Loading...
2007-1669-Minutes for Meeting October 01,2007 Recorded 12/4/2007COUNTY ry NANCYUBLANKENSNIP,F000NTY CLERKS 44 2007.1669 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111 Mims oil 12/04/2007 09:24:30 AM 2007-1668 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 ~0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners p { 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2007 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Michael M. Daly; Judge Michael Sullivan; Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Ken Hales, Community Justice; Jack Blum, citizen member; Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children & Families; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Ron Roberts, Redmond Police; Mike Shiel, Commission on Children & Families' Board; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Department; Becky McDonald, 9-1-1; and Bob Warsaw, Oregon Youth Authority. Citizens Bob and Pam Marble of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), and Rick Treleaven of BestCare Services were also in attendance. No members of the media were present. 1. Call to Order & Introductions. Judge Sullivan brought the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Monday, September 10 Meeting. Jack Blum moved approval and Tammy Baney seconded; there was unanimous approval. 3. Citizen Input. Bob Marble asked if anyone had a chance to read the book, "Crazy", that he mentioned at the last LSPCC meeting. Ernie Mazorol said he started reading it and found it interesting. Minutes ofLPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 1 of 8 Pages Mr. Marble indicated that his son had gone through Mental Health Court, and was one of the first to do so. Mr. Marble then read a letter that explained how his son's mental health problems have affected the family for the past thirteen years. He explained that one out of every five families has someone in the family suffering from a mental illness. The Marbles answer calls for NAMI from the public seeking help to find mental health services. There are successes and failures. The greatest barrier is how the public and media look at those individuals suffering from mental illness. Their son is an example of this. He refuses to take medication or seek medical care because of the stigma attached to the illness. Even when treatment is given, it is not constant or ongoing. Recently their son left the area and eventually ended up being arrested for stealing a car. The doctors who have seen him say he is suicidal. This type of situation is not uncommon, and will eventually end up in a tragedy of some kind. Judge Sullivan said that many of the LPSCC members deal with this situation on a daily basis through their work. 4. Adult Parole & Probation Update. Ken Hales said his objective is to remove non-supervisory work from supervisors so they can focus on what they need to do. (He referred to a memo regarding Parole & Probation services; attached.) Regarding the Department of Corrections grant, nothing has been happening with it for well over a year. Mr. Hales said he met with Ginger Martin at the Department of Corrections regarding how they operate, and how they decide which entity gets how much funding. They will eventually send out instructions with a letter stating how much the County can expect to get. The project is close but the amount is not guaranteed. Regarding the total number of offenders on supervision, there are over 1,700 now, categorized by felony or misdemeanor. Approximately 150 misdemeanor only offenders are under supervision. It is difficult to clarify the numbers from the database. There is a fairly elaborate workload analysis to identify the risk; but this doesn't affect the funding. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Pages In general, efforts towards restitution collection and closing out files is going well. One issue is how to maintain funding for an addition Parole Officer to supervise domestic violence cases; this will be a budget request next year. At this point the savings with Becky Wanless' retirement will be used to fund this position. Sheriff Blanton asked what a significant contact is - a home visit, office visits, or what else. Mr. Hales replied that there are also collateral contacts, such as discussions with parents, teachers, employers and others. Sheriff Blanton asked about the 51 sanctions year to date. Mr. Hales stated that the number should reflect different individuals placed in jail as a sanction, but he will verify that these aren't the same individuals sanctioned more than once. Commissioner Daly asked if there is a way to know how many jail bed days this reflects. Judge Sullivan pointed out that there could be imposed days but they might be matrixed out sooner, so it is difficult to track. Ernie Mazorol said that of the 1,700 people on probation, 87% are employed; but there is only a small amount collected for supervision fees. Maybe a different approach than having the Parole Officers do this should be considered. Mr. Hales stated that efforts are being made to prioritize this type of activity, which is disputed in the field staff. Mr. Mazorol added that victims ask about restitution when they believe the offender is employed. Perhaps there are other ways to collect this money. Scott Johnson asked if the information reflects a twelve-month period or a particular time span. Mr. Hales replied that they are snapshots, although some are a month's activity. Judge Sullivan said that they are opening more files than closing them, probably an average of twenty more each month. Judge Sullivan said he appreciates having the handouts, as this will help the group focus on the tasks at hand. He suggested that perhaps they could focus on one agency each month and talk about the challenges and work of each. 5. LPSCC Survey. Mr. Hales stated that he still does not have all of the surveys back. The survey asked six questions; the responses are listed. He will compile the information and, with Judge Sullivan, figure out how to interpret and present it. (A copy of the survey is attached.) Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 3 of 8 Pages There was a fairly broad consensus that this should be a venue for different agencies to present their particular issues and to provide form public input. The work needs to keep pace with community growth, and offenders should be held accountable. Also, additional alternatives are needed. At the next meeting, Mr. Hales will present the list and discussion can take place on which are the most viable. 6. Adult Detention Facility Requests for Proposal. Dave Kanner gave an overview of the progress of the jail expansion. With the Board's blessing, a revised plan for the expansion has been developed. He referred to an oversized display of the plans. The interview committee for the architect is being assembled. The process of selecting the architect should be completed by the end of the year. It was a big step, backing down from the larger plan to the current one. Judge Sullivan said he appreciates the progress being made, and it will eventually have a tremendous positive impact on the community. All of the associated entities will benefit. Mr. Marble observed that if there is treatment available for mental illness, the community would not need so many jail beds. Judge Sullivan replied that if someone is a danger to the community, law enforcement doesn't have much choice. Sheriff Blanton added that his Department spends about $10,000 every month on mental health medications for inmates. The jail unfortunately is probably the largest mental health facility in the area. The jail design will allow for some treatment options. Pam Marble stated that if someone has a broken arm, they go to the hospital, but if they have a broken brain, they often end up in jail. These people belong in a medical facility and not in jail. Judge Sullivan said he agrees in concept, but it is not a reality at this time. If someone is a danger to the community, they have to be in jail; unfortunately, judges deal with this situation on a regular basis. 7. City Representation on LPSCC. Ken Hales said that Bill Friedman is no longer the designated person for the city representative. Peter Gramlich of the City of Bend will be. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 4 of 8 Pages Judge Sullivan noted that the issues LPSCC addresses really affect the City. Commissioner Baney added that they need to have someone who will be actively involved. 8. Oregon Healthy Team Survey Letter. Hillary Saraceno stated her group approaches issues from the prevention end. They have been going out to the communities to seek input on a variety of issues. Several items come up regularly: mental health access, the Healthy Teen survey, and school resource officers. Mike Shiel, who was a school administrator in Redmond for many years and who is now on the Commission on Children & Families' Board, said he is very familiar with the survey. He asked for approval of a letter encouraging more consistent participation in the Healthy Teen survey; schools have criticized some portions and then weren't as involved as they should have been. The information could be a lot more consistent and helpful if the survey was more comprehensive. Rick Treleavan agreed that if you don't measure, you don't know how to address the problems. Ms. Saraceno stated that all of the signatures have been obtained except for Judge Sullivan's. (A copy of the survey letter is attached.) Bob Warsaw asked if there are problems with some of the questions. Mr. Shiel replied that they typically don't want to include one question or another, usually in regard to sex. Administrators sometimes don't want to deal with the issue, so help and encouragement needs to be provided to get them involved. JOHNSON: Move approval of signature of the letter. BLANTON: Second. The vote was unanimous in favor. 9. Discussion regarding School Resource Officers. Hillary Saraceno said that Redmond has the model for School Resource Officer; communities often request resource officers now. Mr. Shiel stated that there was a time when there was no security in place, and when the program was developed there was some opposition, but this went away after a few weeks. Communities have strongly embraced this program as prevention. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 5 of 8 Pages The communities are advocating extending it to beyond the two-year rotation, since the resource officers indicated that it usually takes 12 to 18 months to establish relationships with the students and teachers. They know that the program works, and administrators and staff trust the officers. The officers are looked upon by students as mentors, providing support and stability for the students and their families to get past specific problems in their lives. Change can be difficult and damages the work being done. Ms. Saraceno stated that it is not her department's call to make. It appears that the basic request is to evaluate whether there could be a longer-term assignment. Sheriff Blanton said that he believes in the program. The State used to provide help but hasn't for some time. There are three full-time school resource officers now. He will revisit the issue, but pointed out that the emotional and trust attachment can be huge and a two-year cycle can be problematic. The program itself is an alternative to incarceration at a basic level. The officers are often some of the best people on the force. It is always voluntary and is not an assignment. However, the best people want to be more rounded and learn about all aspects of police work; there are other things they need to do to enhance their overall skills. He wants good people to be at the schools but it is hard to tell the officers they have to stay longer than two years. Chief Roberts pointed out that this is a huge value to the youth and he agrees it is a strong prevention tool. He wouldn't want to see the officers locked into a minimum time frame, but sees the value. Perhaps three years would be more effective. All kinds of skills can be enhanced by this work, but he wants to be sure the officers can develop their expertise in different areas. Jack Blum added that he sees the value of moving the officers around, but perhaps they could be asked if they would commit to a third year. Some officers prefer driving a patrol car, but some are very good at dealing with students and maybe should have a chance to do it for longer than two years. Judge Sullivan said that he hears a lot about this issue. The officers are typically exceptional, and are good problem solvers with excellent people skills. They can use this training in other parts of law enforcement. These officers are strong role models for the students, but management has to weigh this resource against other needs. Chief Roberts pointed out that a citizen survey is now on line for Redmond, and some of the questions deal with this particular issue. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 6 of 8 Pages 10. Justice System Consulting Information. Mr. Hales said that Commissioner Daly was exposed to justice system consulting information at the NACo conference. He suggested this be discussed at the November LPSCC meeting after everyone has had a chance to review the information. Mr. Kanner stated that there are dozens of firms that do this type of work. The question is whether in general this is something to consider. (A copy of information relating to this service is attached.) 11. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, October 1). Sheriff Blanton said that as a fundraiser for the Bethlehem Inn, in order to raise about $10,000, they are holding a "dinner and a movie" night at the work center. People are to bring sleeping bags and leave them behind. The cost is $90 per person to spend the night. More volunteers are needed to set this up. It will probably take place in January. Sheriff Blanton stated they are out of room at the Sheriff s Office. The FBI officers may leave since they need more space than they now have, but this will happen in about 18 months. Detectives are now occupying the old jury assembly room near the courthouse, which is not the perfect scenario. Sheriff Blanton noted that there has not been a matrix report lately as the numbers have been down. This is cyclical, and they are now back up to 214 inmates. Commissioner Daly said that Parole & Probation also gave up some beds; some are cited and released when maybe they should instead be in jail. Judge Sullivan stated that those who can go into a treatment program and not into jail saves those jail beds. After a brief discussion, the group supported the possibility of pursuing developing a separate webpage for LPSCC on the County website. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 7 of 8 Pages Judge Sullivan asked that law enforcement personnel make sure they use the dedicated parking spaces in front of the courthouse; otherwise the City will want them back for general parking. Mr. Kanner advised that Ken Hales is now acting as the Director of Parole and Probation until a plan is worked out. Mr. Hales will examine the structure to try to figure out how it might be arranged in the future. For the time being, he will have an office at both Juvenile Community Justice and Parole & Probation. Jacques DeKalb said he would like to address indigent defense funding issues at the November meeting. Being no other issues brought before the group, the meeting adjourned at 4: 45 p. m. Respectfully submitted, G &NI&L * Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign-in sheets Exhibit B: Agenda Exhibit C: LPSCC Questionnaire Exhibit D: Adult Parole & Probation Information Exhibit E: Letter regarding the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey Exhibit F: Information regarding Justice System Management Services Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 1, 2007 Page 8 of 8 Pages z z V w Q L11 J N O N = r L O ~ V O V% L J v 00 V i v ~ ~ co J vlb v Z O 1 y !i v 0 m cu a z z 0 t^ LU v , 4 W J CL V / O I~ L Q) Q) S , v O Q) L co °C T3 C J C v 130 C CN L t~ co J v c c 0 m 0 E a, L N cu v a Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting October 1, 2007, 3:30 P.M. County Administration Building, 1300 N.W. Wall, 2°d Floor Board of County Commissioners' Conference Room Agenda 1. Call to Order & Introductions Judge Sullivan II. September Minutes Attachment 1 Judge Sullivan Action: Approve meeting minutes III. Public Comment Judge Sullivan. IV. Adult Parole & Probation Update Attachment 2 Ken Hales V. LPSCC Survey Ken Hales VI. Adult Detention Design RFP Dave Kanner VII. City Representation Ken Hales VIII. Oregon Healthy Teen Survey Letter Attachment 3 Hilary Saraceno and Mike Schiel Action: Authorize Chairman to sign IX. School Resource Officer Hilary Saracen and Mike Schiel X. Justice System Consulting Attachment 4 Ken Hales XI. Other Business Attachment 5 09/27/07 Attachment 2 To: Ken Hales Community Justice Director From: Terry Chubb Supervisor Subject: Adult P&P Information The Community Corrections Plan is a biennial document that coincides with our Department of Corrections budget cycle. The current budget range is 07/01/07 - 06/30/09 and a plan was recently developed. Once we create the plan, it must be approved by the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) and then presented to the Board of County Commissioners per ORS 423.560(3)(a)(A). The Oregon Department of Corrections will not approve a plan until it has been previously approved by the regional LPSCC as well as the BOCC. Here are some current and comparative facts for LPSCC: Nov '04 Total offenders on supervision: 1702 1308 Felony offenders- 1209 Misdemeanor offenders- 493 (Sex & DV only) Current number of PO's: 17 DOC's recommended number of PO's: 21 Significant Contacts: Total contacts with offenders- 6,639 4,995 Office visits with offenders- 2,880 2,443 Total home visits attempted- 598 416 Home visits completed- 460 Sanctions imposed Jail sanctions- Non-jail sanctions- Supervision fees collected: Non-negative file closures: Files opened: Files closed: Percent of offenders employed: Percent employed greater than part time 94 88 51 43 $24,992.75 $16,562 Nov '05 July `06 1488 1590 5,459 4,642 2,727 1,950 247 233 107 84 $15,155 76% 57% 72% 104 79 87% 81% Offenders in 12 week cognitive skills class: 12/class Offenders in weekly cognitive skills class: 6/week $12,804 84% Electronic Monitoring daily population: 20 Offenders served each month- 35 Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council September 10, 2007 Preferred Futures Questionnaire Objectives: • To identify how the members want the Council to carry out its duties. • To identify what kind of impact the Council's members want the Deschutes County LPSCC to have. • To identify what the member's believe the Council should accomplish over the next few years. • To identify key barriers or challenges to the Council being what it wants to be and accomplishing what it wants to accomplish. Instructions: • Fill in the statements in the space provided • Be candid, say what you want heard • Return the form to Ken Hales by the September 20t" Thank you! Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council September 10, 2007 Preferred Futures Questionnaire 1. The biggest challenges facing this community's safety are 2. 1 think the LPSCC could be more effective if 3. The biggest challenges facing the local justice system are 4. The LPSCC is good at 5. 1 think the LPSCC should focus its efforts on 6. Other comments Attachment 3 September 5, 2007 Ms. Vickie Fleming, Superintendent Redmond School District 145 SE Salmon Ave. Redmond, OR 97756 Dear Ms. Vickie Fleming, On behalf of the Deschutes County Commission on Children & Families and the Addictions and Mental Health Advisory Board, we would like to thank you and the school administration for your continued support and efforts to voluntarily participate in the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey (OHTS). It has been an asset to the community to be provided the data necessary to serve the youth of your community and enhance programs and services. In addition to the contribution the data makes locally, it also provides the larger county a more accurate picture of the risky behaviors youth are participating in on a regular basis and increase the capacity of community support to help make a difference. As a community partner we are interested in alcohol and other drug issues and we see the OHTS as an essential tool to have for all Middle and High Schools throughout Deschutes County. The OHTS provides the greater community the most accurate data available to make changes around community norms and the perceptions of alcohol and other drug use among the young people in our county. Please understand that this survey helps in so many ways, such as: data to the community to develop a strategic plan for programs and services, local stakeholders with their advocacy for stronger legislation and increased funding, and increased citizen participation at the local level to mobilize stronger prevention efforts in your community and throughout Deschutes County. In approximately 60-90 days you will be receiving a letter from the state asking for your participation in this survey. We strongly encourage your commitment to stay involved as it's critical in providing the assets necessary to create healthy young people in your community and throughout Deschutes County. Thank you for your continued investment in the young people of your community Sincerely, Gary Smith, Chair Deschutes County Commission on Children & Families Leo Mottau, Chair Deschutes County Addictions and Mental Health Advisory Board Deloris Ellis, Chair Deschutes County Addictions Committee 014TS Letter to Superintendents Page 1 of 2 9/27/2007 Ken Hales, Director Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice Tammy Baney Board of County Commissioner Mike Daly Board of County Commissioner Judge Michael Sullivan District Court Judge Dennis Luke Board of County Commissioner OHTS Letter to Superintendents Page 2 of 2 9/27/2007 Attachment 4 ,x. int I~ Justice System Assessments Information Systems Planning Facility Planning Organizational Development Audits and Investigations Health Policy Planning INSTITUTE FOR LAW & POLICY PLANNING 2613 Hillegass Ave., Berkeley, CA 94704 phone: 510 486 8352 fax: 510 841 3710 www.ilpp.com a nonprofit planning agency Institute for Law and Policy Planning Founded in 1973, ILPP has grown from a small, community-based legal association into a nationally recognized, public, nonprofit planning agency. Alan Kalmanoff, Ph.D., has been ILPP's executive director since its inception. He has taught at U.C. Berkeley's Schools of Law, Public Policy, Criminology and Social Work. Alan Kalmanoff was appointed by the federal courts as a Special Master and is considered to be a national expert on public policy, having been featured on 60 Minutes and often quoted in the New York Times. ILPP has a reputation for undertaking demanding assignments in law and policy planning and is dedicated to providing thorough and objective policy recommendations. How WE CAN ASSIST YOU ILPP's team of public policy experts, attorneys, planners and architects conducts public policy research and consults to public agencies in the following areas: Criminal justice System Assessments • Jail Overcrowding Studies • Court Planning • Law Enforcement Reviews • Jail Needs Assessments • Juvenile justice Assessments The following are typical of the scenarios ILPP faces. (These are composite examples.) County A is facing a severe budget crisis. Seventy-three percent of the county's general fund is consumed by justice costs, which have been steadily rising. Several studies have been conducted by consultants in the past and are now sitting on the shelf, unimplemented. Information Systems Planning • Automation Planning • Database Integration Planning Facilities Planning • County-wide Master Plans • Space Use Policy Studies • ADA Compliance Health Policy Planning • Jail Medical Reviews Organizational Development • Reorganization Studies • Management Training • Team Building/ Development Audits and Investigations • Procedural Reviews • Program Compliance Audits • Incident Investigations Nevertheless, the CAO believes that what is needed is an independently produced immediate action plan aimed at improving efficiency among all justice agencies and cutting costs by 20-30 percent. An important component of this plan will be addressing inter-agency rivalries and developing support for implementing change. County B contracts out all county health services to a larger, neighboring county. Halfway through a five-year contract, it is discovered that there are serious deficiencies in the quality of care being delivered to County.B's patients. ILPP is called in to investigate the overall adequacy of current health care provision and County B's obligations and options in this situation. INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND POLICY PLANNING 1 Public Safety: The Fiscal Policy Issue THE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY The public is demanding safer streets and tougher sanctions against violent criminals. At the same time, taxpayers are balking at the high costs of maintaining law and order. Taken together, these two trends require local jurisdictions be able to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of justice programs. MAKING THETAXPAYERS' DOLLAR COUNT just as taxpayers expect visible evidence that their roads are being fixed, they also want tangible public safety services. The two highest priorities: • Police officer visibility on the streets and quick response timc to emergency calls • Locking up of violent offenders What percentage of the justice budget goes directly to providing these services? And what costs are absorbing the rest? Most systems are not set up to provide information at this level. Implementing a program to track cost per unit of work enables managers to gain much control over budgets and to see which programs are most cost effective. Average Overall County justice Budget ~ rv l 12% Direct Cost of 079% Everything Else Police on Street Ie: 9% Direct Cost of Incarcerating Violent Offenders THE HIGH PRICE OF INCARCERATION The costs of arrest and detention are much higher than is commonly realized, and small decisions taken by one agency often produce enormous costs for another. For example, the policy of a law enforcement agency to book an individual at the county jail, rather than citing and releasing the person on-site, can cost an additional several hundred dollars. Estimated Average Costs Resulting from Law Enforcement Policies Action Range of Costs to Taxpayer Overall Impact on Public Safety Cite in field and $15-30 Person removed from public circulation release for half an hour, then freed Transport to jail, $100-300 Person removed from public circulation book and release for three hours, then freed Transport to jail, $130-260 Person removed from public circulation book and detain for one day, then freed Detention for $60-150 Person removed from public circulation each additional until pretrial release, acquittal, or if 24 hours convicted and sentenced to jail, completion of sentence Controlling Your Justice Costs The criminal justice proportion of most county general funds has been steadily increasing over the last decade, and many managers fear that justice-related costs are spiraling out of control. The good news is that there are ways of managing both the system and the costs. EXAMINING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A SINGLE UNIT Any justice system is comprised of numerous agencies: the three main ones being law enforcement, detention, and courts. These functions are funded by different jurisdictions, report to different supervising agencies, and often have little horizontal integration. This situation can result in huge inefficiencies. To make effective decisions, you need to understand not only how each individual agency is operating but how the system works as a whole. 2 PUBLIC SAFETY GETTING COOPERATION FROM AGENCY HEADS Most common problems in county justice systems are caused by, and affect, the whole system. Jail overcrowding is a prime example, as inmates come in through law enforcement agencies and go out through the courts. The jail population is greatly affected by the decisions of non- detention agencies. It is therefore essential-and often difficult-to get agencies to understand that they're all on the same team. Mutual recrimination must be replaced by mutual cooperation. If old rivalries make this transition difficult, CACIs can hire management consultants or other professionals to work with county staff on team building. (ILPP's staff is particularly effective at helping with this issue.) GETTING CONTROL OF DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The County Administrator must review the budgets for all of the criminal justice agencies in the county-the Sheriff, the jail, the prosecutor and public defender, the courts, probation-without being able to exercise much control over the elected officials heading most of chose agencies. In some jurisdictions they are not even county employees but are state officials. In most counties each agency prepares its budget with no consideration of the other departments' budgets, yet all share a common workload. If the agencies can work together to process this workload more efficiently, the county will save overall. EXPEDITING CASE RESOLUTION TO REDUCE COURT COSTS The longer it takes for each case to make its way through the courts system, the more expensive it is. If the defendant is held in custody, detention costs are added to court costs. Clear, early communication between court, prosecution and defense can result in speedier case resolutions. REDUCING DETENTION COSTS WHILE MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY There are a number of issues that drive up detention costs, including inefficient building configurations that require higher staffing levels and high proportions of pretrial inmates. These individuals are often detained unnecessarily because jurisdictions have no standard protocol for releasing them, and therefore automatically detain all arrestees. A public-safety-based release protocol requires exchange of information and cooperation between all the agencies concerned: law enforcement, detention, defendant's attorney, prosecution and the court. It is essential that jails detain all truly dangerous individuals. Unfortunately, indiscriminate detention can actually reduce public safety by eliminating the ability to screen and detain these individuals. Jails that operate under court-imposed caps are often forced to release inmates according to length of time in detention rather than severity of offense or other public safety criteria. Estimated Average justice Share of County Budget 100 90 c 80 LL d 70 0 v 60 a 50 40 CONTROLLING COSTS: A STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS 1. Look at your justice system as a whole. An overall management approach that views the system as a whole will note the bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and duplications of effort that cost counties millions of dollars annually. To make effective long-term decisions, you need basic information about your criminal justice system and not simply about the individual agencies that constitute it. Ask yourself the following questions: What real return on investment do you get for funds spent running your criminal justice system? Which parts of the system are operating efficiently and which are not? • How long does it take to process an individual through the entire system? CRIMINALJUSTICE p, M V N. r, M P O P pV. O~ P 0` P 0 0 0 0 IT 0 TG 0 0 0 N M V N ~O r• d0 pp. O N M V Y, n •D P P OP P P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FiscalYear Uncontrolled Managed • Where are the bottlenecks? • What actions can eliminate those bottlenecks? • Do the key individuals in each part understand clearly how their actions affect the system as a whole? 2. Decide how you want it to work. You need to have specific goals for the system as a whole. The configuration of the system, and objectives for each of its constituent parts, need to be designed to support your big-picture goals. • In order for the system to work most efficiently, who needs to exchange information with whom? • How will you evaluate the effectiveness of the system in meeting its goals? 3. Examine your pretrial detention and release system. Pretrial detention is one of the most expensive aspects of the entire criminal justice system. It is an important safeguard when charged individuals might pose a threat to public safety, and needs to be appropriately used in such cases. Many other persons who cannot be released in the first instance can exit after their charges have been reduced. To begin to understand the flow of pretrial inmates, investigate the following issues: • Do all the jurisdictions in your county have standardized protocols for citation and release? • What percentage of your inmates are pretrial? • Aftcr inmates are booked into the county jail, how deterrent nor reduces the chance of an individual repeating his or her offense. In these cases, it does not increase public safety (except for the short time the inmate is incarcerated) and punishes the taxpayers heavily. Home electronic monitoring, work release, and community service are examples of sanctions that are less expensive and can be more effective. In examining sanctions, answer the following questions: • What are your measures of success for sanctions? • Do you have sanctions aimed at reducing recidivism among specific populations of offenders? • What percentage of your sentenced inmates are non-violent offenders? A Criminal Justice System Assessment WHAT IT DOES AND How IT CAN HELP A criminal justice system assessment looks at a jurisdiction's system as a single entity, each component of which affects the others. Thus, it not only examines how a department operates in itself, but how its policies and procedures contribute to the efficiency of the entire system. The system may include county, city, state, and private agencies. do they exit? The bottom-line questions: • How long until their release? If you know the average length of stay by charge and release mode, you have the key data to start managing your system. • What are your goals for this system? • Which of these goals are and are not being met? • What needs to change in order to allow the system to meet its goals? 4. Accelerate case processing. It should be a priority to move pretrial inmates through the judicial system to disposition as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the number of pretrial custody days for which you pay. • How long does it typically take from arrest to disposition? The criminal justice system assessment produces a cohesive picture of the agencies involved, their relationships to each other and the impact of those relationships on the system as a whole. A good assessment must include an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of current structure and practices. Such a view offers decision makers the opportunity to see where resources might be used more effectively. • Do you have a system of quick review for all in- custody cases? The assessment must also present the jurisdiction with information on those incarcerated, and long-term, cost- 5. Expand your range of sanctions. The truth of effective solutions to jail overcrowding, evaluating the the matter is that for many crimes, jail neither acts as a impact on detention of all justice agencies. 4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONQUER THE SYSTEM BEFORE IT CONQUERSYOU SPACE USE EVALUATION The most important result of an assessment is the understanding that any criminal justice system can be managed. A system may seem out of control and entirely self-propelling, but it is possible to establish structures and practices that bring it back under the control of its managers. Ultimately, there must be specific management goals and individuals responsible for reaching those goals. It is only through such accountability that a criminal justice system can meet the needs of those it is designed to serve. Signs that Your Justice System Needs Assistance: • On-site Review of Facilities • Staff Interviews • Operations and Fiscal Evaluation • Development of Facilities Options The Courts HOW THE COURTS CAN HELP REDUCE OVERALL JUSTICE COSTS • Overcrowded Jail • Poor Information Management • Lawsuits • Escalating Costs • Changes in Population • Court Delays • Reductions in Funding A Criminal Justice System Assessment includes a Population Evaluation and Forecast, System Assessment and Evaluation, and Space Use Evaluation. POPULATION EVALUATION AND FORECAST • Profile, Classification and Tracking • Population Forecasting SYSTEM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION • Law Enforcement/Sheriff • Probation /Pretrial Services • Prosecution • Defense • Courts and Related Agencies • Jail Administration and Operations • Management Information Systems • Substance Abuse Agencies • Alternatives to Incarceration • System Coordination Over 60% of all county justice costs are incurred before case disposition, and most of these costs are controlled by the courts. Efficient disposition of cases reduces both court expenses and the high costs of pretrial detention. Specific strategies for improving court efficiency include: Calendaring for quicker case disposition. Calendaring can be used as a proactive tool for pushing cases along, for example, by automatically scheduling an early pretrial motion conference. Courts scheduling early pretrial conferences require necessary motions, such as suppression of evidence or discovery, be set for certain date and heard on that date. Adherence to these court requirements has led to early identification of cases that must be tried and those that will plead, thereby considerably reducing the court's case load. Efficient sharing of case information. The judicial system can only work efficiently if the primary parties-the court, the prosecution /plaintiffs, and the defense-have full and immediate access to all relevant case information. This requires developing a shared on-line infrastructure. Early review of all in-custody cases. Since pretrial detention is one of the courts' single largest costs, moving in-custody cases through to disposition as quickly as possible should be a very high priority. Establishing fast tracking for certain types of cases. Certain straightforward and high-volume case types (e.g. worthless checks) should be dealt with under a "fast-track" system that hastens final adjudication. In this system, the prosecutor has set criteria by which cases are designated as fast- 'I'H@ COURTS 5 track on filing the charges. The Clerk will then schedule them for arraignment and the judge will set the cases for disposition within 50 days after arraignment. Specialized case handling. Courts for specific types of charges, such as traffic and drug courts, can help a jurisdiction operate efficiently by centralizing the resources needed to deal with specific case types. Improve collection of fines. When fines go uncollected, individuals end up sentenced to jail time at the taxpayers' expense. Increasing the capacity to collect fines reduces detention costs and results in a net increase in revenue. (One California county's collection agency brings in $15 for every $1 it costs to run!) Delegating to court staff Courtroom time is often taken up with administrative matters that can be disposed of by court order or simply delegated to the Clerk or other court staff. Information Systems Planning Information systems planning focuses on enhancing the capacity for collecting, analyzing and disseminating information for both the justice system and its component agencies: a business analysis of inter- and intra- departmental workflow and procedures; inventory and evaluation of the overall automated environment; development of options based on the emerging technology and findings; and identification of alternatives and costs for each. Features of an Information Systems Study: • Evaluation of current information flow and business processes as well as current systems' long-term viability • Formulation of strategies for more efficient business processes. • Identification of replacement technologies where needed. • Creation of options for integration, future growth, multi-year systems acquisition and implementation plan. More information on this work is available upon request. Sanctions PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS AND COSTS Sanctions must be evaluated in terms of a jurisdiction's goals in imposing them. The three most common goals are: Punishment/revenge: Make the offender suffer a substantial penalty, such as loss of freedom (incarceration), loss of money (through fines), or loss of free time (through forced activities). Improve public safety: Remove the offender from public access (through incarceration or electronic home monitoring) or "rehabilitate" the offender (through programs aimed at academic education, vocational training, drug rehab, violence management, etc.). Restitution: Compensation of the victim or of society as a whole, often by financial payment or by providing community service. jurisdictions often do not articulate to the public their specific goals in imposing sanctions. Given their high cost, it is essential to know what benefit you hope to get for the money you spend. Estimated Average Cost of Various Sanctions Sanction Average Cost Overall Impact to Taxpayer on Public Safety jail time- $50-115 per day Individual poses no threat to public few/no programs during incarceration. Individual is likely to commit new crimes on release. jail time-active $60-190 per day Likelihood of new crimes is reduced, rehabilitation programs but not eliminated. Home Monitoring $10-15 per day Individual can remain productive. Cost savings to county over incarceration; some risk of new crimes. Parole with $15-25 per day Individual can remain productive and rehabilitation programs risk of new crimes is reduced. 6 SANCTIONS Violent Juveniles: Your System's Response The rise in violent crime by juveniles is attracting public attention and increasing demand for services. Much of the planning being done in fact exacerbates existing problems. Below is a list of some major considerations that an effective system evaluation needs to address. OVERALL SYSTEM • What are the goals of the system? • Is the system meeting its goals? How is this measured? • How do the interactions between the different elements of the system affect its overall function? • How much does the system cost to operate? • Where are there inefficiencies in the system that can be eliminated? DETENTION • Who really needs to be locked up? • What are the goals and criteria for detention? • How can those goals be met most cost effectively? • How wide is the range of alternatives to detention? • What kinds of programs and facilities do you need to meet these goals? PROGRAMS • What specific populations could benefit from programs? • Are there populations whose needs are not being met by current programs? • Are there programs for kids at each stage in the juvenile justice system - from diversion programs for 10-year-old shoplifters to in-custody programs for older felons? • Are programs interrelated in a way that provides effective services for the multi-problem kid and his/her family? • What level of community support does the program provide to kids? • Are programs culturally appropriate? • What is the goal of each program? • What does it cost to implement? • What are its current and potential funding sources? • How do you measure its success? ILPP's APPROACH TO EVALUATION As ILPP evaluates counties' juvenile justice systems, these are the steps we take: The first step is to collect comprehensive data on the juvenile population to identify who is in the juvenile justice system, how long they stay, and how they exit. The second step is for ILPP's team to complete an assessment of all programs and services to seek out potential obstacles to overall effectiveness. The third step is the development of long-term facilities options-in light of projected future demand-for the juvenile probation department. This step relies on the conclusions of the first two: Based on the size and needs of the juvenile population and an understanding of how the in the system could maximize efficiency, what will be needed to physically accommodate this system? The final product is a report which describes the findings and recommendations from each project phase and concludes with an overall program plan, system management plan, and facilities plan. Facility Planning Many jurisdictions have difficulties in creating cost efficient long-term plans for space use and capital improvements financing. Ideally, an effective plan will address the following issues: • Maximum space utilization by all departments. • Cost-effective financing solutions. • Maintenance schedule. • ADA compliance. • A detailed strategy to meet long-term needs. ILPP's facility planning team can help you develop such a plan, based on your unique growth patterns and space requirements. We will consider the issues relevant to your jurisdiction: policy issues, past growth trends and potential changes, current facilities, and special problems with current facilities. JUVENILE JUSTICE & FACILITY PLANNING 7 Our study will answer the questions essential to making expensive building decisions: • How will the demand for services grow, and what are the fastest growing areas? • What is the most effective way to meet increased demands for space? • How can the existing sites and spaces be used most effectively? • What financing alternatives are available to meet these needs? • What is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? • What are the best uses for existing buildings and property? • Which departments should relocate or consolidate? • How do adjacency and client needs affect current and future locations? Answers to these questions are generated after extensive data collection and analysis. We consider the experts in your jurisdiction, including the people who use the buildings, an important resource. Questionnaires, building surveys, analysis of existing reports and data and interviews all provide essential information to creating a plan chat leads you forward to meeting future building needs. The Health of Your Jail's Medical Services TYPICAL PROBLEMS Most counties' jail health systems are costly and are not working as efficiently as their managers would like. ILPP's audits have remedied these problems. The most pressing issues generally are: • Continuing lawsuits • Rising levels of infections and diseases such as TB • Rising costs of private providers APPROACHING A SOLUTION ILPP has developed a system for managing such situations effectively. First, ILPP conducts a policy and procedure performance review of a jurisdiction's correctional medical services guided by the following questions: Is service delivery appropriate? For example, if there is a high incidence of mental illness in the jail system, are there appropriate programs? Areas of review include intake screening, sick call, pharmacy services, infirmary services and hospital and emergency room use. • How can you contain costs and provide better care? These two goals often seem mutually exclusive but, in fact, they go hand-in-hand. The bottom line: get the patients as directly as possible to the right provider to receive the correct treatment. This requires effective triaging from the moment of presentation. • How is the system managed? Look at the internal review mechanism and how it is used. Ensure that your county is getting the best rates for hospital and provider service. RECOMMENDATIONS Then ILPP provides the client with a set of concrete recommendations tailored to the particular system. Previous projects have saved correctional systems millions of dollars while improving the quality of service. Examples of ILPP's recommendations and approaches • Maximize use of nonmedical personnel (i.e., health trained correctional officcrs) and nurse practitioners to perform routine services. • Simplify the process of inmate sick call by instituting a screening process that minimizes use of expensive high level staff. • Emphasize inexpensive screening tests at intake to create a preventive health care system at a lower cost. • Provide test results and contact information to community health agencies for follow-up care once inmates are released. ILPP was the recipient of a one-year grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to study the integration of health care services provided by American counties, focusing on tuberculosis. ILPP has analyzed medical services provided by two parallel systems-county jails and county health departments-to one population: individuals who are or have been in jail. This study has already had a national impact on how counties organize their health care resources. MEDICAL SERVICES rw~ ~AW` V J • It~l O O •1ool PENM •k bi) by~ • POO ~I •M -V O ~ V I~ ~ O Lit V~ Aft W a M P4 1.4 d O ' R R R R O O O O 7 4 ~ ~ O p (45 7 C O ' C O R 7 7 O a O O O C R y K ~ ~ ye C C fl ~ ~ C b O ~ ~ G c V C C C O ~ ^ ~ ~ c C ~ [ R O ° ` y ° ° R O \ O ro O R O ~ O O a \ O O v i _ C ° O p O ~r r ~~rr d G C 00 ~ ~o N 66 M O O G C Gq G En Gn ~ 66 ~ 66 bR 66 69 yy ~n ~ G6 N end ,,y 0 oo 00 r- O O o O O O O O to O o O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 et a N O 0 O to tn t - O O 0 O O O O O O O O t" O r ' V M y. I I N to o\ en M 00 D\ M 00 O, r- to N o N r O M 6A ' R 6R y N Qj vq ~--i 66 r, FH N 69 d4 sR N V9 .--i Gn Ff3 N Gn ~ 64 • H9 U to a CN N O to t- oo ~O O O ~O O~ O~ O~ N to N to r to to O M O ~z o ~o O 00 to O to to to ~O 00 ~O O ~0 00 r" rl' 00 00 1 O O~ ty ~D It N O ~O M to r N to ~D l 7 M m N O to to 00 to 00 " t-- O C~ C .ter a . O R C R .b C O > rn R L Ok C C L O R E E ~ O L O O O L C C i4 'b .L R c (s G4 ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ' + ~ O r W C~ Grr L r i ~ ~ O C ~ ~ R ~ C ^ 'y o ~ a a, . ~ R y s , ~ O ~ O R p ~ ~ ; o U ~ ~ d ~ ° a° u o c o a ° w ° c a c .5 ° Z V o ° U R U R U O U O U O O C to R U , . S: s is . ~ L ~ U V1 CaD p .a O E y Orl V O R w ' ~ V1 h W x L pr O ~ A to 0 et 0 0 en 0 M 0 0 O o G\ a~ 00 o) t-- v, t- o\ to rt (7) 'T ON M ON O o~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, a o, a 0\ O, vN 0~ ~.1 N N N N N N N ~ .••i ~--i ti ~--i .ti .•-i "'t ti O ~ U U N U to N N cn to Cd O "C O O O O Eel O ~ U ~ ~ O N U C O v7 U cl) N V~ rct J v V) ~ O O CC ~ U U U Cd too ;3 0 U to r, r ' ~ U a~ cd' o U 0 b Cd N N O ~cq U ~ bA to O zEn V) I0 r July 13, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Dane ROOM 118, CITY-COUNTY BUILDING 210 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD MADISON, WISCONSIN 53703-3342 6081266-5758 • FAX 266-4361 • TDD 266-4121 The Institute for Law and Policy Planning began work for the Dane County Board of Supervisors in March, 2007, conducting a comprehensive criminal justice system assessment. They were engaged following a national request for proposal process, and selected from among three finalists by our interview panel. Their qualifications, prior work engagements, and the quality of previous reports all contributed to their selection. At the heart of the issues we sought to address in Dane County is a jail operating at or over capacity. We were looking for a review of our entire criminal justice system to assist in identifying opportunities to reduce jail population by making improvements throughout the system. We will be receiving a draft report next week, with a presentation to our County Board. We have been very impressed by the team that was assembled by Dr. Alan Kalmanoff and ILPP to conduct this study. They have significant and relevant experience, conducted themselves professionally, and were very responsive to our staff and elected officials. ILPP has been very conscientious about maintaining contact with our staff to keep us apprised of their progress and to seek out our input and guidance as questions arose. Based on our discussions with Dr. Kalmanoff, we anticipate that the recommendations of the report will provide us with significant opportunities for improvements and cost efficiencies in our criminal justice system. The ILPP team offered a wide range of experience and knowledge of best practices in all areas of the justice system. We look forward to implementing the recommendations of their report. Sincerely, f~ n Supervisor Scott McDonell, Chair Dane County Board of Supervisors Count7 o' G R E E n E GREENE COUNTY COMMISSION 940 Boonville Avenue SPRINGFIELD MO, 65802 (417) 868-4112 DAVID L. COONROD Presiding Commissioner DARRELL DECKER Commissioner 1 st District JIM PAYNE Cnmmissinner 2nd District Mr. Al Kalmanoff institute for Law and Policy Planning 2613 Hillegass Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Dear Mr. Kalmanoff:: June 5, 2003 The members of the Greene County Commission are extremely pleased with the efforts of Institute for Law and Policy Planning (ILPP) in working with our community on an assessment of our criminal justice system. We have recently received the final document entitled Criminal Justice System Assessment Final Report and we are now beginning to implement a variety of programs directly resulting from this important study. We believe that our community will directly benefit from the recommendations Contained within this important report. We are confident that by implementing the reconuncudatiuus suggested, we are fostering better working relationships between our courts, law enforcement personnel, and related administrative activities here in Greene County. Furthermore, these coordinated efforts should assist in making our justice system more efficient and productive. Lastly, we are hopeful that the overcrowding of our jail and our juvenile justice program will be minimized as a direct result of the assessment provided by ILPP. We would like to complement you and your staff for assisting our jurisdiction and providing Greene County with recommendations to improve our judicial system. We recognize that the implementation of the recommendations stemming fi-om your study is a work in progress. We appreciate the hard work and professionalism exhibited by you and your organization in assisting Greene County. Sincerely, 1 ~ 1 David L. Coon''ad Darrell Decker Jim Payne Presiding Commissioner Commissioner District 1 Commissioner District 2 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ALLEGHENY COUNTY PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15219 ROBEH I A. KLLLY P--E- JUDGE December 17, 2003 Alan Kalmanoff, Executive Director Institute for Law and Policy Planning P.O. Box 5137 Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Mr. Kalmanoff: JUDGES CHAMBERS 14 12) 350-5404 As my term as President Judge of Allegheny County is coming to a close, I wanted to take this opportunity to convey my sincere appreciation and commend you on your work here in Pittsburgh. It would be an understatement for me to confess that I was less than convinced that a Criminal Justice Policy Board was a sound concept in our politically charged environment. Not only were the principal players from different sides of the political spectrum, open hostilities among the group were commonplace. You entered this minefield with confidence, a sound knowledge base of the issues, and a style that allowed all at the table, for at least the 90 minutes of our meetings, to lay down their swords and talk free!y without fear of political reprisal. I am also greatly impressed with the methods you have employed to address the problem areas identified by the Board. Your analyses and reports of jail overcrowding and initial arrest processes were concise and provided timely. I will certainly pass along to my successor my thoughts on your work. I wish you success in all of your future endeavors. Sincerely, ROBERT A. KELLY RAK/mem f.: Y, +F~~ Y SNOHOI'iiJIISH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. March 5, 2004 rvlr. Alan Kalmanoff Executive Director Institute for Law & f olicy Planning P.O.Box 5137 Berkey, CA 94705 Dear Mr. Kalmanoff; }aide iFf "r i; tt'F' s,; .")m i'!„11 lf;1l;flil1; R. R."Rick" Bart Shc?!i10 For several years many challenges have prompted Snohomish County government to iook for efficiencies in our tats wid justice systerrt. Such things as lari overcrowding. rapidly growing system-wrde budgets, system delays, a lack of alternative incarceration, and better work scheduling issues demanded. the system examine ;tseli for solutions to these ever growing problems. In 2002 an efficiency study of SnohcmishCounty's criminal justice system was launched after a request for proposal was outlined and made public. The Institute for Law & Policy Planning was awarded a contract and completed their study in January 2003. 1 supported the intent and the necessity for the study as the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office is a vital piece to the law and justice puzzle, What followed was an intense informafion-gathering process by the tnstitute:Wherein the appropriate data and discussions were assimilated. The Institute had to nectotiate dangerous political waters in the Executive's Office, County Council Offices and all of the law and justice departments and elected Office's (including mine). This veas accomplished with the utmost professionalism and integrity in a timely manner_ The results of the study were made public on January 21, 2003. The Institute did exacfly what the request for proposal outlined and went even further in an attempt to solve some. of our nagging system-wide problems. As of this date we are expectedly still struggling with many of he issues outlined in the rfp, however several of the recommendations of the Institute have been successfully Implemented. Without the Institutes assistance, in the form of this study, I do not believe Snohomish County law and justice would be as far down the road to recovery as we now are,. I believe vie are more :efficient and on a path to recovery in pert becauwof the work product the institute produced. Si ~ ey~y. ~ick Bart Snohomish County Sheriff PL,TeRNATIVES 7.0 STR~~T • JUSTICE COMMUNITY Pretrial Services • Alternative Sentencing • Community Corrections April 9, 2003 Alan Kalmanoff Institute for Law & Policy Planning P.O. Box 5137 Berkley, CA 94705 Dear Kal, Please find attached articles from the Birmingham News, which speak to the success of your efforts here in Jefferson County. As you will note, the bottom line is we avoided building the new jail and $100,000,000 by improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system. It was achieved through a lot of "little ways" and the fact that we all worked together through the criminal justice management committee. In spite of a crisis in our prison system and the back up of several hundred state inmates in the jail, we have managed to keep the lid on and renovate the facility. Also attached are several graphs which illustrate why. Thanks for your help and ability to set us on the right path here in Jefferson Foster Cook, Director Jefferson County Community Corrections Program 401 Beacon Parkway West Birmingham, Alabama 35209-3105 (205) 917-3780 • Fax (205) 917-3721 Sponsored by: UAB • Jefferson County • City of Birmingham • Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Alabama Department of Corrections • Center for Substance Abuse Treatment • National Institute of Justice Jeff Sax 5th Council District 4~~ Snohomish County County Council May 19, 2003 Dave Gossett John Koster Gary Nelson Jeff Sax RE: Letter of Reference for Institute for Law and Policy Planning (ILPP) Kirke Sievers M/S #609 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett, WA 98201-4046 To Whom It May Concern: (425) 386-3494 FAX (425) 388-3496 fiY/rDD (425) 388-3700 The Snohomish County Council contracted with ILPP in June 2002 for a system wide efficiency study of our Law & Justice system. We are the 3rd largest county in Washington State and Law & Justice costs are about 67% of our budget and increasing rapidly. At our request, the ILPP draft report was completed by October 2002. The analysis was broad in scope to catch the large issues with in our system. Those departments that received criticism in the report complained vociferously about it. There were the expected 'killing the messenger' reactions. However, we got what we wanted, which was a report that has acted as a catalyst for much needed change in our county. Based on ILPP recommendations we have created a Law and Justice cabinet of elected officials and key Law & Justice department heads. The new cabinet has 10 efficiency projects underway this year. We are also in the process of installing a jail cap; we are implementing the Sheriff shift change recommendation, and are now well underway with an integrated Law & Justice computer system which will reduce double entry by Sheriff, Corrections, and other departments. We were looking for a change agent and that is what ILPP delivered. I am very happy with their work and would hire them again, with out question. Please feel free to call me to discuss further any questions you may have regarding the very professional and expert detail we found with the product and staff of the Institute for Law and Policy Planning. Best wishes, Jeff Sax, Chair Law & Justice/Human Services Council Committee JS/sb county.council@co.snohomish.wo. us www.co.snohornish.wo.us SPARTANBURG MAGISTRATE COURT JUDICIAL CENTER 180 Magnolia Street. Spartanburg, South Carolina 29346 Telephone: 864-X64564 Fox: 864-596-3622 March 12, 2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. 1 have had thc. opportunity to work with the Institute for Law and Policy Planning for about eight months. This came about when the group was chosen by local government to study the needs of our criminal justice system. I serve on a committee made up of representatives of the various departments of local government that manage the criminal justice system for Spartanburg County. Tin the early period of the study, I was very skeptical that positive benefits would be produced. This was due to numerous previous studies that had been conducted over my tenure with Spartanburg County. Most of these studies were conducted by groups that did not understand the operations of a court. The results of such studies were generally shelved or ignored. However, my experience with ILPP has been extremely positive. All of the representatives of the group have demonstrated a positive knowledge of the operations of courts. Opinions have been sought from the most knowledgeable local participants. We have been intimately involved throughout the process. Many of our suggestions have been incorporated into the recommendations. It is easy to praise a group that listens. However, the result of the study has been a definite improvement in communications between the criminal justice agencies. This is in great part due to the direction of the discussions led by Alan Kalrnanoff, ILPP's Executive Director. Accordingly, if nothing else c:omus from the reconunendations of Kalrnanoff s consultants, we are much better off than before the study began. The next decade can be exciting for all of us. If we seize the moment and take the risk of trying the new technologies recommended by ILPP, we will be miles ahead in data exchange and utilization. Everyone involved deserves credit, but ILPP deserves recognition for prodtccing the roadmap. Very sincerely arnes B. Paslay, Judge ~~GIAI m + E i eft, OFFICE OF COUNTY MAYOR Office of Information Technology Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, Executive Director Institute of Law and Policy Planning 2613 Hillegass Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 Dear Dr. Kalmanoff 400 Main Street, Suite L-114, Knoxville, TN 37902 July 11, 2007 Having reviewed your Initial Jail Crowding Assessment prepared for key criminal justice officials in Knox County, Tennessee, I just wanted to compliment you and your staff on your thorough and fair report. Although the jury is still out as to how we proceed with this invaluable information I believe your report is right on the money. I also appreciated the sensitivity you and your staff displayed when dealing with many of our key officials. I realize it is not always easy to conduct interviews and extract information from people when you question the way certain things are done. I can honestly say that in our case all were impressed by your approach and your knowledge of the issues being discussed. Although I'm sure we will have much discussion and debate over your recommendations I am confident that many changes in the way we do business will take place. From our experience with ILPP, I would not hesitate to recommend your services to others. Sincerely, Richard T. Moran Sr. Director of Information Technology HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Florida BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Phyllis Busansky Joe Chillura Lydia Miller Jim Norman Jan Platt Ed Turanchik Sandra Wilson November 1, 1994 Dr. Alan Kalmanoff Executive Director Institute for Law P.O. Box 5137 Berkeley, CA 94705 Office of the County Administrator Frederick B. Karl and Policy Planning Dear Dr. Kalmanoff: Senior Assistant County Administrator Patricia Bean Assistant County Administrators Edwin Hunzeker Cretta Johnson Jimmie Keel Robert Taylor Hillsborough county and its citizens are most appreciative of the excellent work recently performed by ILPP in your study of medical services being provided in Hillsborough County jails. When we entered the $25,000 contract with your firm, we could not have anticipated that the results of the study could produce such significant savings for the taxpayers of Hillsborough County. The Sheriff's Office, utilizing information included in your study, in two separate actions has achieved an overall savings in the contract amount of $1,500,000. We are most pleased to have achieved that kind of reduction for an investment of $25,000. Thank you again for the professionalism and excellence demonstrated by ILPP in pursuant of this project. Sincerely, Patricia Bean Senior Assistant County Administrator PB/zc Post Office Box 1110 • Tampa, Florida 33601 An Affimaive Aaion/Equal Opponunuy Employer Sheriff Kevin Beary ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE May 16, 1994 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ILPP, represented by Executive Director Alan Kalmanoff, came to Orange County on a contract from the Board of Commissioners to assess the entire criminal justice system. I admit to a certain amount of apprehension relative to our law enforcement agency being fairly treated and in some way hindered from maintaining and enhancing our service level now as well as in the future. Eight months later upon the project's completion, I would now say that ILPP's team completed a surprisingly comprehensive and data based inquiry into our local system, overcame some resistance from certain managers, and in the end won our trust and respect because of changes that are now taking place in Orange County. I hasten to add that as head of the largest law enforcement agency in the County, I do not agree wholeheartedly with all of ILPP's findings or recommendations. I do, however, believe that ILPP's work for Orange County is solid, well documented, and overall a worthwhile investment by the county. Even on those issues where I disagree with ILPP, it is accompanied by respect and the realization that only history will determine the quality of the recommendations. ILPP's team briefed my office on their findings before publishing a final report, giving us an ample and private opportunity to respond, disagree and provide input. The final report recommendations should save the county millions of dollars in future operating costs, and my office is currently involved in a multi-agency effort to implement many of the report's recommendations. I would go further in indicating that an automated fingerprint identification system will probably take the final steps in becoming a reality, as I write this assessment, as a direct result of an ILPP Study recommendation. Post Office Box 1440 • Orlando, Florida 32802-1440 Telephone (407) 836-3700 ILPP May 16, 1994 Page 2 From my agency's perspective, ILPP is a professional organization very well able to work with law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. I would be happy to recommend them and further discuss my impressions or those of Mr. Bob Fuller, my Manager of Special Projects and Project Coordinator on the ILPP Project. RANDY JOHNSON PHONE: 612-349-7883 CHAIR ~E~ t N CpG FAX: 612-348.5291 a , TmD:348-7709 W -Z < BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 To Whom It May Concern: As chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners since 1997, an elected Commissioner since 1978, and President of the National Association of Counties (NACo) in 1997-98, I recommend the services of Dr. Alan Kalmanoff and the Institute for Law and Policy Planning team based on my professional and political experience. Under two separate contracts in 1998 and 1999, Hennepin County engaged the Institute for Law and Policy Planning to conduct a countywide criminal justice system study and recommend changes and strategic planning for a more effective and efficient system. Dr. Kalmanoff brought together a team of experienced consultants (both academic and practitioners) and conducted a thorough system study by examining the data of various agencies within the system and the system as a whole. We had accumulated lots of "data" over time, but no one had organized it and advised us what to do with it We retained Dr. Kalmanoff to facilitate the implementation of the findings and to activate a higher level of ownership and strategic planning by the system's (heretofore, somewhat incompatible) key players. In both projects, the multitude of jurisdictions and stakeholders in a politically charged atmosphere with turf issues created a complex and difficult environment in which to implement change. A major assignment for "Kal," as he is called, was to insure a strong and objective study of court case-management, a new level of judicial and Board cooperation, and acceptance and implementation of ambitious case management procedures by the courts. With his leadership, our 58 judges have taken responsibility for managing their own docket, and we are beginning to see major cost savings. Despite the difficulty in working in such an environment, Dr. Kalmanoff succeeded in working with the various agencies to build consensus and for the participants to see a bigger picture in the system. He brought together leaders in the county criminal justice system and provided a forum for open exchange and feedback, and that led to a new level of planning. The project involved a number of controversial issues, and he dealt with them in a professional and forthright manner, with candor, strength, real energy and support. E-MAII, ADDRESS: randy-i01 on@ao.hennepin.mn.w WEB PAGE: hup://www.co.hamepin.=.udwdWJVMI PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Dr. Kalmanoff was clear and accurate in his assessment, direct and objective in his position, uninfluenced by political agendas, candid in his criticism, and both strong and insightful in his recommendations. Dr. Kalmanoff and his team remained true to our objective of producing quality results to improve our criminal justice system. It was a pleasure to work with him and his team, and I expect the resulting savings will dwarf his fees. I would recommend Dr. Kalmanoff and the Institute for Law and Policy Planning for any county that needs a thorough evaluation of their criminal justice system, or any serious strategic planning. As experts in the field, their ability to work and interact with various individuals and agencies is an invaluable and unique resource. My only reservation about working with Kal is that you have to be serious about reducing costs and improving the justice system when you contract with him about reviewing your situation and recommending changes. Kal will do the job very professionally and with great insight - but You have to be willing to listen to what he says. Very truly yours, Randy Jo on, Chair Hennepin County Board of Commissioners REJ/ms a4R~ ~o~ Office of the County Administrator COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN Courthouse, Room 707 222 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202-2778 (209)468-3211 April 1, 1997 Dr. Alan Kalmanoff Executive Director Institute for Law & Policy Planning P. O. Box 5137 Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Kal: Spring 1997 Criminal Justice System Evaluation It has now been about two years since your Criminal Justice System Evaluation in San Joaquin County. As you will recall, you and your staff made some 90 recommendations. The County formulated an implementation structure, process, and action plan to address those 90 recommen- dations. During the month of March, the Board of Supervisors approved another 11 items as complete. There are now a total of 53 items that have been addressed and deemed complete by our Board of Supervisors. We define complete as 1) recommendation implemented; 2) recommenda- tion implemented with some modification; and 3) recommendation not implemented after detailed analysis. In addition to the 53 items that have been addressed, there are approximately 30 items that are under active work. Overall, San Joaquin County has a qualitatively better, more cost-effective, and coordinated crim- inal justice system than prior to your work. In perspective, there have been several specific changes. They go beyond cost containment and cost savings. Specifically, these qualitative differ- ences are as follows: 1. Intense Focus-County government and the law and justice departments continue to have an intense focus on the law and justice system as the largest consumer of general fund monies. 2. System Perspective-Departments approach issues from more of a systems point of view as opposed to a departmental point of view. 3. Ownership of Some Problems-While the criminal justice system responds, or fails to respond, to factors outside of its direct control, as system participants we've come to realize that we own some of the problems. Some of the problems are of our own making through failure to view ourselves as a system and act accordingly. 4. Empowerment to Influence Some Outcomes-With recognition of problem ownership, we are also better able and motivated to influence those outcomes which we can control. Dr. Alan Kalmanoff Spring 1997 Criminal Justice System Evaluation June 27, 1997 Page 2 5. Greater Team Orientation-Because of the frequency of our meetings and the give and take of working through and resolving issues, there is far greater team orientation than prior to your evaluation. 6. Better Communication-A material result of our intense focus, system perspective, and team work, is better communication throughout the criminal justice system. If you look at County government as a "learning organization", we have also used our processing system to develop other initiatives using some of what we've learned. 7. Cost-Effectiveness-This synergy of the above have led to more cost-effective approaches as we add resources and expand our capabilities. We simply spend money more wisely. These benefits are many times more valuable than the mere cost savings and cost containment features that have occurred with the overall project. San Joaquin County thanks you again for the outstanding work! Very truly yours, David L. Baker County Administrator DLB:st DB04-02 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CAROL McBRIDE PIRSCH, CHAIR MARY ANN BORGESON MICHAEL BOYLE CLARE DUDA CAROLE WOODS HARRIS KYLE HUTCHINGS KATHLEEN MCCALLISTER Kathleen A. Kelley, Chief Administrative Officer July 8, 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: When Douglas County contracted with the Institute for Law and Policy Planning in January, 1998, it proved to be the catalyst for stabilizing an ever increasing jail population within the Douglas County Correctional Center. After the first visit of the ILPP team, recommendations were forthcoming and upon implementation favorably impacted the jail population immediately. One year ago today, Douglas County was facing a crisis. Today, the population has stabilized through ILPP's presentation of how to bring efficiencies within the criminal justice system that affect jail population. Without a doubt the ILPP study, in my opinion, was the most cost effective initiative Douglas County has pursued in its efforts to address jail overcrowding. Alan Kalmanoff and the team he assembled were very effective in their ability through interviews and discussion to obtain "buy ins" from all segments of the criminal justice system. Common purposes and goals have unified our system for the first time in Douglas County history. Meetings of all parties have been held monthly since ILPP entered the County in February 1998. We are presently implementing ILPP's recommendations with abundant success to date. All primary players attend the monthly meetings regularly - The Omaha Police Chief, Mayor's representative, City Council President, Douglas County Attorney, Public Defender, Presiding County, District, Juvenile Court Judges, Court Administrators, County Chief Administrative Officer, Sheriff, and Corrections Director first time ever. h:tkk. ilppref (402) 444-7025 Suite LC 2 Civic Center 1819 Farnam Street Omaha, Nebraska 68183-0100 (402) 444-6559 (FAX) http:/lwww.co.dougl as.ne.us The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues of mutual concern and primarily to implement each ILPP recommendation. Turf issues and barriers have dissolved with defined goals presented in the master plan and regular monthly communication. As Chief Administrative Officer of Douglas County, I unequivocally recommend ILPP to all jurisdictions facing overcrowding and am available to answer inquiries of the Douglas County experience at 402/444-6237. Sincerel Kathleen Kelley Chief Administrative Officer KK: ckm h:/kk.ilppref R. JAMES STROKER CHIEFJUDGE To Whom It May Concern: June 13, 1994 ANNA PATTERSON JUDICIAL ASSISTANT I am writing to provide my assessment of the Institute for Law & Policy Planning's (ILPP) recent work for orange County. Led by Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, Executive Director, ILPP performed a comprehensive evaluation of the Orange County criminal justice system. This study provided a clear picture of how our system is working and the impact it is having on our allocation of resources and our effectiveness in addressing serious crime. The leaders of all the offices in our local system joined together to review ILPP's recommendations and develop tangible plans for implementing those which will improve our use of limited funds and our ability to target serious criminal offenders. The cooperation of these offices resulted in a clear action plan which should significantly better "how we do business." ILPP's commitment to building consensus and facilitating implementation was a key contributor to the work we have now accomplished. My valuation of the ILPP study has undergone a major transformation from my initial opinion of the project. I was skeptical and wary that a consultant from Berkeley, California would be able to provide insight into a system that I felt was already fairly efficient and just. However, the ILPP report quantitatively and qualitatively assessed all of our programs and offices, describing a system which was very different than my ideal. While the study found that individual agencies within the system were working hard and seeking to make constant improvements, these efforts were not coordinated or organized in accordance with a system-wide goal. ~TtIE STq~ Atab of Yl riba Xutt4 Ubicial (qtr=At of Xlartba COUNTIES OF ORANGE AND OSCEOLA ORANGE COUNTY CIVIL COURTS BUILDING 37 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE. SUITE 1110 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 (407) 836-2026 The consequence was duplication of effort, lost revenue opportunities and a tendency in our detention system to house unsentenced, non-serious offenders in maximum security space were alternatives would be more cost-effective and more likely to have an impact on changing the offender's ways. Simply in identifying who is in our system and the policies and practices that have led to this, the ILPP team provided orange County's criminal justice decision makers with vital information. However the ILPP final report also presented options for remedying this situation to improve our strategy in protecting our community and our criminal justice spending. I am pleased with the work ILPP has completed for the county and I recommend them to other jurisdictions interested in regaining control over local criminal justice. Very truly yours, 6 j R. Ja Stroker, Chie udge RJS/ap 1//~LCG_/SJC1e~Q~4~✓7/~41~itG/'=' /P~~/ ~tard[YY~y ✓ ~.4~L February 5, 2004 Dr. Alan halmanoff, Executive Director Ilistitutc. of Law and Policy F.Fai n'ing 2613 Hillegass Avenue Berkeley. Carlifornia, 94704 Dear Dr. Iaalma.noff; just a note to follow up on 111C Cilia.] repol•t O'L the jail FOpulation and Criminal justice System. Study. We have all had ample, time to digest tllc voltinle of work and attention that your staff has generated ill c0111pleting this agenda, and I and gratified that we finally have a plan of action for our community's criminal justice agencies. As we have noted in our many meetings, the future ofSedgwick County's eriininal isseles will not be solved by merely architecting anothe.rwing on the exisiing jail. VNIc lrlust be snore, worldly wise in. coiltemplatittg the fiiture of tile- entire system by chmtnatnlg the existing "tit°arehousing" attitude that speaks little of using the tools that. we have in place or that we may create by our coordinated efforts. It would he'an easy „gay out to handle this by 'brick and mortar philosophy. It is mole difficult, yetnlore challenging, to build u.poil a positive strategy you Isave employed to put us on the road to success. Personally, I do take convincing. I was skelitical about bringing in "consultants" to tell us how to run our business. Iaw enforcc.nlent to cotton ~~>cl'1 to acadernics in ivotV towers... Your staff has been:eut:from a different cloth and it was apparent in your dealings with our community, 1 was: impressed at how much information you were able to gather in a short period of tulle, and how that information blossomed imo.a credible report that expanded into a. working blueprint For a successful criminal justice process. I. don't know that we will follow each and every suggestion'to the nth degree, bur the fact is that there are so many opportunities for improvement and a superlative a plan to encourage our community's work in concert. ..~c!.»c ~S/h~J8.T-1Pd/ .%ac~limulr /.Y/S~3:P;P-7P66 i ~GO~/13P-6~P7d Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, Executive Director Institute of L.aa),v and Policy Planning Correspondence of February 5, 2004 Page 2 of 2 't'hank you a.ga n for your time and efforts. They were well spi-,nu. In today's di} and age of high tccitnolOgy VACI-e we cozy 111) With otu- computet:s anal punc.li away for quick answers, it was refreshing to deal with real people who had their thinking caps on. There's nothing like the real thing tlt Sincerely, ada! a' Distric.u At ornery Nola Tc:dcN-0 Oulston 180' J'ud'icial District of Kansas COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 201 WEST KALAMAZOO AVENUE • KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49007 PHONE (616) 384-8112 FAX (616) 383-8862 Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, Director Institute for Law & Policy Planning P.O. Box 5137 Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Dr. Kalmanoff: The following is in reference to the work conducted by you and representatives of the Institute for Law & Policy Planning (ILPP) regarding the preparation and presentation of a Justice System Assessment and Facilities Analysis Plan for Kalamazoo County. On behalf of the County of Kalamazoo, it is my pleasure to provide you with this communication. As manager for our project with the Institute, it was my responsibility to monitor our contract and function as the County's point person. As such, my primary concerns in contracting for professional services included: completion of the project within budget; completion within the prescribed time period; are the deliverables consistent with the scope of work/services outline; and, did the consultant/contractor perform the project in a professional manner. I can honestly report that our project with ILPP met or exceeded all of the preceding expectations. The final report, which contained in excess of seventy (70) recommendations for. change, was an exhaustive assessment of the justice system and its facilities in Kalamazoo County and was prepared in an objective manner. We were most impressed from the outset of the project that the Institute's approach at evaluation was systemic, rather than simply looking at our facilities and projecting needs for future capital investment in building new and/or expanding existing facilities. In addition, we were equally pleased with the expertise and talent of the team that the Institute assembled for our project, both internally, as well as the availability and use of external personnel, depending upon the scope of the project. May 22, 2000 I believe I speak for the members of our Justice Assessment & Facilities Analysis Committee in that should the County require additional justice system assistance, that it would definitely consider utilization of the Institutes' services again in the future. Our project with ILPP provided us with an excellent road map to improve our overall justice system. We now face the most important task in implementation of the recommendations contained in the Plan. On behalf of the County, we thank -you for the opportunity to work with the Institute for Law & Policy Planning on this historical project. Sincerely, Dean J. Holub Assistant Administrator for Economic & Community Development