Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-17 Work Session Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 1 of 11 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families’ Commission; Anna Johnson, Communications; Darryl Nakahira, Sheriff’s Office; Jeff Hall, Court Administrator; Judge Alta Brady; and approximately a dozen other citizens including a representative of The Source newspaper. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:40 p.m. 1. Discussion of Juvenile Detention Consultant Report. The Commissioners discussed why this study was pursued. It was compiled by Karen Chinn of Chinn Planning, who was also asked to do an analysis of some juvenile detention alternative programs. She did fact-finding and analysis with a steering committee, and this is the final report. Ms. Chinn and Ken Hales gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the juvenile services needs assessment. They went over an organizational chart of juvenile services and programs. The cost of services is $323 per day, per youth. The continuum of services was explained; juvenile arrests are typically for property offenses, drug activity or person-to-person crime. Whether this increases is due in large part to whether the general population increases. The potential for violence is also evaluated. Filings for delinquency have decreased over the years, but dependency cases have increased. The average daily population has decreased from about 21, to 19, to 16, and now is 10, which is approximately at 10% decrease per year. However, the peak rate is important because of the need to plan for capacity at any given time. Some months it can be almost double the average number. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Baney asked if any other facilities shut down during this time period. She was advised that Umatilla shut down a few years ago. Regarding admissions trends, monthly admissions have gone down. But the average length of stay has increased, over 17 days compared to others at just over 9 days. Sometimes the stay is longer due to the severity of the offense or because of mental health issues. The profile of those admitted shows that half are 16-17 years old; the rest 13-15 years old. Males comprise 77%. Most are pre-adjudication. The average length of stay post-adjudication is 27 days. Assaults and offenses against persons is about 25%, and property crimes are about 25%. There are other programs in the County to handle other offense to divert them; however, most of those being held are not suitable for these programs. Deschutes County has a higher number of referrals per 1,000 arrests than others, but secure detention admissions are lower at just over 8 compared to 14. The average length of stay is 8 days, but Deschutes County is at 15.7 due to the more serious nature of the offenses. The presentation included system assessment key findings:  Declining juvenile justice youth population.  High cost of secure detention & underutilized beds .  Complex treatment needs of the juveniles admitted.  Longer length of stay due to court delays and evaluation/placement.  Lack of agreement on use of secure detention and risk assessment.  Mission Statement that does not define the goals or philosophy of juvenile justice.  Decrease in local prevention/diversion programs, such as peer court, community service (a two-year decline). These impacts will be more apparent within the next couple of years. They don’t want detention to be the only game in town.  Gaps in service continuum regarding non-residential programs: assessment center, daily reporting, job training/vocational training – which are a lot less costly than detention.  Gaps in service continuum for residential programs: shelter care/secure staff; foster care; DHS population; runaway population; substance abuse; mental health issues; transition; awaiting placement or evaluation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Once adjudicated, some jurisdictions are putting these juveniles into residential placement, but have to find the location first. Some are too dysfunctional for foster placement but need to have options. J Bar J and similar programs are not feasible for short-term placement. There are not many foster homes available. Future changes to the system will probably add to the need for beds. Out of County detention forecast shows this number decreasing by about 1.9 per year. The detention rate for 2012 was .4 per 1,000 juveniles incarcerated, but you have to allow for peaks in the population or the various populations. The numbers are 17-20 at latest model, but this could be up to 30 if there needs to be a longer stay, 18-20 for shorter stays. The recommendation for long-term is 24 beds expandable to 36 for Deschutes County only. This is assuming that the programs and options now offered would be maintained. The impact of canceled alternative programs is not yet known. Ms. Chinn reviewed best practices. This is now being done and meets standards. The group then reviewed a sketch of the current juvenile complex (24 beds). Options regarding the Harriman building, constructed in 1983, were discussed. There would be a ten-bed capacity done in two phases. However, the linear hallway does not reflect best practices. There is no intake area, and little natural light; they also need direct observation. They would also have to transport juveniles to courtrooms. This is not a viable option, and does not meet short or long-term practices. Chair DeBone said it does not seem that long ago things were different. Ms. Chinn responded that things have changed a lot lately. There is now a huge mental health component to consider. Mr. Hales stated that direct supervision means there are fewer incidents and less liability than there would be with linear hallways. Ms. Chinn stated that more referrals are being done now than previously. Detention is the last resort. The population is far more challenging now than it was in the 1980’s. You have to consider the safety of other youth and staff. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 4 of 11 She explained that the expansion would mean having an intake area and more rooms. A full build-out of Phase II would allow for visitation and a courtroom. The cost for ten beds would be $1.8 million but transportation would not be needed. There would still be the issue of a linear corridor and no direct lighting, and staff offices would be away from where the youth are. A second option is using part of the existing complex. However, you should never put four in a room one to a room is best. This would mean two single rooms and two double rooms for six beds. So there is still an issue of not enough beds. It is difficult to manage secure detention. Essentially, it would be four beds because you may have to separately house females or sex offenders. Mr. Hales added that this still does not include audio or video surveillance. Ms. Chinn said that a third option is using the work release facility. This is the only option she feels is viable as it has proper light and an intake area. However, it nets out just 10 beds and would require taking youth to juvenile court. This would result in some security risk and additional staff. It is the closest to complying with national standards, but would be higher in staffing. It would have to be reconfigured to be a ten-bed housing unit. Self-contained areas require staffing for both areas. Option #4 is developing another facility altogether if the others are temporary. If they need 36 beds during peak times, two 12-bed units plus an option for a third would be needed. About 1,000 square feet of facilities is needed per juvenile, not including a kitchen area. Therefore, for 24 beds, 24,000 square feet is recommended. Option 1 is six beds at the Harriman location. Construction costs are about $400,000 for the basics, to make it operational. Phase 2 at Harriman allows up to ten beds. For phase 2, add $1.37 million. The total for phases 1 and 2 is about $1.8 million.. Option 2 would be using part of the existing facility. The staff secure area would be renovated at $870,000, and staffing would be at 16. The cost per juvenile would be around $908 per juvenile, per day. Going for option 3, the work center, means the cost would be $755,000, but with two housing areas staffing costs would be higher. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 5 of 11 A new facility would mean having room for 24 but being able to expand to 36, allowing 1,000 square feet per juvenile. Ms. Chinn said that option #1 is not recommended, as it does not meet industry standards. Option #2 is a lot of money for the number of beds. Option #3 would cost more for staffing. The cost of a new facility is also high, but this may be a good time to consider it as it will not be less expensive later and you can build specifically what is needed. Commissioner Baney observed that a big issue is with kids being in detention for a long time, often waiting for mental health services. The less that is invested to address this, the more issues they will see later. Ms. Chinn stated that in particular, sex offenders are not welcome in foster care, and it is hard to find appropriate locations. There are many criteria involved depending on the offense. The population has been handled well here in the past, but there has been space and options available. Chair DeBone said that there is a documented need for an expansion of the adult facility. There is a domino effect in whatever they do, and a series of events. Commissioner Unger noted that funding is a challenge, but they must invest in programs that keep these kids out of detention. It is expensive to house them, but community programs are being lost due to limited funds. He wants to support the programs as a top priority. Commissioner Baney said that if it was only about money, they could contract this out. But they’ve done a great job of managing the population. She is concerned about not being able to invest in prevention. The Commission on Children & Families is taking a nosedive. No one seems to know if the numbers will remain low if some of these programs are lost. Ms. Chinn stated that there is a continuum of care in this community. This is why the detention numbers here are lower when compared to other counties nationally. However, there will always be some youth that are a public safety risk. This is costly but you have to deal with them. More pressure will come to bear if admissions have to increase. Commissioner Baney said she is speaking of a much younger population. She is talking about from birth. The community has taken pride in investing in these children, but can’t do it anymore. They need to concentrate on the very young and not just older youth. The question to the community is what outcomes they want. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Hales stated that they costed out the different options. The desire is to reduce the investment and staffing costs. Each option has detriments. They need to consider the impact of reduced or no juvenile detention. The impact would be detaining fewer. The only way to change this is determining how to handle them. The criteria are stingy now, but they can make it more flexible and detain fewer, but there is a risk attached to doing this. The law requires that something be done. He needs to know what level is desired. They can go to extremes and reduce the population, but that is a policy cha nge. If a youth is on probation and commits a burglary, now that youth would be held, but there can be a choice not to. If there is no detention space available, they can’t detain them. NorCor is three hours away, and logistically it is costly at over $2 million to switch to that. Transportation is an issue. If the local police want the option of 24/7 intake for youth, this can’t be done without a detention center. Smaller counties that don’t have detention only hold thirty or forty kids a year. There is not enough capacity in the state for all that is needed, so cases would have to be prioritized. Commissioner Unger noted that there is nothing regional as other counties can’t afford it. He was hoping Deschutes County could reduce detention operating costs by managing some in detention now, and refocus funding on prevention and support, dealing with lower level offenders. Ms. Chinn said that she spoke to all providers. You can’t put short-term offenders into ongoing residential treatment centers. There are few of these facilities and they are not used much for serious offenders. NorCor is a costly option, but the equivalent of a detention center. If a youth gets violent in one of the other options, they end up in detention. Commissioner Baney said she would like to be able to reduce the general fund transfer to Juvenile. They are mandated to provide for an adult jail and to keep the public safe. Juvenile mirrors the needs of the adult population. There are limited resources to provide services. She asked about the contrast of having to matrix out of the adult jail and having to transport. It would cost $9 million to build a new facility. It would cost maybe $10 million to increase the adult jail, but that would just meet the need for beds. She wants to evaluate both needs and figure out how to switch things around to meet both needs. Chair DeBone stated that the problems are the costs for juvenile, and a currently bad situation for adults. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Unger said if going down a path of having a pod by the jail for $10 million, how to meet that need faster and address the unused space in juvenile, and find a more cost-effective way to handle juvenile issues. Funding is going down and they have to make harder choices. They are stuck with fixed costs for detention, which puts pressure on other programs. Mr. Hales stated that he recognizes there are difficult choices. The report should give the Board some good information. It is a system and has to be balanced, and all components need to be effective. He asserts that juvenile detention is an important component. He and his staff will provide the best possible level of service, given resources. Above all else, it needs to be done safely. Public policy is another issue, which ultimately rests with the Board. Commissioners Baney asked why the youth here have a longer length of stay. Mr. Hales replied that some are at five days. Every kid has to be held for a detention hearing. 80% are released. This is directly related to how tight t he front door is. Those are the ones who end up staying, the more serious offenders. They are trying to work this out faster at the court level. Commissioner Baney asked if there are any investments that can be made to help reduce this population. Ms. Chinn said that there is not much they can do. Diversion is not going to work for most of them. There is already a wait for a psych evaluation. They always look at ways to keep these youth out of secure detention, but it is not always realistic. You want to help those who can maybe get out of that cycle, but it is hard to find placement. Mr. Hales noted that they could allow fewer hours for officers to bring in kids, and let assault cases go. But this makes it very hard on law enforcement. Commissioner Baney said that maybe they can ask the cities to share the cost. She would like to specifically address the need for foster homes. Mr. Hales stated that if intake was disproportional, he would wonder what is different. This is not the case. The County is more restrictive. They use foster care but cannot do this as an alternative to detention. For example, tomorrow night a police officer is going to bring in a kid, and staff will need to decide whether to let another one out. That one is at risk of doing something inappropriate. Things might go along okay until something really bad happens. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner DeBone wondered if there is a way to reduce operational costs through capital investment, such as rearranging floor space, or adding more rooms; what would be the effect on operations. Mr. Hales replied that he has not talked with an architect about this. It depends on the cost. If it is too expensive, it wouldn’t make sense. Susan Ross noted that this concept was brought up; not a design, but a program. Beds would fit, but it does not make a lot of sense to put more detail into it at this point. Chair DeBone asked if there is a magic number or way to create more operational efficiencies, such as in the work release center. Mr. Hales stated that for 10 to 12 kids, it is more efficient than 14 or more. Tom Anderson said that they need to consider the Sheriff’s Office and transitioning, moving inmates around. If the Board decides something does not work well later, a longer-term look at an expanded jail needs to be considered. Mr. Hales added that there are other logistical things to consider as well, such as where to hold them for court, equipment and supplies, and a secure perimeter. Commissioner Baney said that she thinks options 1 and 2 need to be off the table. Chair DeBone asked if they could get to something else through option 2. Ms. Ross stated that there is not enough of a footprint for more. Commissioner Baney said there are five total options, including contracting all youth out. Option 1 is a no; option 2 is a no. Commissioner Unger said option 4 is a no; they don’t need a new, regional center. Commissioner Baney stated that Crook County would buy a bed, but this is not a lot of help. The work center was a regional work release center at one time, but did not end up staying that way. Erik Kropp noted that other agencies just want to rent a bed when it is needed. Commissioner Baney asked if there is something more workable for the work release center. Ms. Ross said they would have to detail with the details of design, and it would take perhaps a month to get to a concept, and two or three months for construction plans. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Unger said that they have made a commitment to the Sheriff to handle jail operational needs as quickly as possible, with a July 1 changeover. This does not get them there. Option 3 gives a facility that does not change much, but there is room for change in the future. There would be challenges with a 12-bed facility, but they should invest in other options to help youth through programs. They have to look to the future on how to operate government cheaper. They have to have detention at the cost of other programs. Commissioner Baney said she is hopeful for that layout. Maybe they could squeeze 14 in that space. Ms. Ross stated that the per diem costs would be two to three times higher than they are now. Ms. Chinn noted that all are conceptual. It would be $550 per day per youth, versus $300 now. There is a high cost per unit of service regardless. Mr. Hales said he could build into that space to allow for programs and other needs. He would try to get the number up as high as reasonable. Judge Alta Brady asked to speak. She said that the steering committee agreed that this information is very accurate. Whether they change to 10 or 12 beds, short or long term, or if there is a philosophical change in how youth are handled, these are serious offenders. This is not a group helped by programs. These are Measure 11 kids. If they were adults, they’d be in jail for seven or more years. These are sex offenders or others with serious issues. If the number goes down to 10, this has a severe impact. Long-term, in two years they may need more than 12 or 14. The Court is concerned about what short-term means. It is not a good idea to look at short -term and not consider the long-term. The current facility can accommodate these youth now and more later. Considering the cost of remodeling and moving on a short-term basis, they could have given the Sheriff 144 beds for the same cost. She requested that the Board look closely at the underlying policy regarding the category of youth that must be in detention. Commissioner Baney stated that this is a difficult decision and they don’t want to see unintended consequences. The adult expansion was only for beds, not for a kitchen or laundry facility. They need to address the OMNI report that says they should already have 900 beds and not just 228. This won’t solve all the issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 17, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Judge Brady noted that the proposed changes don’t solve either problem even short-term. Chair DeBone said they started out with $10 million and got to where they are now. People voted against a $40 million expansion solution. He wants to see the community behind whatever they do. Commissioner Baney asked that they find out whether the work center might be a viable option, for 10, 12 or 14 beds. Commissioner Unger asked how this problem is handled in other places. Ms. Chinn replied that it is expensive everywhere. The certainty is that they need a good continuum of services. The discussion concluded at 3:35 p.m. 2. Other Items. Mr. Kropp said that a draft Order for the Judy Dawson Step 4 grievance has been drafted for review and signature. Legal Counsel recommended this be done through a Board Order. UNGER: Move signature of the Order as drafted. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Commissioner DeBone asked if there is any way to communicate on a casual basis with the union representative to talk about this kind of thing. Mr. Kropp said that it might be okay except during union negotiations, but the Commissioners don’t want people coming to them direct for personnel issues. This is part of the reason there is not much merit in the grievances presented. AFSCME is required to file a grievance if an employee asks that it be done. ___________________________ The Board is meeting at 8:30 a.m. on December 20 to do an annual jail inspection. ___________________________ The work session on Thursday is to address the Pronghorn agreement. It was to be final today but isn't ready. Legal Counsel is optimistic it will be ready by Thursday, but needs to be done before the end of the year. A brief discussion took place regarding the State Office of Emergency Management and FEMA grant status. They are still trying to resolve some of the issues, but there is little flexibility offered by the OEM. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. lat2 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissi~ DATED this 1~ Day of ~ ~13 Anthony DeBone, Chair""= Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~ner .~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 17,2012 Page 11 of 11 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012 1. Discussion of Juvenile Detention Consultant Report -Ken Hales 2. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting. an exeCutive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e). real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at J300 NW Wall St .• Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6571. 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 TrY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Work Session (Please Print) I -­ Name Agency -M-;m:~8 Addr~s0 _~.ity_ -(""0(" _ 1tJ r>..,r ~ _ I?o-.rolc 4 7.o~'\-'o",­.1-1_ ~_~~~l lu{/~,c..t­ , _c.1!vv~-=rv _~ 1 --S\l~1 1 -e ~~1m~ ~~_~(}&Vt-nn 1 I Ltfi(£ :QAU.J/ L NAKI4}jllll4­JLL? lJ i ~LIJ1lyS~l OCifE D\c-L u,..-VI o~ GftV'.-..J -r­ _l1-I L W1Jtt/__~. 0~~ ~JZ,~A,vj/A-JDr:/JJ 50;,) ~~ -i<tt~~~ PaE:e # of PaE:es I Monday, December 17, 2012 ~R Phone # e-mail address ~"Mr. ~Arff; ~.scJ.".I!~~~ c.tw u c:f€J,es. _ hIIs @ clesci1l1-.f.S. erir1 e~w~5o-YWU . c t 1 12/17/12 Deschutes County, Oregon Juvenile Services Needs Assessment PRESENTATION presented to: DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS prepared by: 2 Chinn Planning, Inc. Community Justice Director 1.0 FTE Juvenile Detention Manager 1.00 FTE Administrative Supervisor 1.00 FTE Juvenile Field Services Manager 1.00 FTE Deputy Director Adult Parole & Probation 1.00 FTE Detention Center Supervisors 3.00 FTE Community Programs Supervisor 1.00 FTE FIGURE 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Juvenile Probation Supervisor 1.00 FTE Administration Technicians and Support 2.90 FTE Program Supervisor 1.00 FTE Detention Center Staff 21.00 FTE Community Programs Staff 3.00 FTE Juvenile Probation Staff 8.00 FTE Juvenile Court Intake Services Supervisor 1.00 FTE Mental Health Supervisor 1.00 FTE Court Services Staff 2.50 FTE Mental Health Specialist II 4.00 FTE Adult Parole & Probation Supervisors 1.00 FTE Records Technician 4.00 FTE Probation Specialist 4.25 FTE Adult Parole & Probation Staff 21.00 FTE Administrative Analyst 2.00 FTE Department Head Management Represented by AFSCME Represented by FOPPO Confidential Employee Source: Deschutes County Community Justice. Juvenile Services Organizational Structure Overview of Juvenile Justice System 3 Chinn Planning, Inc. Overview of Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Services Cost Detention represents the largest share (40%) of the budget. Table 1 Deschutes County Juvenile Services FY13 Adopted Budget Budget Administration and Budget $1,870,941.00 Juvenile Programs > FFT, Mental Health, Community Programs $ 873,418.00 Juvenile Field Operations > Probation, Diversion, Intervention $1,624,938.00 Juvenile Detention $2,831,621.00 TOTAL $7,200,918.00 Source: Deschutes County Community Justice. 4 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Despite some increase in juvenile referrals during the last decade, total referrals in 2011 were the same as in 2002. Referrals for status offenses (curfew, runaway, motor vehicle, non-criminal) represented almost one-fourth of referrals by law enforcement to juvenile services in 2011. Drug violations comprised one-third of referrals. Juvenile Referral Trends Source: Deschutes Court Community Justice. Property 31% Person 10% Public Order 6% Criminal Drug 9% Criminal Other 3% Drug Violation 20% Status 21% Other 0% Figure 2 JUVENILE REFERRALS BY TYPE - 2011 Deschutes County, Oregon 5 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Total delinquency filings decreased by -4% per year between 2005 and 2011, with the biggest annual decrease (-7.5%) occurring in felony filings. Dependency filings increased by 3.5% per year for the same period. Figure 3 shows the growth trends in delinquency and dependency filings. Juvenile Court Filings Source: Oregon Judicial Information Network. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 3 Juvenile Court Filings - Delinquency and Dependency and Other Deschutes County, Oregon Delinquency Dependency and Other 6 Chinn Planning, Inc. Table 2 shows the average daily population in the detention center of Deschutes County youth. Average daily population of Deschutes County youth housed at the detention center decreased by -10.8% per year between 2007 and mid-2012, going from an average of 21.4 youth in 2007 to 9.8 youth by September 2012. The peaking rate for Deschutes County youth (high over average monthly population) varies from 23% to 44%. Detention Trends – Average Daily Population Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Table 2 AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION - DESCHUTES COUNTY Deschutes County, Oregon 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January 19.5 20.3 17.1 11.3 12.5 11.6 February 26.5 18.5 18.9 10.6 13.2 10.0 March 22.1 24.7 19.4 11.8 13.0 12.3 April 20.6 25.1 18.7 13.3 11.0 12.5 May 21.2 19.5 20.0 13.4 14.2 14.1 June 22.3 15.9 16.7 19.8 12.2 6.9 July 20.2 19.9 11.9 16.4 10.6 8.5 August 24.2 21.3 15.8 17.4 10.8 5.3 September 20.3 14.5 19.8 15.5 11.2 7.4 October 20.8 20.8 21.0 11.8 14.6 November 20.4 16.5 13.5 13.4 10.1 December 18.7 15.0 9.0 10.0 9.6 Monthly Average 21.4 19.3 16.8 13.7 11.9 9.8 Hi Month 26.5 25.1 21.0 19.8 14.6 14.1 Lo Month 18.7 14.5 9.0 10.0 9.6 5.3 Peaking Rate 23.7%30.0%24.8%44.1%22.4%43.4% Average Annual Rate of Change (2007-2012) Percent Change per Year:-10.8% Actual # Change per Yr:-2.32 Source: Deschutes County, Community Justice, 2012 7 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Figure 4 illustrates the decrease in total average daily population at the detention center is driven by a decrease in Deschutes County youth housed there. Detention Trends – Average Daily Population Source: Deschutes County Community Justice. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4 Average Daily Population - Total, Deschutes County and Other Deschutes County, Oregon Total Deschutes County Other 8 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5 Average Monthly Admissions - Total, Deschutes County and Other Counties Deschutes County, Oregon Total Deschutes Other Figure 3 indicates the decrease in monthly admissions is primarily driven by a decrease in admissions of Deschutes County youth, which decreased by -9% per year between 2007 and 2012. Detention Trends - Admissions Source: Deschutes County Community Justice. 9 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Deschutes County youth have a longer length of stay than out of county youth, 17.6 days compared to 9.4 days. Detention Trends – Average Length of Stay Source: Chinn Planning, Inc.. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 6 Average Length of Stay - Total, Deschutes County and Other Deschutes County, Oregon Total Deschutes County Other 10 Chinn Planning, Inc. Table 4 shows an admissions profile of all youth admitted to detention in 2011. Roughly half the population is 16-17, and half is 13-15 years of age. Males comprise 77% of the detention population. Most youth (72%) are in pre- adjudication status. Roughly 19% are held on warrant or other holds. The average length of stay for youth in post adjudicatory status is 27.2 days. Roughly half the population is 16-17, and half is 13-15. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Detention Profile Table 4 ADMISSION PROFILE - 2011 Deschutes County, Oregon Number % of Total Gender: Male 205 76.8% Female 62 23.2% Total 267 Status: Pre Adjudicatory 191 71.5% Post Adjudicatory 26 9.7% Warrant and Other1 50 18.7% Total 267 100.0% ALOS by Status: Pre Adjudicatory 15.1 Post Adjudicatory 27.2 Warrant and Other 12.2 Age at Admission: 12 or Less 9 3.4% 13-15 131 49.1% 16-17 127 47.6% 18 or More 0 0.0% Total 267 100.0% Race/Ethnicity: White 244 91.4% African American 7 2.6% Asian 2 0.7% Hispanic 9 3.4% Native American 3 1.1% Other/Unknown 2 0.7% Total 267 100.0% Note: Other includes: holds, status, protective custody, hold other county, and runaway. Source: Juvenile Justice Information System - Detention Report - 2011. 11 Chinn Planning, Inc. Figure 7 presents a profile of the offenses youth from Deschutes County were admitted to secure detention for. Youth admitted to secure detention have a more serious offenses profile than the total juvenile referral profile. Person, 25% Property, 25% Assault, 19% Unauthorized Vehicle, 6% Harassment, 6% Fire Arm, 6% Other1, 13% Figure 7 Juvenile Detention Offense Profile - Deschutes County Youth Profile (Youth in Detention on Sept. 30th and Nov. 4th 2012) N=16 Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Detention Profile Source: Deschutes County Community Justice. 12 Chinn Planning, Inc. Figure 8 compares the rate of referral to juvenile services from various counties in Oregon. Deschutes County has a higher referral rate than comparison counties. Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 8 Referrals Per 1,000 Juveniles Source: Dechutes County Community Justice. Juvenile Comparative Analysis 13 Chinn Planning, Inc. Table 4 shows a comparison of detention and admissions rates for various counties in Oregon. Deschutes County has a juvenile detention rate that reflects the comparison average (.34 Deschutes, .31 Group Average). The admissions rate in Deschutes County is less than the group average (8.02 vs.14, 000), but the average length of stay is higher than the group average (15.7 days vs. 8 days). Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends Juvenile Comparative Analysis Table 4 JUVENILE DETENTION COMPARISON - 2011 Deschutes County, Oregon County 2011 Juvenile Pop.ADP Detention Rate Admissions Admission Rate ALOS Deschutes County 33,853 12.6 0.37 292 8.63 15.7 Benton County 14,694 2.6 0.18 204 13.88 4.7 Douglas County 21,498 8.9 0.41 361 16.79 9.0 Jackson County 44,242 23.3 0.53 781 17.65 10.9 Josephine County 16,680 6.2 0.37 250 14.99 9.1 Lane County 68,563 14.4 0.21 751 10.95 7.0 Linn County 28,113 10.3 0.37 486 17.29 7.8 Marion County 83,863 22.7 0.27 1,001 11.94 8.3 Polk County 18,010 3.9 0.22 144 8.00 9.9 Umatilla County 20,332 2.4 0.12 152 7.48 5.7 Yamhill County 24,700 10.2 0.41 520 21.05 7.1 Comparison County Average 34,070 10.5 0.31 465 14.00 8.0 Notes: (1) Admission and Detention Rates are per 1,000 juvenile population (persons under age 18). Source: Oregon Youth Authority and US Census. 14 Chinn Planning, Inc. Declining juvenile justice population and challenge for future operations High cost of secure detention and underutilized beds Complex treatment needs of youth penetrating juvenile justice system Long length of stay for some youth-delays in court process and awaiting placement/evaluation and DHS youth Lack of agreement on use of secure detention and risk assessment utilized Mission Statement that does not define goals or philosophy of juvenile justice Decrease in local prevention and diversion programs over the past two years Peer Court Community Service Others  Gaps in the service continuum non-residential programs include:  Assessment Center Day Reporting Job Training/Vocational Training Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends System Assessment Key Findings 15 Chinn Planning, Inc. Gaps in the service continuum for residential programs include: Shelter Care/Staff Secure Foster Care and Therapeutic Foster Care DHS Population Runaway Population Substance Abuse Mental Health Transition Awaiting Placement or Evaluation Funding availability and sharing of resources (Child Welfare vs. Delinquent Youth) Cooperation and collaboration among youth serving agencies Change in philosophy of comprehensive nature of the Juvenile Justice Center Juvenile Justice System Growth Trends System Assessment Key Findings 16 Chinn Planning, Inc. Table 5 shows three forecast models for future detention population using the historic average daily detention population data for the entire population, which includes out-of- county youth. Forecast 1 shows a continued decline in detention population (-1.94 youth per year) which would result in zero capacity. This is not a likely trend. Forecast 2 shows the detention population based on the 2012 incarceration rate of .40 youth per 1,000 juvenile population--applying forecasted total county juvenile population to arrive at the average daily population of youth in detention. Juvenile Detention Forecast Deschutes and Out-of-County Detention Forecast Table 5 AVERAGE POPULATION FORECAST AND BEDSPACE ESTIMATE (DESCHUTES AND OUT-OF-COUNTY) Deschutes County, Oregon Avg. Annual 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 % Increase Forecast 1 - Avg. Annual # Decrease - 1.94/Year 12.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.55% +30% Peaking/Classification 3.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.55% Bedspace Estimate 16 11 0 0 0 0 -4.55% Forecast 2 - Average 2012 Detention Rate - . 40 13.9 14.3 15.4 16.3 16.9 17.4 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.2 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 18 19 20 21 22 23 1.15% Forecast 3 - Average 2011 Detention Rate - . 44 15.3 15.7 16.9 17.9 18.6 19.2 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 20 20 22 23 24 25 1.15% Notes: (1) Base ADP is the January through September 2012 average - 13.9. (2) Base Detention Rate is .40. Source: Chinn Planning Forecast 3 is similar to Forecast 2 but it utilizes the 2011 detention rate (slightly higher) to forecast future detention capacity. The average of Forecast models 2 and 3 indicate a capacity requirement of 20 to 24 beds over the next five to ten years for a facility that would serve youth in other counties as well as Deschutes County. 17 Chinn Planning, Inc. Table 6 presents several juvenile detention forecast models using only historic data on Deschutes County youth placed in secure detention. The first three forecast models are similar to the models used for the entire population described above. Forecast 2 and Forecast 3 are the incarceration rate models, using incarceration rates in 2012 and 2011. These two forecasts combined show a detention population requirement of 16 to 18 beds for Deschutes County youth only over the next ten years. Juvenile Detention Forecast Deschutes County Only Detention Forecast Table 6 AVERAGE POPULATION FORECAST AND BEDSPACE ESTIMATE (DESCHUTES OFFENDERS ONLY) Deschutes County, Oregon Avg. Annual 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 % Increase Forecast 1 - Avg. Annual # Decrease - 2.3/Year 7.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.55% +30% Peaking/Classification 2.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.55% Bedspace Estimate 10 4 0 0 0 0 -4.55% Forecast 2 - Average 2012 Detention Rate - . 29 10.1 10.4 11.1 11.8 12.3 12.6 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.8 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 13 13 14 15 16 16 1.15% Forecast 3 - Average 2011 Detention Rate - . 35 12.2 12.5 13.5 14.3 14.8 15.3 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.6 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 16 16 17 19 19 20 1.15% Forecast 4 - Admission Rate - 14.00 & ALOS 15.7 21.0 21.5 23.2 24.6 25.5 26.3 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 6.3 6.5 6.9 7.4 7.7 7.9 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 27 28 30 32 33 34 1.15% Forecast 5 - Admission Rate - 14.00 & ALOS 8 10.7 11.0 11.8 12.5 13.0 13.4 1.15% +30% Peaking/Classification 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.0 1.15% Bedspace Estimate 14 14 15 16 17 17 1.15% Notes: (1) Base ADP is the January through September 2012 average - 9.8. (2) Base Detention Rate is .29 (3) Forecast 4 uses the 2011 Comparison County Admission Rate average of 14.00/1,000 juvenile population and 15.7 Deschutes A LOS to project ADP. (4) Forecast 5 uses the 2011 Comparison County Admission Rate average of 14.00/1,000 juvenile population and 8 -day Comparison ALOS to project ADP. Source: Chinn Planning 18 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options NATIONAL “BEST PRACTICES” – OPERATION AND DESIGN OF JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES Placement Based on Objective Risk Assessment Structured Decision Making for Placement and Classification Identify Behavior Characteristics, Service Needs, and Requirements for Separation Programming Responsive to Individual Risks and Needs Provide Programming Responsive to “Special Needs Population” Extensive Program Opportunities (Education, Recreation, and Visiting) Structured Daily Routine Normative Environmental Character Behavior Management is the Basis of Safety and Security Maximize Staff Supervision of Youthful Offenders Small Housing Units (8-12 Residents) Results in Improved Classification, Safety, and Management Single Occupancy Sleeping Rooms for Offenders 19 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options NATIONAL “BEST PRACTICES” – OPERATION AND DESIGN OF JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES Housing Units Arranged in Groups for Shared Services and Staffing Efficiency Access to Natural Light Open Dayroom with Contiguous Sleeping Rooms (Improved Supervision) Single User Showers/Toilet Rooms (1 per 8 Residents) On-Unit Housing Activities (Counseling, Homework, Passive Recreation for Program Flexibility) Access to Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Space Direct Supervision Staffing Ratio of 1:8 to 1:12 (with Off -Unit Support Staff) Flexibility – Changing Program and Service Needs Incorporate American Correctional Association (ACA) Standards Master Plan and Design to Accommodate Future Expansion 20 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options EXISTING JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER AT JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPLEX (24 BED CAPACITY CURRENT OPERATION) Figure 9 Existing Juvenile Detention Center 21 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options Option 1: RENOVATION OF OLD JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY ON HARRIMAN STREET (10 BED CAPACITY IN 2 PHASES) Figure 10 Old Juvenile Detention Facility on Harriman Street (6 Bed Capacity) 22 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options Option 1: Phase 2 - Expansion and Renovation to Old Detention Facility on Harriman Street (10 Bed Capacity) Figure 11 Option 1 - Phase 2 Expansion and Renovation to Old Detention Facility on Harriman Street (10 Bed Capacity) 23 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options Figure 12 Option 1 - Phase 2 Expansion and Renovation to Old Detention Facility on Harriman Street (10 Bed Capacity) Option 1: Phase 2 - Expansion and Renovation to Old Detention Facility on Harriman Street (10 Bed Capacity) 24 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options OPTION 2 - RENOVATION OF UNUSED STAFF SECURE AREA AT EXISTING JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPLEX (6 BED CAPACITY) Figure 13 Option 2 - Renovation of Unused Staff Secure Area at Existing Juvenile Justice Complex (6 Bed Capacity) 25 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options OPTION 3-RENOVATION OF SHERIFF’S WORK RELEASE FACILITY (10 BED CAPACITY) Figure 14 Option 3 – Renovation of Sheriff’s Work Release Facility (10 Bed Capacity) 26 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options OPTION 4 - CONSTRUCT NEW JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY (24 CAPACITY EXPANDABLE TO 36 CAPACITY) Figure 15 Secure Juvenile Detention Conceptual Housing Configuration Three Housing Units at 12 Beds 27 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options SQUARE FOOT SPACE ALLOCATION FOR SMALL JUVENILE DETENTION FACIILITES Table 7 Capacity and Square Foot Allocation of Small Detention Facilities Facility Capacity BGSF SF/Juvenile Sarpy County, NE 24 25,250 1,052 McLean County, IL 26 33,600 1,292 Westmoreland County, PA 48 54,515 1,135 Tippecanoe County, IN 36 35,610 989 Clallam County, WA 20 28,500 1,425 Chelan County, WA 38 40,000 1,052 Cochise County, AZ 20 18,000 900 Island County, WA 20 20,000 1,000 Source: Chinn Planning, Inc. and KMD Architects. 28 Chinn Planning, Inc. Juvenile Detention Facility Options SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL COST FOR ALL OPTIONS Table 8 presents a cost summary of all of the juvenile detention options, including the operational cost of the existing juvenile detention center located at the Juvenile Services complex. Operational costs include all costs (direct, indirect, benefits) for direct care staff, but exclude contractual positions such as medical, teachers, and mental health. Table 8 Summary of Construction and Operational Cost for All Options RELOCATION OPTIONS Bed Capacity Capital Cost Detention Staff Operational Cost Per Diem Cost Comment > Phase I - Minimal Renovation 6 Beds 6.0 $400,000 17.7 $2,149,316 $981 Includes paint, new doors, security/wiring > Phase 2 - 10 Beds Extensive Renovation 10.0 $1,370,070 16.2 $1,989,603 $545 Includes 4 additional beds, Intake Area, Visitation Area, Office Space, Covered Recreation. Note: $1,770,070 for total renovation cost > 6 Beds Total - (2) Double Rooms and (2) Single Rooms 6.0 $870,000 16.2 $1,989,603 $908 > 10 Beds (2) Housing Areas 10.0 $755,000 23.4 $2,756,223 $755 > 24 Initial Capacity (Housing Capacity Expandable to 36 Beds)24.0 $9,000,000 to $9,600,000 21.9 $2,596,511 $296 1,000 SF per juvenile = 24,000 BGSF @ $375-$400/SF Existing Detention Center (24-48 Capacity)24.0 -21.9 $2,596,511 $296 NOTES: 1. All capital cost estimates are construction cost only. 2. Cost estimates are 2012 only. Option 1: Renovation of Old Juvenile Detention Facility Option 2: Renovation of Staff Secure Area of Existing Detention Center Option 3: Renovation of Sheriff's Work Release Facility Option 4: Construct New Juvenile Detention Facility