current Practice The juvenile justice system tends to focus solely on youth behavior due to legal and other constraints. Finding funding, practitioners, curricula or program designs that work with family and other systemic areas of life is difficult and has not been done in the community until recently, with fall 2006 awarding of a state grant to juvenile community justice to implement Functional Family Therapy, a Level 1 (Proven) Blueprints and Surgeon General juvenile crime prevention program. The Problem Many of the dynamic (changeable) risk factors of juvenile offenders relate to the relational and social systems in which they participate - peers and family. These are the areas in which intervention need to occur in order to affect the biggest chance of change. They are also the most entrenched and hardest to intervene in a youth/family's life as they require a treatment and accountability model not often joined in the justice / public safety system. Evidence Evidence suggests working with moderate and high risk offenders who are assessed using validated risk assessments, in behavior areas that research suggests will actually effect change in the youth's lives. Among the most extensively studied interventions of high-risk or already involved youth are family and multi-systemic approaches like Functional Family Therapy, Multi-systemic Therapy or Multi- Dimensional Treatment Foster Care. Recommendation Support implementation of Functional Family Therapy in the 2006-08 two-year grant period and, if evidence suggests similar outcomes as national outcomes, support long-term and institutionalized funding for high-risk youth in the community. Cost Approximately $270,000 first year; $200,000 subsequent years Final 14 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Prevention/Priority Three: Increase community capacity to treat dual-diagnosis juveniles Current Practice There are no community or public agencies offering residential treatment for youth dual diagnosed with chemical dependency and mental illness. Further, there are no local agencies serving these youth on Oregon Heath Plan with outpatient services. The Problem Youth with dual diagnoses in this community are required to leave the area for residential treatment. Youth with limited resources have no outpatient treatment options whatsoever. As a result, youth often wait long periods, sometimes in detention, for a place in a publicly funded agency, or go untreated in the community, where they continue to self-medicate and/or abuse substances, which can lead to behavior deterioration and detention placement without the treatment that is required for true recovery. Evidence Dual diagnosis youth require treatment of both conditions in order to have a chance at short or long term recovery and life in the community. Treatment programs need to identify and treat the specific dependencies and mental health conditions with trained and qualified staff. Recommendation Support local program and agency development to treat dual diagnosis youth in residential mental health settings, not in detention / criminal proceedings. Cost Approximately $50,000 annual cost per youth or $135 per day/per youth. Final 15 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 E. Pre-Booking Diversion Priority One: Implement Annual Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) Current Practice CIT is a preventative public safety training program to help police officers work effectively with people with mental illness. It was developed by law enforcement, families and mental health professionals to train first responders on how to recognize and respond to the symptoms of mental illness. The curriculum is adapted to a local community and also helps law enforcement officers become familiar with community resources and services for people with mental illness and addiction issues. CIT is not currently available in Deschutes County. It is usually developed jointly by local law enforcement agencies, a local National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) chapter and County Mental Health. The Problem Lack of an understanding of the symptoms and behaviors associated with mental illnesses and addictions can make it difficult to effectively manage a situation and determine the most appropriate action. Lack of training can exacerbate the problem, increase personal harm, lead to unnecessary incarceration and prevent the use of more effective behavior management and treatment options. Operationalizing CIT is inherently challenging, particularly if an effort is made to train all street officers within an agency. Recently CIT experts have been working on a shorter version (8-12 hours) of the standard 40-hour CIT training. Jurisdictions must make a choice on the time, scope and depth of the CIT training for their officers. Evidence CIT was first developed in Memphis, Tennessee in 1987. It has proven to be very helpful to deal effectively with people with mental illness, increase trust between police and family members, strengthen the relationship between the criminal justice and mental health systems and reduce liability for police agencies. Training can prevent violence and danger to the officer. It can make effective use of medical facilities, resulting in fewer injuries and criminal arrests. There are currently 254 CIT trained officers in Oregon. Eighteen jurisdictions are using CIT. zi Recommendation 1. Convene a work group to develop a local CIT Training program with leadership from local law enforcement and support from NAMI of Central Oregon (family members), consumer representatives, county Mental Health and Cascade Healthcare community. 2. Ask all law enforcement agencies in Deschutes County to commit to full participation, beginning with the first trainings by June 2007. Certify all officers as CIT trained by December 2008. 3. Develop method and budget for annual CIT training by 2009. Cost Cost of the training (excluding officer hourly costs) are estimated at $1,000 per 8- hour training session of 25 participants. 21 Officer Paul Ware, full time Crisis Intervention Trainer for the Portland Police Bureau. Final 16 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Pre-Booking Diversion/Priority Two: Expand Detoxification Bed Accessibility Current Practice BestCare Treatment Services operates four de-tox beds at its Redmond Residential facility. The Redmond St. Charles hospital has priority access to the beds, as it owns the property and is nearby. Redmond Police use it the next most frequently. Bend PD and Sheriff do not generally access the beds. There is very limited availability, in addition to the low number of beds because it is the staging area for residential placements, and is also contingent on the gender of occupants. BestCare currently loses approximately $100,000 per year on operation of these beds (they are funded at $50 per bed-day from a combination of OMHAS funds and the county's portion of Oregon Beer and Wine Tax. The rate has not increased since the mid 1980's and is about 50% of real cost). The Problem De-tox is not a treatment end in and of itself, but it allows outreach and access to a population that is likely to be using a high degree of public resources in other ways (hospital emergency rooms, jail, etc) and can act as a jail alternatives if police on the street are aware, educated, and if there are beds available. Evidence See above. Recommendation Fund 10 beds at $100 per day to ensure space availability. Educate area police officers about its use and benefit. Cost $365,000 annually at $100 per bed-day at 10 beds available. Approximately $146,000 exists through OMHAS and Oregon Beer/Wine Tax for a total new resource need of $219,000 Final 17 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Pre-booking and Diversion/Priority Three: Create Pre-Trial Release Monitoring program. Current Practice When defendants are confined to jail prior to adjudication, pre trial release provisions are under the Court's authority. By court order, jail staff may only release eligible pre adjudicated defendants who are booked on class C felonies and below. The remaining inmates are either released by the judge or the court's release assistance officer. Whenever pre trial release occurs, conditions are placed on defendants to protect the public and ensure attendance at future court dates. Currently, pre trial release conditions are not monitored by court staff. When informed, the district attorney's office brings violations of release conditions to the Court's attention. The Problem The Court employs one pre trial release officer who was hired in 1986. Since then, the county's jail population has grown five fold, from 42 to 220 beds. Based on a recent jail study, it was determined that 700 beds are needed by 2010 and 980 beds by 2020. Plans are underway to fund an expanded jail facility to accommodate the above populations. Evidence Tight time lines exist when defendants are booked in jail for criminal charges. The Court must arraign defendants within a few days and conduct trials within a couple of months. These time lines are more relaxed when defendants are released pre trial. If defendants do not pose a public safety threat, Pre-trial Release saves jail bed space, ensuring that sentenced defendants serve their entire sentence. Recommendation Obtain state general funds to increase the court's pre trial release program by 2.0 FTE. One position is needed to conduct inmate and third party interviews, attend court, prepare release reports and testify. The other position would monitor pre trial release conditions on the most serious offenses and promptly report violations to the court for action. Cost Biennial Cost: $203,763 Final 18 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 F. Sentencing/ Adjudication Priority One: Expand access to Deschutes County Mental Health Court Current Practice There are at least four Mental Health Courts in Oregon22, including Deschutes County. In operation since 2002, our Mental Health Court works with adults with serious mental illness who have committed minor crimes (generally non-person misdemeanors). The Court focuses on stabilizing and treating participants as well as providing frequent support and monitoring, including monthly contact with Circuit Court Judge Stephen Tiktin. Both client and District Attorney must agree to participation. The Courts' goals include protecting public safety, reducing contacts with the criminal justice system, reducing unnecessary incarceration of people with mental disorders and improving the mental health and well-being of the defendants. Other benefits include improved coordination between the criminal justice system and social service agencies, better overall delivery of mental health and chemical dependency services and expedited case planning and processing. The Problem Statewide, 9% of the inmates in Oregon's 30 county-run jails have a serious mental illness.23 Deschutes County reported that 25% of inmates had a serious mental illness in March 2005.24 Jail is often an inappropriate place for people with serious mental illness. They often stay longer, cost more to incarcerate, fail to receive the necessary treatment and risk the loss of public health benefits. The Court, District Attorney and county Mental Health created this program without dedicated resources. Funds are not available to sustain the Court indefinitely or expand it as is needed. Loss of this program will increase criminality and bed days needed at the Deschutes County jail. Evidence This program is likely less costly and more effective than incarceration in treating people with a serious mental illness. As an accountable alternative to incarceration, it also frees up much needed jail beds in Deschutes County. The program has a capacity to serve 12-16 people. Since startup, 57 referrals have been made, with 28 accepted. Twelve have successfully completed, or 80%. Recommendation • Sustain and expand the Court capacity to 25 clients at one time with a .5 FTE Coordinator at county Mental Health and full-time treatment clinician • Begin using the Oregon Treatment Court Monitoring System to improve data collection, analysis and decision making. Cost $130,000 annually with possible Oregon Health Plan cost offset for eligible clients. 22 Clackamas, Deschutes, Lane and Yamhill counties. Medford Mail Tribune. 23 2006 Oregon Department of Human Services Jail Study 24 Deschutes County Response to OMHAS Jail Study, March 2005 Final 19 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Sentencing and Adj/Priority Two: Sustain and expand Deschutes County Family Drug Court: Current Practice Deschutes County began its first Family Drug Court in August 2006. It refers, holds accountable, treats and assists families in the Child Welfare system faced with significant addiction (and other) issues. The Court is coordinated by Court staff, referrals by the District Attorney and Child Welfare, with grants management by county Mental Health. Ten agencies support the Court process under the oversight and guidance of Judge Alta Brady. The Courts goals include child safety, reduced criminality, safe and nurturing family reunification and successful completion of treatment. In some cases, this treatment alternative may also free up needed beds in the Deschutes County jail. The Problem Most families involved in the Child Welfare system face family disintegration due to methamphetamine and other drug abuse. Children face foster care placements and limited chance of reunification. Historically, most have lacked access and / or commitment to chemical dependency treatment. In this Court, other services and sanctions are also critical to their success. Faced with limited resources, the Court only serves families. Long term, there would be great benefit in also offered an Adult Drug Court and possibly a Juvenile Drug Court. The Court was established with three grants. One expires in 2007, a second in 2008; a third is reliant on General Fund support from the 2007 Oregon Legislature. Sustainability is in question. Evidence The Family Drug Court is modeled after the successful Family Court model in Deschutes County. In addition, it uses multiple evidence-based treatment practices. Most importantly, it is based on the 10 Essential Elements of an effective Drug Court as outlined in national citations from the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). All 10 elements are included. Recommendation 1. Advocate for continuation of State General Fund support including funds to cover lost Federal Byrne Grant funds in 2008-2009. 2. If the Family Drug Court proves successful and is sustainable and the Circuit Court and Public Safety Council supports expansion, pursue funds to develop an Adult Drug Court in 2008 or 2009. 3. Implement use of the Oregon Treatment Court Monitoring System to improve our data analysis, evaluation and decision making. Cost $420,000 annually for the Family Drug Court as implemented. The model will likely be reviewed based on our first year. If referrals exceed grant funds, invest added dollars in 2008-2009 to reach more families who are not covered by the Oregon Health Plan. Final 20 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Sentencing and Adj/Priority Three: Expand Use of Electronic Monitoring and Day Reporting Use Current Practice During the early 1990's Deschutes County began an Electronic Monitoring Program operated by Adult Parole and Probation. This program, sometimes referred to as "house arrest" allows inmates to serve jail sentences in their own homes, thus allowing them to maintain employment and the County to save jail beds. The Electronic Monitoring Program is currently staffed by one Adult Parole and Probation employee. Equipment is leased from a Colorado company and additional units are "overnighted" by the firm for immediate availability. During February 2002, Adult Parole and Probation began a Day Reporting Program in order to hold unemployed offenders accountable for non-compliant behavior. One employee staffs the program. The Problem Deschutes County Jail is currently releasing inmates before their sentences are complete due to overcrowding. Expanding these two "containment" programs will allow the Court the option to sentence defendants to house arrest rather than jail. Since 10/03, the daily population of the Electronic Monitoring Program has decreased by 50% (from 46 to 23). Evidence Electronic Monitoring and Day Reporting are containment programs, not treatment programs and are not likely to have any significant effect on recidivism rates. Even if research demonstrates that a program has no impact on recidivism, however, the program may still be economically attractive if more expensive jail costs are avoided25. Additionally, defendants can maintain employment allowing payment of restitution, court fees and other financial obligations. Electronic Monitoring has a capacity of 40 with 20 currently assigned to the program. The program could be expanded by 50% at no additional cost. Between 1/1/05 and 12/31/05, 221 offenders were assigned to the program with 83% successfully completing. Day Reporting has a capacity of 30 with 10 offenders currently assigned to the program. Between 1/1/05 and 12/31/05, 200 offenders were assigned to Day Reporting. 70% successfully completed the program. Recommendation Expand Electronic Monitoring and Day Reporting to 40 offenders and 30 offenders respectively. Advocate for the Court to sentence defendants to Electronic Monitoring rather than jail. Develop criteria for Day Reporting to be used as consequence for non-compliant offenders. Cost N/A. These expansions are possible with existing staff capacity. 25"Evidence-based Adult Corrections Program: What Works and What Does Not". Washington State Institute for Public Policy. January 2006. Final 21 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 G. In-custody Priority One: Provide multi-disciplinary (Jail, Parole and Probation and Mental Health), evidence- based and contiguous care / accountability case management of inmates with addictions. Current Practice Inmates with addictions do not have access to drug and alcohol treatment orientation in jail since the 2003 termination of the Work Release Center. Inmates being released do not meet with Parole / Probation Officer until after release. The Jail, Parole and Probation, District Attorney or Courts do not utilize a shared vocabulary or assessment of criminogenic risk and need according to a unified and validated assessment. The Problem Jail staff, community-based treatment professionals, and Parole/Probation officers do not staff offenders with addictions in a multidisciplinary way that extends the "carrot and stick" approach that is usually necessary to treatment follow through once released. Evidence Drug and alcohol treatment cannot be completed while incarcerated, but a positive start can be made through introductory curricula, the "crisis" point that incarceration represents, and the termination of usage while locked up. When this introduction is followed through with clear accountability and immediate connection to community-based treatment, the offender has better possibility of following through on treatment. Recommendation Deschutes County collaborative structure referenced in System Collaboration Priority One convene representatives of Sheriff, Parole/Probation, county Mental Health and Juvenile Community Justice to identify a protocol and practices to: • Identify inmates/detainees with addictions through use of a uniform risk/needs assessment; • Identify an evidence-based drug and alcohol treatment curricula/program; and • Create protocol in support of: multi-disciplinary staffing of high-risk inmates with addictions; creation of early release plans; monitoring release through multi-disciplinary case staffing. Cost N/A. Recommendation would require change in practice of existing resources. Drug and alcohol treatment costs determined by structure of delivery and program. Final 22 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 H. Release/Re-Entry Priority One: Sustain and expand Bridge Program Current Practice The Jail Bridge Program serves adults with co-occurring disorders (mental illness and substance abuse) in the criminal justice system. The County provides intensive case management (e.g. housing assistance, food), life skills, treatment). The goal is to help people live in our community without committing more crimes. The program has been formally endorsed by the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council and the Deschutes County Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board. The Problem Loss of this program will increase criminality and bed days needed at the Deschutes County jail as well as additional staff support from Parole & Probation. Expansion would further reduce bed use, helping more people with mental illness live constructively in our community. A federal grant funding this program expired in October 2006 with County reserves keeping the program operational until January. Alcohol and Drug Treatment funds are keeping the program operating until June 2007 but are not a long-term funding option. Evidence Testimony to the Alternatives Subcommittee was overwhelmingly positive. The program currently serves 30 people with 233 served since January 2002. 87 clients (37%) received significant services with 68% receiving no further jail time in the year after entering the program. It is likely that expansion of this program will reduce jail bed days for participants, freeing up beds for other inmates. Recommendation Expand the program to two FTE (fulltime case manager and treatment clinician) allowing service to 50 clients per year. Funds would also help purchase needed services for these clients. Cost $170,000 for coordination and treatment staff. Final 23 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Re-entry/Priority Two: Expand Transitional Housing for Men and Women Current Practice One dormitory in the former Work Center, consisting of 18 beds has been available for male offenders being released from prison/jail, for up to 60 days (longer under some circumstances) since July 2004. The Problem The Work Center dormitory where our Transitional Housing is located will cease to be available when the Work Center is reopened in 2007. Former inmates who do not find stable housing in the community are more likely to recidivate than those who d026. Homeless shelter use, both before and after incarceration, is associated with an increased risk of return to prison27. With the prison population in Oregon increasing, as well as probation caseloads, the need for Transitional Housing will only become greater. Inmates being released from prison and jail are mandated to return to the county of conviction regardless of whether they have resources in that area. Evidence Particularly for mentally ill inmates, supported housing can drastically reduce recidivism and cost less per day than jail. Local practice bears this knowledge out: The Supervisory Authority Board (SAB) only released 16% of inmates reviewed in 200528 - the single biggest factor for denying early-release petitions was lack of stable / appropriate housing for the petitioning inmate. Transitional Housing beds are always full and often there is a waiting list. The department could easily fill a 25-bed facility. Research illustrates that the first few months an inmate is released into the community are crucial in terms of their successful completion of supervision. Without basic needs such as housing being met, it is nearly impossible for offenders to maintain employment and/or become involved in treatment. Recommendation 1. Find immediate, permanent replacement space for 18-bed male transitional facility currently located at the Work Release Center space as part of transition planning for re-opening of Work Release Center. 2. Plan for doubling of male transition space by the time initial Jail Expansion occurs in 2010/11. 3. Plan 4-bed transitional space for females. Cost Modular, 8-bed facility placed on existing county property (Adult Parole and Probation department): $50,000; Annual operating costs: $76,000 supervision and $18,000 utilities/expenses. 26 Meredith, T "Enhancing Parole-Decision-Making Through the Automation of Risk Assessment" Applied Research Services, Inc., 2003. Atlanta, GA. 27 Metraux and Culhane; David Michaels et al., "Homelessness and indicators of mental illness among inmates in New York City's correctional system". Hospital and Community Psychiatry 4 3 (2002):150-155. 28 2005 SAB Stats" - Deschutes County Jail. Final 24 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Re-entry/Priority Three: Examine early jail release criteria and process The Problem Jail overcrowding and use of the "Matrix" early-release system in the last two years has meant that some offenders do not experience the accountability of a full jail sentence due to an early or immediate release upon booking because of overcrowding and the presence of either higher-risk offenders or offenders who for other reasons were not eligible for release instead. Current Practice The Supervisor Authority Board (SAB) applies criteria that at least 50% of an inmate's sentence needs to be complete before a petition for early release is considered. Evidence Evidence suggests that for many offenders, shorter jail stays are at least as, if not more, effective than long jail stays29. With appropriate treatment, supervision and accountability measures in place, it is cheaper and at least as effective to reduce certain offender's length of stay. Recommendation The Alternatives Subcommittee raised the question if the SAB criteria might be legitimately reduced or made specific to certain circumstances. During conversation related to these questions, judges clarified that alternatives to incarceration programs are very limited and in high demand and that the Court does not place any pre imposed conditions on the SAB decision making process. Cost They asked that the SAB consider alternative programs for those inmates who are released early and a case-by-case basis consideration a judge's recommendation to prevent early release, which shall appear on the Supplemental Judgment of Confinement. N/A 29 Oregon Department of Corrections. September 5, 2002. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Sanctions in Reducing Recidivism. Final 25 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Re-entry/Priority Four: Expand Employment Support Current Practice Approximately 75% of offenders under formal supervision are employed "all or most of the time." 30 There are a number of local resources which assist a wide range of individuals, including those with special needs, with obtaining and keeping employment. Parole and Probation Officers emphasize employment as a requirement of supervision. The Problem Many offenders are located in the low-wage and under-educated end of the economy. Low-income offenders with disproportionate levels of mental illness, learning disability and instability need employment support. While there is some indication that up to 65% of employers had a no-hire policy of ex-offenders31, lack of social and employment skills are also a barrier for which offenders need mentoring and skill building. More could be done to educate potential employers about the financial or liability support available when employing people with criminal records. Evidence Employment is a crucial factor in preventing recidivism. The National Research Council32 argues that unemployment influences crime both directly and indirectly as a precursor to drug and alcohol abuse, violence and property crimes. Recommendation 1. Formalize in writing an employer network of employers interested in hiring people with criminal records. Show employers success stories of hiring ex-offenders. Form mentorships between successful ex-offenders and offenders who are earlier in their recovery / path out of criminality. 2. Work with the interfaith spiritual community to open links between offenders and church support and mentoring networks. 3. Add vocational assessment to front end assessment and intake Parole / Probation procedures. Cost 30 Parole and Probation statistics, July 2006. 37 Petersilia, J. (1999) 'Parole and Prison Reentry', in M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 26 (pp. 30-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 32 National Research Council. (1993) Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-risk Settings. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Final 26 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 V. Resources This subcommittee was tasked with identifying possible financing proposals for relevant recommendations. An early draft of possible ideas did not find consensus among committee members and it was felt that a more exhaustive analysis should occur through the multi-disciplinary collaborative structure that the subcommittee recommends as its highest priority. When the structure is formed, the subcommittee will forward its preliminary list of funding possibilities, through both existing and new avenues. Final 27 of 28 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 VI. Citations • Blueprints for Violence Prevention, University of Colorado. http://www.colorado.edu/cspviblueprints/ • Council of State Governments Consensus Project on Criminal Justice and Mental Health. http://consensusproject.org/ • Department of Health and Human Services. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2004. • Deschutes County Aggregate Jail Medical data. 2004-06. Ruth Jenkin. • Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice WellSpring Annual Report March 2006. • Deschutes County Response to OMHAS Jail Study, March 2005 • Deschutes County Supervisory Authority Board Statistics. 2005. Deschutes County Jail. • Evidence-based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Doesn't. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. January 2006 • Latessa, E. 2002. "Beyond Correctional Quackery - Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment." Federal Probation. V66:2 • Meredith, T "Enhancing Parole-Decision-Making Through the Automation of Risk Assessment" Applied Research Services, Inc., 2003. Atlanta, GA. • Metraux and Culhane; David Michaels et al., "Homelessness and indicators of mental illness among inmates in • National Academy of Sciences. • National Research Council. 1993. Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-risk Settings. Washington, DC: • New York City's correctional system". Hospital and Community Psychiatry 4 3 (2002): 150-155. • Officer Paul Ware, full time Crisis Intervention Trainer for the Portland Police Bureau. • Omni-Group, INC - KMD Justice. 2005. Correctional Needs Assessment - Deschutes County • Oregon Department of Corrections. September 5, 2002. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Sanctions in Reducing Recidivism. • Oregon Department of Human Services 2005 Jail Study. • Oregon Partners in Crisis (OrPIC) 2006 Priority Recommendations. • Petersilia, J. (1999) 'Parole and Prison Reentry', in M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 26 (pp. 30-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • Redding, R. 2000. "Characteristics of Effective Treatments and Intervention for Juvenile Offenders." Juvenile Forensic Evaluation Resource Center. Final 28 of 28 G•1~ N ti N Sri =N,, T M U T N (y , W), OD Cl) 00 Q1 4,OU7M ~O?:ONODM N~tC'SLo LL ° J z ul k ~w0 w~ mQ=O Q U) F" r Q1 N 00 01 O O M (3) M C? (D O t- 'q N: M T IT Q1 M O O N 0 m.~ G N 7 0 O CL C:) M a o. o (D N M Cl) c1~' p . c m' oo°r) a.N o T Z G N O O; o° cii N Lo •C°.tV ~co C cV N. U i17 ' M d1 01 (0 co 0 ` d• M N (n N .LL w„ O u w Z O H2 LL U U) T- Mr- C, T 00 :N' LO N 0 d N O 010 0 0 .o C CO N C!. S <V N U r J r LO r- (0 O ,;r ~ T M O T CO T N M O N W Z O J C) Z I m'YQQ O m OA O`O qcz~ co U) C' et (D T tn N ' V O T Ql C -0 o L O ca o " 3: U O N C J O Q C, N N Q ~ r -,5e U3 O co :2 m N o a) C O O C C ~C O ca rn . 0 O C Q) m p Cl) a~ E a) Cl) N LL CU Q - ~ f•" C ul) g m r L) LO co LO T T CO Z5 O;~ F- U~.OQO~ Q~ ? O Q O p dp Q Q Q Q M m T O`' V N O' T N N' M ~o 0 0 0 C 1`, h•..er M ~ t~ tt1 "pp Ni U N) eW N, Lo ' M O'DDco Nr C E N N M Q j N J VJ w z L L r Z o \ 6 , Q 0 . O O CD e^ ~coToo, 000J a' z tee' Tt' U m aa U- f- O CS iD O O 'V kr) (p' 0 m N N T I- r N co 0 N E C (D U) R3 Q U c ~ L ~ N C Q O O cn U N C N ca -O ~ C • ~ vO- O N m o C N `Q1 m J D) c 3 O U 'O O ~ L C3 Z3 a ~ N O ~ N N > U (0 (a s a~ a~ N U) O L F- =z 0 CD b~ c r) > T Lit U uj Z 5or~ ;O v qZ N T W'o 0 Q O Cl) zsN T iLL0 T d 4~ z W Q Z } UQWZO h-Z,UJo =~uJw O X o LL _ O L (1) > C N' v ~t T pco0O ca C NM~D) a . N N E CL L (D W O w O U O U-) m _ N E t Vo N O .m 7 y y C O W 0 o O. U a m o N o N .'C.. N m U C) c Oi ? D N O N O D - (n v ai rn u u> p Ir m N Q m 0p N O cn N V 0 C N N O N C O C t N U w Y O O QmO 7 U _ o O O C y a U m O N m O D O a C d U U N J o a D ai a a 0 N r- C N ~5 a D: L v a o m m m L O,-Oo v d N N 0 a m c0 CL m t u N N a s cv O N 3 U m UJ O C O • CL a N o rn m ,n Q E U o o a r w O O (U C 0 p O c C C d a m U N v> L fn (p .2 L a co ;a c`i Q co) co U c0 J 0 U ri ui oo ai f CO C , LL -tf O U a G O 4f LL ; d}ss i:co z U < 0 a Q 0 o - 'p 1` 'O M C'QTh ~ M (t'1 C Q7 V a.G V L,r ea K W C V Z co, aid y., J cl 17~' mOLo~N co rD (D o w°F zo T H IQ -~WW F- Z ~ fA 4' O Z w W z~zw w.D o cD \ r) N LL (.D Q Of z w m rn N Z ' U Q i u m: m ~ ku1 ~ n3 G, G zz:z a1 4-1 1A 0 v u L o o ~ ~y elf > L t, OfV C 1] 10 3 O Q V 0 d Y U O N O pt~n~>O d ?.d L ~ c0 C ~ Y O uVi at! di m d' O aL,a A 3 y ys cv r 0 "a avco wca wz ****a0 N U_ E .2: 0 U~ Q3 ~ N - ) Co C V u 7 Vf tid 0 o 0 a o» O M1~7~d N 0 ~ 7 RE ti C N O L N N ~ cd O ~ X t7 ~v~h N s • - C e ~ G f 21 v 1 E ~ o LL d C C 1 F- E 0 3 to s co ~mL 4..1 C C C c uj a v ~F. 0 Co ig@ 3m!`- w 0 c c c ^ o 4a o.>a`H 7Z di fdj %A y r N 41 E o ro E.. C Y 4i a y~' u E V j C i- QG C H C h (D ac O. Q • > • 1 w 1 4 2 cal 2~ „ WILT • rae a~ ~I ~ mss{ u~ c 4n 0 dd .c a 04 8 i e c u 1 1 8 4 C C 'C T N C ~ N u E v ~ CN ~3 o '4 E ate, uz S 0 u 1 L-i v' W IpQ''tt ~w a u 0 I'-I I °w - ! of ..a,_/ p s `u. v; u 0:- - E ors - -mac - I~v• ~v gn ( E N ~ I b c ~ I O on x •2 I t. 00 • ~ ° ° CL u a~ I rou w W, L~G• -i ~a 0 'r- 4-1 . a G 0 tn N W • ' v E u ® w 4- 75 c ~u % rE) • N L .on c . N N O C to L ~ V Q 'C-z E U N c Q oU) a =1 R2 •.ro • N • p C W y - a u N~ w f.-O.-O LA N u ` a o g Oi 4.5 a~ Oa - - Z Q C o E C a, o EZa u= z V. I «7 • :n. • Q : i••i I t~ lkI l~z3. 1 La - r I-- ,oI OJl : • N 5 ~a . 1 (U _ co N, R .C N O U LO n 0) C> co O It M N LO N m~ w o o a o w 0 C ti N N J Z N M I Q Z C 00 U) w O w 2 J cn W LU O (O LC) co U ❑ LL O O N 00 r N V Cl) u7 ~ o c 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O CO N O L` L` T M ti CV N L h OO N U r r U CO r (0 N C>'TC) (D CY) ) o000('MNr CD CD C14 N `rNMp~ N LOA N vi vi (D w J (D W m03CD00 W O 0 J W OO ( 0 J L r Q O m Y Q Q < m Y Q Q N N r ti ~Om (DO m CACO~~ I- L- f LL W C 0 LL Q L , r M O r OO r r O O q r N OD LO O co 00 0) Q m 0.:, = O N C> CY) LO v- CN C> lq- (o Iq C M Cb Lo 0) r N a) r Ci r o) N oo a) OoM(rM O) C .._w,,,,,. r - ) N V Q> ' O Q O O ~ c L _ L Q (n C) 0 C L Q U Cl) CU > N C C (n O •C CL E _C- O E to m Q 6 N N O (0 I- O cn Y .0 (n a N L3 LO (u 0 (1) ) O to tT =O L O N V -0 c O c :rU N O O - 01 C) 0-0 CY) cu O 0 O O O 0 N j O N M a O c m co a) m CO ca U a a) cn Q a) o m a) i> c _ ~ O (4 U- L N (B Q L N N O N N LM co L tm L LL I 0 - cu r J 0 0 d CP C? M (D CD Lln LO c9 U C) M Ln CEO LO '.o OJ ° r CT) Z s_ LT co ti (O O ~ > r p= Cp N ~ c C M :r gar °coNV `~T" O C6 L r r L U F- U 0- Lo m LLl D- LO Z ao0 O u3'N" ~w 1-x0 Z T (o r z0¢ U O O T of D Z ¢QQOQ a;U =NO 7 ~ppaIL LU W co LC) 0 C) Lo UcVLo J 0 0 O QQ 0 C) C) CY) ZNZ < w L w 00 CO r T LL Q 0 T r (fl O V ` N Cl N N w W ❑ O aW Z>- O UQWZI- I-Z W o wWJ Ow ❑L.L~ U H r• N It r O 00 O O O r IT T N M r to y E a LO I C) j C3 0) C) u C) Lc) N N LP i6 t: C~ E N N N CL cm 0 y 0 CO N O a co Q CO C. CL z o C) v c N N ` O O>> o m m N O O L-: CO 4) C p O ~i 'O a) •f4 N (n u Lo O N O m N V O c U N O N C U C t O (a Y O N Q ~ j ` N N co O N O Q m 3 uai m a U U (n 7 J Cl - O D 0 L ac) zz L - Q" o N m r y a~ Q d U Q N M co oQ CO m -a N ~ fl- 0 r m O rn IL 0 '2 a O U N co y 3 'o c N o 0 o ;1 b N Q LL) O O C U 75 0 c= y 0 E U o a CL 'O 4= N N aO U O O= 'D 0 O m CL N U N C) L N •m co = .0 3 N N c U O d C'i Q U co U N> C' a C' U ri v L6 ao m ° d ~O Q = M ai z 0 0 0 Q O ° ° ° \ p ti O M ( LO C I ( o ON 0) r M LO L Q r X L w U Q p J Q LU o 00 CO L (D -i W U L co co wH Z❑ L) r Q Q W LLJ Z z ❑ Z N LOO'o O 04 ©cOM U;J W fnP Z w (D CF) O~a~tY 61> - LL O 0 0 0 ~ ~ o 0 T (n CO p Q QQ Q ~ ZZZ LW N L c x n~ o 0U o~