The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-83-Minutes for Meeting January 08,2007 Recorded 2/2/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2007-83 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK V~1 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/02/2007 04:40:01 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2007-83 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 ~v'C ES C w 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF MEETING LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL MONDAY, JANUARY 89 2007 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioners Tammy Baney and Michael M. Daly; Becky Wanless, Parole & Probation Department; County Administrator Dave Kanner; Sheriff Les Stiles; Rick Treleaven, Best Care Treatment Services; Bob LaCombe, Juvenile Community Justice Department; Mike Dugan, District Attorney; Bob Smit, KIDS Center; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Department; Jack Blum, citizen member; Capt. John Maniscalco, Bend Police Department; Gary DeKorte, Redmond Police Department; and citizens Vickie Grant, Deana Hanson, Bob Marble and Pam Marble, representing NAMI; Also present for a portion of the meeting was media representative Keisha Burns of News Channel 21. 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 December 4, 2006 Meeting. Mike Dugan said that page 3 of the minutes, as part of the dialogue regarding alternatives to incarceration, included language about criminals learning more about crime while in prison. He asked that this be removed from the minutes because he feels this statement is not accurate; most people who commit crimes in Oregon don't go to prison anyway; and if they end up in prison, they already know about crime. He wasn't at the December meeting, so wondered who made the statement at the meeting, and why. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 1 of 10 Pages A brief discussion took place at this time. Sheriff Stiles said that it wasn't in the report itself, but was a comment made by a LPSCC member during the meeting. Judge Sullivan stated that if it was said, history can't be changed, even if others disagree with the statement. STILES: Move approval of the minutes. BLUM: Second. VOTE: Unanimous. Jack: asked that if other items are voted on, they be listed in one place so they are easier to find. 3. Update on Central Oregon - Oregon State Hospital Report Scott Johnson provided a handout regarding the status of the State Hospital report. The material submitted thus far has been endorsed by the Mental Health Advisory Board, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, the Crook County Commission, the St. Charles Medical Center Advisory Board, and the Crook County Hospital Advisory Board; NAMI and Jefferson County are expected soon. As the legislative process begins, other work is being done locally. It is thought that things will probably change somewhat. At this time, Mr. Johnson gave an overview of the document. He stated that with the aging of population, the numbers will increase. He emphasized that the plan will not work without an investment in community services prior to opening in 2011. The legislature needs to put more money during this and the next session. They are not planning for a significant expansion in the State Hospital system; they want to see reduced stays and 80% rather than 100% occupancy, with returns to the community sooner. What needs to be determined is the community's capacity for this. In the state analysis, this region has the lowest residential program capacity per capita in the state. The state would like the region to have 112 beds in 2011, but it will take a lot of resources to get to that point. In regard to population projects, the 2010 Deschutes County estimate exceeds the Oregon economic analysis statistics. It shows 166,000 population for 2010, but as of July 2006 the County is already at 152,000. The need for services will be greater just by virtue of growth. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 2 of 10 Pages He then highlighted the services listed on page 4 of the report. If additional resources are available, efforts need to be made in several areas, including those that link to the jail. Discussions are taking place with the Sheriff's Office and others in this regard. There will be further discussions in late January or early February, and the Psychiatric Review Board has been invited to participate. At this time all three mental health systems are relying on reserves and one-time funds. There will be a decline in services while growth occurs, with the gap continuing to widen. Other important considerations are housing options, crisis response and respite services. A secure facility isn't always necessary. The Park Place program was discontinued, so other options are needed, as well as additional alcohol and drug treatment services. The State Mental Health Division is looking at $26 million in new operational funds; the Governor proposed a budget that includes $10 million statewide, leaving $500,000 for the tri-county area for two years. This is a long way from where it needs to be. The price of what needs to be done is at $8.4 million. Not all of it has to happen in FY 07-09, but there can't be an expectation to get it all by 2011. There are still equity issues; the State average is $8.32 per person, but Deschutes County is at $6.18. That computes to about $500,000 when compared to other areas. Rick Treleaven thanked Mr. Johnson for the good summary. He noted that the building of institutions while shorting community services has been going on in the Mental Health field for years. Mr. Johnson said that he will be traveling to Salem on January 16 to bring some early ideas to the State. A statewide group is examining this issue. Jack Blum stated that about thirty-five years ago the State reduced services in Salem and dumped people on the streets. These people needed mental health treatment but ended up sleeping on the streets and in parks. He asked if the State will be doing this again, either there or in other places. Mr. Johnson replied that community systems are needed to prevent this, but they are not yet on the same page. Per the State report, the communities have to do the up-front work and the systems need to be in place. But with funding at $10 million statewide, it won't happen. Mr. Blum noted that there is not much time to get this accomplished. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Pages Mr. Johnson explained that on page 5 of the report, housing option dollars are in the budget, but many are questioning whether the communities can gear up that quickly. Mike Dugan asked if this was presented to legislators and suggestions made. Mr. Johnson replied that this is in the works; Representative Burley is asking for adjustments based on population growth. The County's lobbyist is working with Representative Whisnant as well. Senator Westlund requested information on mental health issues in the jail. They have information on what the needs are versus what is proposed in the Governor's budget. There could be some adjustment to the general equity issue. However, no one is willing to take from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". This will require new money. There has been no mechanism established to keep pace. Bob Smit asked, that in terms of expanding needs, what the communities do when more patient beds or secure beds are needed. Mr. Johnson said there are not enough community services now. Sheriff Stiles noted that these people often end up in the jail. Mr. Johnson added that in crisis situations some do end up in jail who should be getting support elsewhere. Sheriff Stiles stated that sometimes they end up at the hospital emergency room. Mr. Johnson said that Sageview is open, with 16 secure beds. There used to be two hold rooms but are now five. Rick Treleaven stated that communities won't see wholesale dumping of people, but there will be trickles. Often they are dual diagnosis patients who might get drunk and belligerent and end up in the jail. There are no systems now in place to change this trajectory. Commissioner Daly noted that concerning the equity issues, it appears that the "have" counties are also pursuing new money. Mr. Johnson said that there are a number of grants available, but local grant funding is short of the State average by about $1.5 million. He added that the legislators are trying to help. In the Governor's budget, there is an attempt to address alcohol and drug assistance for the indigent. Usually Deschutes County is at the bottom of this allocation. Bob Nikkel (of the State Department of Human Services) has stated that between now and 2011, they either will get new funding or will take from others that are above the line. This is a start. Mr. Treleaven added that Deschutes County gets about twice as much as Jefferson County even though Deschutes County has seven times more people. Mr. Nikkel joined Deschutes County in with the others, and Multnomah County is trying to protect its funds. Mr. Johnson said that they are still using the 2005 population statistics, which show Deschutes County at 143,000 even though it is now at 152,000. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 4 of 10 Pages Judge Sullivan noted that the Judges agree that many of the people coming before them have addiction issues as well as mental health problems. 4. Discussion of Alternative Incarceration Programs. Mike Dugan said that he is still concerned about the discussion and report regarding crime and alternatives to incarceration. He stated that the County can have the best programs but this is meaningless if there are no jail beds available. The County jail expansion needs to be on the top of the list. The difficulties with the drug and mental health court problems are that the jail is not the appropriate place for these people, and they end up getting matrixed. The alternative programs are important, but they are only effective if there is a jail bed available. The jail expansion project needs to be a priority. 5. Update on County Jail Expansion. Sheriff Stiles said the annual report to the State is due on January 10. Judge Sullivan stated that this was a yearlong process involving the community, the Sheriff's Office, Scott Johnson, Becky Wanless and others. OMNI Group did a study for the first jail expansion, and considered different sites. A two-phase process was recommended. The Board of Commissioners will have to make the necessary decisions on this matter. There was an additional year's work done in 2003 after the work release center closed. They studied alternative programs and their impact. On January 24, 2006, the Judge presented the findings of the subcommittee to the Board and recommended a build-out to 2015 to handle projected requirements. The cost was stated at $71.5 million. The earliest date it could open would be 2011, so there are still four years to live with what is now in place. In the interim, the last piece, the architect's footprint, is expected soon. Then it will be up to the County Commissioners. The work release center won't be open again until about September, and employees need to be hired and trained. The work center will be a band-aid solution for about two years. A courtroom is needed in the jail; and mental health issues in the jail remains a big problem. If a new jail is built, it won't be open in time to stop matrixing. Matrixing will be necessary during the retrofit process. It may be possible to transfer a pod to the work center as the work progresses, but some inmates can't be held there. There could be a double matrix rate in two or three years. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 5 of 10 Pages Jacques DeKalb stated that the expansion will happen in stages, but by 2011 the jail will be at capacity. They have to work on the next goal; this just skirts the issue. There are technical problems with clearing a pod. Mike Dugan added that there is less space at the same time more money will be needed for police services, the courts and others. Commissioner Daly asked the Sheriff if he has the estimated costs to convert the work center to a medium security facility. Sheriff Stiles replied that he doesn't have this information yet. This is being piggy-backed on the RFP. Commissioner Daly said that this is a big issue. If costs can be kept down on the work center, it would help with a medium security facility. Sheriff Stiles replied he doesn't want to commit that funding to a building that will just prolong but not resolve the issue. Commissioner Daly said that a regional facility was not discussed with OMNI; however, Wasco County has one in conjunction with four counties. He said this is an option that could be considered. Crook County and Harney County both need a facility. Mike Dugan stated that what is needed is jail beds. This can't wait. Sheriff Stiles stated this has no bearing on the jail expansion. The need for jail beds took into account the open work release center. The 700 beds needed by 2015 includes the work release center. Commissioner Daly said that the work release center is a quick fix. Sheriff Stiles noted that combining facilities might work well for rural counties who go together, but they have other mitigating factors such as slow population growth and lower demand. They have a more predictable future. Mike Dugan added that these counties don't generally matrix. Sheriff Stiles said that from a public safety needs standpoint, he might be interested in collaboration, but his main concern is for Deschutes County. He doesn't see this working in Deschutes County now or in 2015. The numbers for 2020 are even worse. This is up to the Commissioners. Commissioner Daly stated that he does want to explore the possibility. The one in Wasco County is operated by a public entity that is not the Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Stiles said he would like to see the County weaned from 1145 money. Some of this funding was lost when Jefferson County withdrew from using Deschutes County's facility, and the impact was difficult to handle. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Pages Judge Sullivan emphasized that it is a huge undertaking to try to get counties to work together. It is very difficult and time-consuming. Also, transportation costs can be significant. The courts have worked hard with the Sheriff to cut this cost down, and video conferencing is working well. The Sheriff's Office and District Attorney agreed to have civil matters handled by phone to avoid transportation costs. Also, infrastructure around the prison is necessary, as costs go up substantially if it is located out in the middle of nowhere. But he is mindful of looking at all possibilities. This would take a significant amount of time to develop, and the problem is real right now. Patrol numbers are going up, meaning more citations and arrests. The folks in the jail have a matrix score, and the scores are increasing. This means that some people who now say they are willing to do six months' time will be released by the end of the week. When this happens, they lose their respect for the justice system. So the threat of incarceration is not very real. This is a serious problem needing serious dollars. Victims are incensed and don't have faith in the justice system because of this problem. The offenders don't get 13 months of time until the third arrest and conviction, and during that time period could have committed a lot of crimes. Some very serious offenders are now getting matrixed out in record time. Jack Blum stated that he was involved in corrections for fifteen years, and feels that jail is the best training ground for criminals that you can imagine. Mike Dugan argued that they are sent to prison for public safety reasons. Sheriff Stiles said that if they remodel the work release center, it's open and can be used. Then pods in the jail can be retrofitted. This process needs to start immediately. Commissioner Daly asked how soon a levy could get on the ballot to sell bonds for the jail. Mike Dugan noted that discussions occurred in the past about selling the 1,800 acres outside of Redmond to pay for jail construction. This option needs to be explored as well. Commissioner Daly stated that in his opinion, the City of Redmond has deep concerns that the County would arbitrarily sell the property, which would have to go to the highest bidder. Sheriff Stiles said that they want the same deal the City of Bend got with Juniper Ridge; they don't want to pay for the land, either. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that in talking about a levy versus selling the land, he doesn't think it will sell for $75 million. He doesn't want to do that to the City of Redmond, as they should have some say on what happens to it. This land would not even be considered for development until the west side property is done. $500 million in sewer and water improvements are needed. The urban growth boundary has moved west at this point. The offer for $75 million was never given in writing. It was a verbal offer from a Realtor in Phoenix, not a bone fide offer. It didn't go anywhere. Commissioner Baney stated that this is a good discussion. Another piece to consider is the increase in mental health patients. She asked if anyone is tracking those in the jail, and if there is any projection of future numbers. She also asked what the committee's recommendation was for funding. Judge Sullivan said the group did not address funding; that is ultimately up to the Commissioners. Jacques DeKalb said someone floated the idea of selling the land. Judge Sullivan added that they only looked at the needs of the County. OMNI has good projections of that but the numbers could be under due to the rapidly increasing population. The amount of money needed is a big obstacle. Commissioner Baney asked if it would be beneficial to bring the committee back together to examine funding options. That would be much easier than the three Commissioners saying how to go. Mike Dugan noted that the committee members would not know about County assets and resources. Sheriff Stiles said that the County owns a lot of property. Things need to happen within the next five months. The 9-1-1 operating levy is on the May ballot, and it is critical. Commissioner Daly replied that the County does own a lot of property, but much of it is small lots that aren't worth much. The only property of any real value is the old landfill site off Century Drive, but it has some problems. There are no properties even close to $80 million in value. No one will offer that much in cash for the Redmond property if they can't develop it for maybe twenty years. Mr. DeKalb said that he likes the idea of a committee to explore options. The Redmond land idea got legs then, but whatever plan is reached has be sold to the public. Mr. Smit added that this would be a win/win for people. It will definitely be a big public issue if it doesn't happen. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 8 of 10 Pages Sheriff Stiles asked if the answer was "no" to the offer to purchase the Redmond land, why it wasn't said at the time. Commissioner Daly replied that the Board didn't support it at the time, but Mike Maier recommended yes. Jack Blum added that he supported the Sheriff's levy, but like a lot of people thought the sale of the Redmond property would fund the jail construction. Commissioner Daly said that the County couldn't accept the offer even if it was valid because there has to be a public bid process. Also, the City might want to purchase it, which he would support, but they don't have that kind of money. Judge Sullivan stated that the whole project doesn't need to be examined again. Public finance is very different from figuring out what is needed at the jail. Mr. Smit observed that there was all kinds of financial expertise at the meetings. Judge Sullivan replied that they need people who know public funding and bonding, who can help the Board. The talk about selling the land was taken as a position of the Board, but was only a discussion item. Commissioner Daly added it was voiced by just one Commissioner. Sheriff Stiles said that at a January 24, 2006 meeting it was presented as an option but the Board never voted on it. That kind of indefinite communication causes a problem with perception. At a meeting in Sisters, one Commissioner said that the County could sell excess land. Commissioner Daly observed that he didn't think the value was there, and it is not necessarily an option. Judge Sullivan recommended that Commissioner Baney be brought up to speed about the issue. He said Commissioner Daly brought up some concerns regarding the bid process, and it is important to consider what Redmond wants to do. Dave Kanner stated that there could be a compromise position, asking for a bond and making an effort to sell land to pay off the bond. The reality is there might not be bids on the properties for years. A bond is a sure thing; selling property is not. Sheriff Stiles said that several developers indicated an interest in part of the land, but it is unknown how long they would want to sit on it, tying up their capital. Mr. Dugan stated that the Sheriff is meeting with the Board on Wednesday and perhaps can discuss this further. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 9 of 10 Pages Pam Marble asked about isolated beds at the jail. Sheriff Stiles replied that the plan includes thirteen beds that would be isolated from other inmates. Sixteen beds should sustain needs to 2015. Frequently assaults in the jail involve mental health inmates; they need a safer environment. These problems have escalated over the past 45 days. It is labor intensive to do fifteen-minute monitoring; and there are not cameras in each room. The current rooms are designed just for isolation, not for mental health patients. Mike Dugan added that there is no funding for those from Mental Health court. If there are no mental health beds, that leaves just jail beds; but many of their crimes are not that serious. This is a crisis situation. Jacques DeKalb said that the drug court has been operating for six months, and has formed a non-profit corporation, Deschutes Family Recovery, Inc., to help. The group is meeting on January 22 at 5:00 p.m. at his office, and everyone is invited to attend. 6. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, February 5). None was offered. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign-in sheet Exhibit B: Agenda Exhibit C: State Hospital Master Plan - Central Oregon's Response Exhibit D: Memo from Department of Human Services regarding Alcohol and Drug Treatment Funding Equity Exhibit E: Memo from Courts regarding LPSCC Adoption of Alternatives to Incarceration Report iviinutes of LPSUC; Meeting Monday, January 8, 2007 Page 10 of 10 Pages ~vT ES C 0 2{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp- MEETING AGENDA LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL 3:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2007 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend 1. Call to Order & Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes of Monday, December 4 Meeting 3. Update on Central Oregon - Oregon State Hospital Report - Scott Johnson 4. Discussion of Alternative Incarceration Programs - Mike Dugan 5. Update on County Jail Expansion - Mike Dugan 6. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, February 5) 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. If you 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. ~c(Mt~~- k z z v LU Q W J O. O N 0 ~ C C c0 V+ <t l 4 r1i b4 C ~c n 0 w a J ~ + L f , ~ O v 11 k-N G1 0 m L Ol H m o~ CL :s Central Oregon's response to the Oregon State Hospital Master Plan Phase II Improving our region's community-based system of care to complement the new the Oregon State Hospital (OSH) system. Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council January 8, 2007 Findings in the Phase II Plan ■ Oregon State Hospital provides long term care for people with severe and persistent mental illness. ■ 3 service areas: (1) adult treatment 25% of census age 20-64 (2) neuropsychiatric 15%, increasing age 65+ (3) forensic 600/o, increasing age 20+ Current Locations: Salem, Portland, Pendleton ■ Each county is placed in 1 of 6 regions to address use and needs. Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook are in the Central Oregon region. 1 G Projections 1. State Plan forecasts for 25 years, thru 2030. 2. State Plan will not work without investment in community services PRIOR to the opening of new facilities in 2011. 3. Community residential needs critical. 419 more beds by 2011, 76 more beds in Central Oregon. 4. Residential capacity lowest in Central Oregon .27 beds per 1,000 people, statewide avg .65. s. OSH bed projections based on ! length of stay from 250 to 175 days adult services; 1,000 to 800 in SRB; 85% occupancy 6. Leadership (former Speaker, Sen President, Gov) supported 360 and 620 bed facilities west of Cascades, 2 16-bed facilities east of the Cascades. Facilities on line 2011. Could change. OSH Bed Need for Central Oregon Source: OSH Phase II Plan 2011: Adult 4 2031: Adult 3 Neuropsych 9 Forensic 19 Bed 2011 2021 2031 % Need chnge Central 22 26 31 41% Oregon Rest of 843 943 1,060 26% regon Neuropsych 4 Forensic 14 2021: Adult 3 Neuropsych 6 Forensic 17 2 Residential Needs in Central Oregon Source: Phase II Plan 2005 2011 2030 % change 2005-30 Central 36 112 153 325% Oregon Rest of 1,693 1,995 2,480 46% Oregon Population Projections - Oregon's 3 fastest growing counties are in Central Oregon. Source: Office of Economic Analysis; Deschutes adopted data. Area 2000 2010 2020 2030 % cnge 2000-30 Crook 19,300 23,051 27,590 32,796 70% OEA Deschutes 116,600 166,572 214,145 270,797 132% County figures WE WILL EXCEED Jefferson 19,150 22,168 26,065 30,831 61% OEA Central Oregon 155,050 211,791 267,800 334,424 116% Oregon 3,281,700 3,843,900 4,359,258 4,891,225 49% OEA 3 Community "System" Critical "Without more aggressive funding of services to recognize and treat people earlier in their illness, demands on the State Hospital and other more expensive settings will continue to grow." - Phase II Plan, Pg. 16 Community Services ( * referenced in the Phase II Plan) Regional mobile crisis team Psychiatric hold rooms Respite care * ]ail linked services Supported, affordable housing* intensive case management* Medication subsidies* Supported employment Urgent psychiatric Training and education Acute care services Peer support Early intervention young adults Dual diagnosis detox Secure/non secure residential PSRB, ECMU, Geropsychiatric the greater the investment in the community level of care, the less reliant the communities will be on the more expensive state hospital." - Phase II Plan, Pg. 18 OSH Community Services Planning Process ■ State, Central, Eastern Or. kickoff OSH eastside needs? 8/23 ■ Briefing for Deschutes County Commissioners 8/30 ■ Survey of local stakeholders (80 responses) ■ Regional planning meeting, discuss results and priorities. 9/25 ■ Work groups 1) Housing, 2) Acute care and 3) Treatment. ■ 2nd regional meeting to work on priorities. 10/23 ■ Draft plan. (November) ■ Gain endorsements. - Deschutes BOC, Crook BOC, Cascade Healthcare Board, Deschutes MH Advisory Board, Pending: Jefferson BOC, Housing Works, Crook and Jefferson Advisory Boards ■ Report back to eastside group, DHS and statewide group ■ Link to January 26 "summit" ■ Advocate during the legislative session. ■ Note: Scott Johnson, Robin Henderson and Chuck Frazier participate on the statewide OSH community services work group. ■ Housing, jail, PSRB work sessions in next 6 weeks; 4 CIT trainings 4 Recommended improvements in Central Oregon ■ Sustain, enhance core services; adjust for growth. 12,000 > CO people ea. Yr. Services declining w/out investment. ■ Increase residential and housing options. Housing, PSRB workshops. State: aggressive development needed. ■ Improve regional crisis response. Strengthen responsiveness, consistency, capacity; mobile crisis team proposed; Redmond, Prineville hold rooms, crisis intervention trng. ■ Develop respite complement Psych Emergency Svcs, Sage View. Diversion and step down. ■ Create a robust addiction treatment system. > outpatient treatment capacity; dual disorder detox capacity. Our financial needs in Central Oregon Early estimates for 2007-2009: $8.5 m. 3 COUNTIES Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook counties. Sustain core services (equity estimate) Residential / housing operations Residential development OSH community services enhancement Dual diagnosis detox (includes capital) Hold rooms in Redmond & Crook County Total estimate 2007-09 $1,148,795 $3,658,168 $ 903,450 $1,300,000 $1,100,000 $ 350,000 $8,460,413 * Projections based on data from the Addictions & MH Division; does NOT include alcohol and drug needs and equity issues; is adjusted for 6% annual population increase in the region. Est'd 5% of $26 million enhancement suggested as part of the OSH development project. Includes mobile crisis team and expansion of community mental health services. 5 Indigent Acute Care funding A critical ingredient ■ Table prepared by Or. Addiction & Mental Health Div. 8/22/06 ■ Based on '05 PSU pop est. ■ These resources help people without insurance or resources. ■ Support emergency hospitalizations, Sage View, crisis response, respite, secure transports, case management. ■ Without add'I funds in Central Oregon, we will exhaust all acute care funds by 2008. Region Per Person Funding Metro $9.48 Southern $8.90 Mid-Valley $7.57 Eastern $6.68 Central $6.18 Lane $5.72 Statewide $8.32 Early Recommendations 1. Create a Central Oregon plan by December with local stakeholders; ID local priorities, timelines & investments. DONE 2. Ask for endorsements: County Commissioners, Mental Health Boards, Cascade Healthcare Community / regional hospital system, NAMI of CO. 3. Continue local discussions; e.g. local public safety concerns. 4. Include CO Plan in the State Plan. Present 1/16. 5. Advocate for support of the Central Oregon recommendations during the 2007 legislative session. 6. OUR CONCERN: verv limited operating funds associated with the OSH project in the Governor's proposed budget for 2007-2009. 7. Sustain the existing regional mental health system; fund and develop new services between 2007 and 2011. 6 Y of o Department of Human Services = Addictions and Mental Health Division g9 DATE: January 2, 2007 TO: Community Mental Health Program Directors Oregon Tribal Chairs Oregon Prevention, Education and Recovery Assoc. FROM: Robert E. Nikkei, MSW Assistant Director RE: Potential Distribution of Governor's Recommended Budget Policy Option Package for Alcohol and Drug Funding Equity Attached for your information is a spreadsheet that summarizes how the Addictions and Mental Health Division (AMH) would use monies in the Governor's Recommended Budget (GRB) to improve equity in the funding of outpatient alcohol and drug treatment. If the Legislative Assembly approves the GRB, AMH would add funding to Service Element 66 (Alcohol and Drug Outpatient) using a formula adopted in discussions with stakeholders. AMH has updated the equity formula to include the most recent population estimates from Portland State University. Note that the spreadsheet does not include the cost of living increases requested in the GRB. AMH will add theses funds for each fiscal year of the biennium if the legislature approves the GRB. Approval of the equity funding in the Governor's Recommended Budget would mean that no reductions in funding would be necessary for any county in order to implement the funding equity strategy. The equity funding would also ensure that AMH could provide all tribal programs with a minimum of $100,000 per biennium for alcohol and drug outpatient treatment. If implemented, the increases would maintain or improve access to care for alcohol and drug treatment services across the state and would help ensure that Oregon citizens have access to services, regardless of where they live. I look forward to working with you to implement this new funding if it becomes part of the Legislatively Approved Budget. If you have any questions about the spreadsheet, you may contact Bob Miller, Evidence- Based Practices Manager, by telephone at (503) 945-6185 or by email at bob.miller(a~state.or us. 'Y Department of Human Services Addictions and Mental Health Division Potential Distributions of Governor's Recommended Budget Policy Option Package for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Funding Equity Needed 2007/2009 for Current SE minimum 66 minus Current $5.25 per New New per County Name 2005 Pop Est.* Detox** per capita capita distribution capita Baker 16,500 $189,390 $11.48 $189,390 $11.48 Benton 82,834 $450,018 $5.43 $450,018 $5.43 Clackamas 361,300 $855,756 $2.37 $1,041,069 $1,896 825 $5 25 C 36,638 $209,262 $5.71 , $209,262 . $5.71 .Columbia 46,220 $175,166 $3.79 $67,489 $242,655 $5 25 COOS 62,695 $193,262 $3.08 $135,887 $329,149 . $5 25 Crook 22,776 $139,896 $6.14 $139,896 . $6 14 Cu_ ry 21,191 $219.584 $10.36 $219.584 . $10.36 Deschutes _ 143,491; $289,510'- $2:02 _ $463,818 - $753,328 $5.25 -Douglas ADAPT 102,904 $696,350 $6.77 _ $696,350 $6.77 Grant 7,683 $115,336 $15.01 $115,336 $15.01 -Harney 7,662 $116,828 $15.25 $116,828 $16.25 Jackson 194,514 $920,428 $4.73 $100,771 $1,021,199 $5 .25 Jefferson 20,600 $147,592 $7.16 $147,592 $7.16 Josephine 79,645 $726,638 $9.12 $726,638 $9.12 Klamath 65,055 $809,298 $12.44 $809,298 $12.44 Lake 7,507 $111,488 $14.85 $111,488 $14.46 Lane 336,087 $1,753,408 $5.22 $11,049 $1,764,457 $5.25 Lincoln 44,407 $275,124 $6.20 $275,124 $6.20 Linn 107,150 $397,158 $3.71 $165,380 $562,538 $5.25 Malheur 31,799 $403,054 $12.68 $403,054 $12.68 Marion 302,135 $1,427,004 $4.72 $159,205 $1,586,209 $5.25 Mid Columbia: WascO 23,933 $141,348 $5.91 $12,302 $153,650 $6.42 Hood River 21,181 $141,348 $6.67 $141,348 $6.67 Sherman 1,880 $100,000 $53.19 $100,000 $53.19 Gilliam 1,891 $100,000 $52.88 $100,000 $52.88 Morrow/Wheeler Morrow 11,945 $134,000 $11.22 $134,000 $11.22 Wheeler 1,549 $100,000 $64.56 $100,000 $64.56 Multnomah 692,823 $5,028,556 $7.26 $5,028,556 $7.26 Polk 65,670 $169,080 $2.57 $175,688 $344,768 $5.25 Tillamook 25,206 $137,440 $5.45 $137,440 $5.45 Umatilla 72,394 $250,398 $3.46 $129,671 $380,069 $5.25 Union 24,951 $123,666 $4.96 $7,327 $130,993 $5.25 Wallowa 7,129 $113,626 $15.94 $113,626 $15.94 Washington 489,784 $1,444,648 $2.95 $1,126,718 $2,571,366 $5.25 Yamhill 90,310 $476,750 $5.28 $476,750 $5.28 Total 3,631,440 $19,082,410 $5.25 $3,596,371 $22,678,781 $6.25 Tribes: distribution money added new distribution Burns Paiute $27,850 $72,150 $100,000 Grand Ronde $9,616 $90,384 $100,000 Klamath $131,660 $131,660 Siletz $80,446 $19,554 $100,000 Umatilla $0 $100,000 $100,000 Cow Creek $0 $ioo,000 $100,020 Warm S rln S $270,380 $270,380 Total $38,684,772 $382,088 $902,040 *Population based on Portland State University Population Research Center estimates 6/12/06 **SE 66 distribution as of 12/12/06. Does not include 2007-2009 cost of living (COLA). Prepared 12/15/06 PAE Contract Unit Portland State University Certified Population Estimates by County and Key C.O. Cities Population Research Center, Portland State University For information, contact Qian Cai, 503-725-5157 April 1, 2000 July 1, 2003 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2005 % change July 1, 2006 % change Area Census Certified Certified Certified 2004 to Certified 2005 to Count Estimates Estimates Estimates 2005 Estimates 2006 Oregon 3,421,399 3,541,500 3,582,600 3,631,440 1.4% 3,690,160 1.6% BAKER BENTON 16,741 16,500 16,550 16,5UU -0.3% 16,470 -0.2% CLACKAMAS 78,153 338 391 80,500 81,750 82,835 1.3% 84,125 1.6% CLATSOP , 35 630 353,450 356,250 361,300 1.4% 367,040 1.6% COLUMBIA , 43 560 36,300 36,400 36,640 0.7% 37,045 1.1% COOS , 45,000 45,650 46,220 1.2% 46,965 1.6% CROOK 62,779 63,000 62,700 62,695 0.0% 62,905 0.3% CURRY 19,184. 20,300. 20,650 - 22,775 10.3%o 24,525 7 7% 21,137 21,100 21,150 21,190 0.2% 21 365 DESCHUTES 115 7 , ° DOUGLAS ;.3.6 130,500 135,450 143,490 5.9% 152,615 6.4% 100,399 101,800 102,350 102,905 0.5% 103 815 0 GILLIAM 1,915 1,900 1,900 1,890 -0.5% , 1 885 -0 3% GRANT 7,935 7,650 7,750 7,685 -0.8% , 7,630 . -0 7% HARNEY 7,609 7,300 7,650 7,660 0.1% 7,670 . 0 1% HOOD RIVER 20,411 20,500 21,050 21,180 0.6% 21 335 . 0 7% JACKSON ' 181,269 189,100 191,200 194,515 1.7% , 198 615 . 2 1% JEFFERSON 19,00 , . 9 19,900 20,250 20,600 1.77o 21 065 2.3% JOSEPHINE 75,726 78,350 78,600 79,645 1.3% , 81 125 1 9% KLAMATH 63;775 64,600 64,800 65,055 0.4% , 65 455 . 0 6% LAKE LANE 7,422 7,400 7,500 7,505 0.1% , 7,540 . 0.5% LINCOLN 322,963 329,400. 333,350 336,085 0.8% 339,740 1.1% LINN 44,479 45,000 44,400 44,405 0.0% 44,520 0.3% 103,069 104,900 106,350 107,150 0.8% 108 250 1 0% MALHEUR 31,615 32,000 31,850 31,800 -0.2% , 31 725 . -0 2% MARION 284,838 295,900 298,450 302,135 1.2% , 306 665 . 1 5% MORROW 10,995 11,750 11,750 11,945 1.7% , 12 125 . 1 5% MULTNOMAH 660,486 677,850 685,950 692,825 1.0% , 701 545 . 1 3% POLK 62,380 64,000 64,950 65,670 1.1% , 66 670 . 1 5% SHERMAN 1,934 1,900 1,900 1,880 -1.1% , 1,865 . -0 8% TILLAMOOK 24,262 24,900 24,950 25,205 1.0% 25,530 . 1 3% UMATILLA 70,548 71,100 72,250 72,395 0.2% 72 190 . -0 3% UNION 24,530 24,650 24,850 24,950 0.4% , 25,110 . 0 6% WALLOWA 7,226 7,150 7,150 7,130 -0.3% 7 140 . 0 1% WASCO 23,791 23,550 23,900 23,935 0.1% , 24,070 . 0 6% WASHINGTON 445,342 472,600 480,200 489,785 2.0% 500,585 . 2 2% WHEELER 1,547 1,550 1,550 1,550 0.0% 1,565 . 1 0% YAMHILL 84,992 88,150 89,200 90,310 1.2% 91,675 . 1.5% Bend 52,029 62,900 65,210 Madras 5,078 5,370 5;430 Prineville 7,358 8,500 8,640 Redmond 13,481 17,450 18,100 - CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON A. MICHAEL ADLER, Judge ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT EDWARD L. PERKINS,Judge ALTA J. BRADY, Judge DESCHUTES COUNTY JUSTICE BUILDING MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN, Presiding Judge STEPHEN P. FORTE, Judge 1100 NW BOND STREET STEPHEN N. TIKTIN, Judge BARBARA A. HASLINGER, Judge BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-5300 December 22, 2006 TO: Dennis Luke, Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daly, Deschutes County Commissioner Bev Clarno, Deschutes County Commissioner FROM: Michael Sullivan, Presiding Judge 0 RE: LPSCC Adoption of Alternatives Reports On behalf of the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council, I'm pleased to forward you a copy of the Alternatives to Incarceration subcommittee report. The subcommittee's key recommendations were unanimously approved at our December 4, 2006, meeting. We respectfully request that you move forward with the creation of a strategic plan under the leadership of the Deschutes County Administrator. This report took roughly one year to complete, and the subcommittee was chaired by Commissioner Clarno. The committee's work sets a solid foundation for continued discussions among key government and business leaders in an effort to improve, enhance, and create community wide services. A spirit of cooperation exists among the agencies to address mental health and substance abuse issues, and to set system wide priorities in a collaborative manner. If requested, I'd be happy to meet with you regarding this matter. I plan to include this item in the March meeting of LPSCC, and would appreciate a status report from the County Administrator. Dave Kanner, County Administrator LPSCC Committee Members t _ A Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Mental illness, addictions and the criminal / juvenile justice system v C Report to Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council December 4, 2006 r Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 II. 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 jail2. • 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 we114. 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. 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. 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 200406 Aggregate Jail Medical data. Ruth Jenkin. 3 Becky Wanless August 2006. 4 Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice WellSpring Annual Report March 2006. 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. 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 Rankin Collaboration Diversion Adjudication #1 Staff supported Community, Annual Crisis Mental Health Early, multi- Jail Bridge county oversight / evidence-based Intervention Court (p.19) disciplinary Program (p.23) planning structure juvenile crime Training with area team (p.10) prevention Law Enforcement management of programs (p.13) (p.16) inmates with 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 (p.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.", 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 • Les Stiles, Deschutes County Sheriff • 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 dependant 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 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 Y, . Y. Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 "Fidelity", implementing an evidence-based program correctly, is essential. Evidence-based practices delivered incorrectly can actually increase recidivism. 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". Final 8 of 28 P .Z 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 De endenc System Sentencing / Area System Prevention Pre-Booking Adjudication In-Custody Re-entry Collaboration Diversion Options Evidence- Botvin's Life *Drug Court; 7 In-prison *Drug Based Skills; therapeutic treatment in Practices Strengthening communities the Families parent w/ aftercare, community, education drug treatment curricula; and cognitive- Functional Functional Family behavioral Family Therapy; drug treatment Therapy; Multisystemic in jail; Multisystemic Therapy' Vocational Ed Therapylo in jail'; Promising *System-wide *Crisis *Mental Health Therapeutic Practices collaboration, Intervention Court Community particularly Training'- programs for between Mental Mentally Ill Health/Treatment Offenders13 and Law Enforcement" Cost Jail Diversion *Electronic Short jail Effective for offenders Monitoring; Day sanctions" Practices with co- Reporting's occurring disorders" NOTE: Italicized programs are currently in operation in Deschutes County. Asteris ked 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 'Ibid 9Ibid to 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 1s 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. 11 National Institute of Justice. June 2006. Drug Courts: The Second Decade. 1' 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 ~p ~Z- 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 • Community and business leaders 19 See Council of State Governments Consensus Project on Criminal Justice and Mental Health. httP:Hconsensusproject.org/ and Davis, J. Oregon Partners in Crisis (OrPIC) 2006 Priority Recommendations. Final 10 of 28 } J~ 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 ri 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 d •L 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 K 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 taw 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. Operational izing 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. 21 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 A 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. menruai Lost: ~)1U3,%63 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 Oregon222, 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. ""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 H 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 do26. 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. %-UOL ivioaufar, is-bed tacility 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. 282005 SAB Stats" - Deschutes County Jail. Final 24 of 28 v k Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 Re-entry/Priority Three: Examine early jail release criteria and process l he 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. 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 •l ~4 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." 10 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 Counci132 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 10 Parole and Probation statistics, July 2006. 31 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 ti - 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 a G. -4 Deschutes County Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee Report December 2006 VI. Citations • Blueprints for Violence Prevention, University of Colorado. http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ • 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 Appendix A: Alternatives Subcommittee Report December 2006: Demographic Snapshot: Deschutes Co. Offenders 2001-2005 41 - 1. County:-16+ Population 2. Total Population 2001. 3. ARRESTS 2005 Change'. 2002 2005 Change 2001 2005 Change. (2003) 3609 BEND 4068 12.1' 95550 111079 1f .3% , 115367 143900 24.7% 1032 RDMD 3253 215.2% 4798 SHERIFF 5838 21:7% 9439 TOTAL 13159 83.2% Observations: 2001 ' 4. CASES FLLED 2005; Change, Female Jail Use up significantly 5313 MISDEMEANOR 5463 °°-.2001" " 11:JAIL"SANCTION " C 2005 h a inge 1987 FELONY 2389 20.26/ BED DAY ORD 16,235 . Male Booking Rate, ALS down 8146 BED DAY ACT 12,778 56:9% ADP ORD 44.6 Total arrests, total bookings, offenders being 2001 5; MALE t1AIL = 2005: Chan 22 ADP ACT 35 568°/a supervised in general keeping with Pop 4401 TOTAL BOOKINGS . e 5147 10 0` increase 96.41 BOOKING RATE 93.7 =2 8% 188 ADP . 211 12.2%- 10Dt'FENDERS ON SUPERVISION Larger Increase in sanctions than increase in 15.59 ALS 14.96 -4:0% - 2001 2005 Change total offenders supervised ? , 1301 1 471 13 1%: 2001 6. FEMALE JAIL 2005. Change , . 932 TOTAL BOOKING Those released early due to overcrowding 1283 37.7% 19.88 BOOKING RATE have low return rates 23 a 15.7/° . 9 :MISDEMEANOR MONITORING,. . 19 ADP 1 44 32 .68`.4% CURRENT 394 . ALS Felony Court Filings, Terminations Up 9.1 22.3% 7. COURT CASES 2602, TERMINATED `".;2005 Change ; FES , ' MAR. , 3184 MISDEMEANOR 2612 -18.0% " 2004 RELEASI? ORC b 2005 Change 1404 FELONY 1567 11.6% TOT ES 960 993% 9101 VIOLATION 7451 -18.1%- N/A % PRETRIAL 15% N/A % UNSENTENCED 37% Citations: N/A % RETURNED JAIL 5% " N/A 112. PSU Population Research Center 2002 and 2005 Pop Estimate Rpts 3. Arrests: City PD's and Sheriff Statistics 2006 4. Correspondence with DA August 2006 1,2 Jait:QSyCh Med EXpettd. " 5./6. Table D - Historical ADP, ALS, Booking Rate - OMNI Report 2005 7 Ci it C t . . rcu our s Aug 2006 - http://www.ojd.state.or.us/osca/statistics.htm Mar-05 Mar-06 C hange S. Sheriff 2001-05 Stats and Correspondence Jail (Ruth J) August 2006 RX 60 85, 411% 9. Verbal confirmation M&E Associates August 2uub W Inmates 9.3% 14.6% ,57.0% 10. Deschutes County Parole and Probation Aug/Sep 2006 Cost..::; $2,620 $6,662 `"154.3% 11. P&P Sanctions Ordered and DC Actual Sanction Bed Days 2005 12. DC Jail Medication Spreadsheet March 2005 - March 2006 t# ..firi~ _ta tlt. ( Cilw.,rlliF_ Ji![ti~. ICU ~y~l i, Armt r n n Furlo-., 7l f t l°'fe t 1n, f.tsib iti k S'rU r::; n `UuD1 )Of (CUi.6h IF3iTli1V h.1E'Cildii0rl; Group ti 'i t Fi•,t. It'rtl (cur 5iJui Iri;-iv#dual Sex offendt'f,- SM i)leStar JG-e"ay F=unctional Family _ r `t"rostrrierii' -Crr~atn~vaf)t x? ~iszr~er rr!lt'! %i ~ly~ 1 C.rCi Cat k'- i?(- ~i,). Is.i w l'ro rant / Restitution Support RPstomt;ve Cwon-m)isn ty hAH, Suicide, tit it} it+ i1+:! i~;itEi aB, .tie S1tsL, i it afns 4 Work Set-Vice Health Screen A Car-fv Intervention. Hnrl?e Visits, 1Y ~ !t'strrw°LGt A t i? H I-trzt `°tt(s T,rax I1 aient Education ® teatm nt .``i ct t~ F::/r iE.l<2C1UI1 u Indice,t oel Intervention: -Boys ft Ciits Ctol) Cascade C:) Youth <ind Family, Girl's Circle, Friendly Peff. asion CU nitive Skill t3uildin=~ school-Based hientat Heatth Girl's Circle, Fiecisive~ WelI5pring Parenting, Parent Project, BIBS LA 3 , c?x~ck iaLrlt rAve-Sion: City Diversion !"Peen Court, ALERT &iresZtter), STEP UP Rimtock AaD Education, Victim Empathy iramity Violence) WeltSpring Intc.risive Aitt-rcare Cr intinoger)ic Risk Clourt School Needs Assessment Residential a Correctionat j Proffrarrss in JEOPARDY Fvidence-Based Services ai d i unxJcu I..........,.....,..~-...-.-.. ~s - ~J )x 7 ~n L3 ° L/ d✓ 3 !S al, n Oil H, ~1 L r ' c +.7 ' ' any j C-I EG ,i 1;_ yY O CI) N N X 0 c a.J . E 14 E Gr O 4 y U S :Z Sd"J 'i'^ 2- U 3 3 d a-• aJ t . F~ M a a J A ~ cJ L7 ' n tr ~ x~ 7 a~ ~J p