The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOpt-Out from Community Corrections Actunknown' Undecided, waiting for the numbers to come in from the state. Undecided, waiting for the numbers to come in from the state. O Z (Considering it Definately Not. Not considering opt out Would have to be a substantial reduction to Opt out. Waiting to see impact on the jail To be determined Not considering opt out If next year cuts are over 25% will opt out. Submitting a letter; but may withdraw depending final budget. Not at this time, but depends on the final budget. No way, not supported, better ran by local control. Not considering yet. Relook depending on the dollar amount Not considering opt out No plan to send an opt out letter BoCC has not brought it up, Sheirff is talking about it Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. No one here is advocating it Opposed to opt out Opposed to opt out Sheriff waiting for legislative outcome, no BoCC talk to date One discussion a month ago since then it has not come up Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. No serious consideratin; adverse local system impacts Not interested in opt out; value local control. No serious consideratin; adverse local system impacts '+ d _ m 3 N oS ,- ,- X , X „ X X r- X ,- x V"' X XX ,- r XX ,- X ,- X X XX C'- '- '- , 1 1,5 ru = o 0 1- c- w E Y ,- c- X 1....1-N-'. X Umatilla/Morrow Union/Wallowa Washington c- [- d A 0_15 o N, 0 0 Coos (Crook �' 0 'Deschutes Grant Harney Hood River Jackson Jefferson y � C _I U Malheur Marion Multnomah Y d o (0 1= _ r E >- County Sheriff BoCC Opt Out Status/Comments Operates Operates Undecided, waiting for the numbers to come in from the state. Undecided, waiting for the numbers to come in from the state. O Z (Considering it Definately Not. Not considering opt out Would have to be a substantial reduction to Opt out. Waiting to see impact on the jail To be determined Not considering opt out If next year cuts are over 25% will opt out. Submitting a letter; but may withdraw depending final budget. Not at this time, but depends on the final budget. No way, not supported, better ran by local control. Not considering yet. Relook depending on the dollar amount Not considering opt out No plan to send an opt out letter BoCC has not brought it up, Sheirff is talking about it Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. No one here is advocating it Opposed to opt out Opposed to opt out Sheriff waiting for legislative outcome, no BoCC talk to date One discussion a month ago since then it has not come up Waiting to see what comes out of legislature. No serious consideratin; adverse local system impacts Not interested in opt out; value local control. No serious consideratin; adverse local system impacts X X X X X X X X X X x X X XX XX X X X X X XX xx 1 1,5 ru = o 0 w E Y X X X Umatilla/Morrow Union/Wallowa IWasco 1 Washington Baker Benton ICIakamas 0_15 o N, 0 0 Coos (Crook �' 0 'Deschutes Grant Harney Hood River Jackson Jefferson y � C _I U Malheur Marion Multnomah Y d o (0 1= _ r E >- OACCD Executive Board Members Steve Berger OACCD President, Klamath/Lake County Community Corrections Mark Royal OACCD Vice President, Umatilla/Morrow County Community Corrections Shane I Iagey OACCD Secretary, Jackson County Community Justice Abe Huntley OACCD Treasurer, Josephine County Community Corrections Committed To, And Value, Offender Reformation, Services to Victims, Crime Prevention, And Community Restoration www.oaccd.net ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIRECTORS Governor's Community Corrections Workgroup Progress Report When the Governor released his recommended budget for community corrections (7% less than the calculated baseline budget) he committed to convening a workgroup tasked to develop workload reductions equal to the funding reduction. However, the workgroup was further challenged at our first meeting with a projected revenue shortfall between 4-5 billion for the state budget. Recognizing this, the workgroup notes it is important to emphasize several critical points: 1) There are no palatable options which will approach the savings necessary to be meaningful 2) The committee understands the interest in maintaining some local control with respect to how the resources will be allocated 3) Although the proposed cuts are intended to reflect prudent corrections and enforcement policies, everybody understands the actual application of the cuts will mean something different in each jurisdiction. (So, for example, just because a proposed reduction might be described as reducing supervision for population "A", many counties in extremis may already be providing little or no actual supervision of that population, so the reduction will be expressed through loss of supervision for an even higher risk group.) The only alternative was just to set a number without regard to policy and let each jurisdiction see what it could afford to do. The group felt it reflected better policy to at least try to define the cuts in terms of better corrections policy. The following recommendations described below are in order of suggested priority and will move ahead with legislative concepts specific to cost reductions in community corrections: 1) Inactive Status: Match Local PPS Supervision to Board PPS Supervision Law. Make law for local PPS inactive status match Board of Parole/PPS inactive status: supervision becomes inactive after 1/2 of sentence unless PO requests the case remain on active supervision. 3203 Vandenberg Rd. Klamath Falls, OR 97603 Ph: (541) 880-5500 x8201 Fax: (541) 880-5513 sbergerc co.klamath.or.us This change would drop an average of 150 offenders off of supervision. Since this law change does not change the sentence, it could take place immediately. Estimated savings: $888,264 each biennium 2) Earned Compliance Credit for Probation (i.e. probation "good time"): Create an earned compliance credit that would reduce the time that offenders are on supervision at the rate of one day off for each day served on probation -- a net 50% reduction in supervision possible. Credit would be earned only if the offender is in compliance with all of the conditions of probation. Offenders could earn credits for each month they are compliant but not on those months they were not compliant. When all the conditions are met, including the full payment of restitution, if any, the supervision term would be reduced by the amount of time earned. (Savings calculations are based on the assumption that supervision sentences would be reduced overall by 40%, or said another way, that 80% of the earned time available would be awarded. There was much debate about whether offenders on supervision in the community would reach this level of compliance.) Estimated savings: $7.3 Million for 09-11 biennium $51.5 Million for 11-13 biennium 3) Reduce Sentence Length for Probation Revocations: Modify all probation revocations without new convictions to a maximum of 60 days. The state average is currently 84 days. (This refers to the sentence ordered, not the time the inmate actually serves, and it does not apply to revocations based upon a new conviction.) Estimated savings: $9.7 million for 09-11 biennium -- assuming only the local control cases. The three recommendations noted above totaling an estimated $17.89 million represent 7.3% savings for the 09-11 biennium from the $245 million October calculated baseline budget for community corrections. This meets the original objective seeking workload reduction equal to the Governors recommended budget. Additional Recommendation for consideration: Measure 57 Phase -In Proposal The workgroup acknowledged the contrary objectives of packing more offenders in the front only to hurry them out the back of the corrections system, so some consideration was given to the idea of modifying Measure 57 to allow a phase-in for some of the property offenders. In present form, Measure 57 allows the parties to stipulate to a departure in some narrowly defined circumstances. The group contemplated the possibility of an automatic departure into an intensive Drug Court supervision program (similar to the HOPE program in Hawaii noted in the Governors most recent memo regarding Byrne/JAG Grants). Revocations following such a departure would be left with the discretion of the supervising judge, but it would result in the imposition of the prison sentence described in Measure 57. To be clear, this would not affect repeat property offenders who are already subject to prison. This proposal to "phase-in" Measure 57, would carve out that subset of M57 property offenders who would not be going to prison but for 57. The potential savings has yet to be calculated, but it is anticipated that some significant portion of the projected savings would be directed to local jurisdictions to fund the jail, supervision and treatment necessary to make such a program work. Members of the committee were asked to speak with members of their respective groups and report back ASAP, as we are on a very tight legislative timeline. Please forward your thoughts relating to the M57 Phase -In Proposal so I can report back for the group on the M57 proposal. The good news: Federal Stimulus Money for Public Safety: Byrne/JAG Grant As noted in the Governor's briefing memo sent March 30th to Senate President Peter Courtney and Speaker of the House David Hunt, $22 million will be distributed statewide through a formula process that, is based on population and crime rates. This amount is split with approximately 60 percent administered by the state, and 40 percent in direct local awards to cities and counties, netting approximately $13.5 million for the state and $8.5 million for the local jurisdictions. The state money could potentially provide $12.9 million to support the HOPE program model, with the remaining $.6 million set aside to fund a state Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission (Numbers are estimates/proposals only). There is some potential confusion with respect to the HOPE pilot project, and other "HOPE -like" programs which might be instituted in order to provide more intense supervision, and more certain sanctions, for those in the M57 property "phase in" group. A third group, the poorly defined and extremely diverse group of current "drug court" programs would likely continue to operate in the background, at least for a while, as many are operating on grant funding. THE OPT OUT Transfer of Community Corrections Operations From a County to the State Responsibilities of the State Through the Department of Corrections The state would assume responsibility for community-based supervision, sanctions and services for offenders convicted of felonies who are: (a) on parole; (b) on probation; (c) on post -prison supervision; (d) sentenced to 12 months or less incarceration (e) sanctioned by a court or the State Board of Parole and Post -Prison Supervision to 12 months or less incarceration for violation of a condition of parole, probation or post -prison supervision; and (f) on conditional release ("second look" release of juvenile offender convicted of Measure 11 crime) For local control offenders sentenced or sanctioned to a prison term of 12 months or less incarceration to be served locally, the state would become the supervisory authority and would determine the use of sanctions other than incarceration for this group as appropriate. ORS 423.478(2)(3) Community Corrections Funding Community corrections grants to counties are determined by the number and type of offenders under supervision in the county. The allocation amount would not change with a change in the governmental body that had the responsibilities listed above. The county share of state community correction funding would support all costs of operating community corrections including personnel, supplies, operation of facilities, alternative sanctions, and correctional interventions. Personnel Under existing state law (ORS 236.610) all county staff would transfer to state employment, except those effected by reduction in force due to budget reductions or job elimination due to organizational restructuring. All positions would be allocated at the appropriate state classification. DOC will need position authority and union representation would need to be determined. Salaries paid to new state employees are guaranteed to match their county salaries for 12 months per ORS 236.610 unless bargained higher. Wages, benefits, differentials, and working conditions would be bargained during the first 12 months. Community Corrections Plan The Department of Corrections staff would have the responsibility for creating the biennial community corrections plan. The plan outlines the basic structure and the supervision, services and sanctions to be applied to offenders convicted of felonies placed on supervision or local control status. The plan consists of program descriptions, budget allocation, and performance objectives for the correctional interventions to be provided. (ORS 423.525)(7)(8) Liability The state, through the Department of Corrections, becomes directly liable for the activities of felony offenders on supervision in the counties in which community corrections is operated by the state. At the same time, there will be offenders on supervision that will not receive that supervision due to budget constraints. Liability is also increased as the state takes on more employees, some of whom may carry a firearm in the course of their work. Property/Leases/Vehicles The property currently being used to operate the field office would transfer to the state along with the responsibility, as would leases and contracts. Facilities Any facility built with state funds to house local control offenders would be vacated by the county until such time as the loan is repaid. The state would have the option to operate the facility directly, to contract with private or public entities to operate the facility or to lease it back to the county. Some of these facilities are stand-alone buildings, but most of the projects were part of existing facilities; the logistics of operation will be much more complicated in shared space. Deschutes County Department of Community Justice J. Kenneth Hales, Director 633360 Britta Street, Building 1, Bend, OR 97701; ph 541.317.3115 Commissioner Tammy Baney, Chair Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR 97701 Re: Misdemeanor supervision On March 18th and 19th discussion arose about misdemeanor supervision in Deschutes and other counties. In response to the questions about what other counties do regarding funding misdemeanor supervision Tanner Wark reviewed the biennial community corrections plans for some counties and spoke directly with several community corrections directions. He was able to gather current information from twenty-four of the thirty four community corrections departments. The following provides information regarding financial contributions, level of misdemeanor supervision and state grant allocations for twenty-four community corrections departments. A Baker County community correction received $60,000 this biennium from the county general fund. The community corrections department supervises an average of 176 offenders of which 26% are misdemeanor offenders. The Sheriff is provided 37% of the state grant. Benton County community corrections does not receive county general fund money but does have a local levy to subsidize one probation officer as well as $291,000 for jail housing. The department will be requesting additional funding for the next levy for another probation officer. On an average daily bases the department supervise 466 offenders of which 23% are misdemeanors. A Clackamas County community corrections is budgeted separately but the director is supervised by the Sheriff. This department receives $2.3m annually from the county general fund. The department supervises 3,229 offenders of which approximately 37% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 11.9% of the community corrections grant.. Clatsop County community correction receives $50,000 a year from the county general fund to help pay for misdemeanor supervision. The department has an average of 584 offenders under supervision of which 21% are misdemeanors. The grant share to the Sheriff is 19%. Columbia County community corrections does not receive county general fund money. Its offender population is 520 of which 13% are misdemeanor; 26.6% of the state grant is provided to the Sheriff. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 1 Coos County community corrections does not receive county general fund money. Offender population is 653 of which 9% are misdemeanor. The Sheriff receives 37% of the state grant. Crook County community corrections receives no county general fund support. Offender population is 187, of which 0.03% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 28.7%. Curry County community corrections receives no county general fund support. The department supervises 120 offenders, of which 2% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 48%. Douglas County community corrections is state operated. The department supervises 1144 offenders of which 33 or 2.8% are misdemeanors. They expend 36% of the grant on jail beds. Harney County community corrections receives no county general fund support. The department supervises supervise 97 offenders of which 30% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 29.8%. Hood River County community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 220 offenders of which 43% are misdemeanors. The grant share to the Sheriff is 21%. Jefferson County community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 242 offenders of which 14% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 18%. Josephine County community corrections no longer receives county general fund support. The department operates 3 work crews which charge $350 a day. Annual revenue is unknown. The department supervises 976 offenders of which 13% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 22.8%. Klamath/Lake County community corrections receives no county general fund appropriation. The department supervises 1360 offenders of which 29% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 21% of the Klamath County grant and 22% of the Lake County grant. Lane County community corrections receives $54,000 annually from the county general fund. The department receives federal grant monies. The department supervises 3622 offenders of which 7.3% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 38.8% of the state grant. Linn County community corrections is operated by the State. The department supervises 1671 offenders of which 17% are misdemeanors and of those 85% are on case bank. They expend 32% on jail beds. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 2 Malheur County community corrections receives no county general fund money. The department supervises a population of 481 offenders of which 26% are misdemeanors. The grant split to the Sheriff is 56%. Marion County community corrections receives no general fund money. The department supervises 4178 offenders of which 12% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 32% of the community corrections grant. Polk County community corrections receives no general fund money. The department supervises 688 offenders of which 30% are misdemeanors. They will lay off two employees and cease misdemeanor supervision. The split to the Sheriff is 21.5%. Tillamook County community corrections receives no general fund revenue. The department supervises 281 offenders of which 27% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 29.7%. Umatilla/Morrow Counties community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 919 offenders of which 0.005% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 33%. Union/Wallowa Counties community corrections receives no general fund money. It has grant funding for .45 FTE. The department supervises 251 offenders of which 10% are misdemeanors. Funds to the Sheriff are unknown. Washington County community corrections receive $2.3 million annually from the county. The department supervises 4,141 offenders of which 35% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 32.9%. Yamhill County community corrections receives county general fund support to finance two PO positions. The offender population is 1463 of which approximately 50% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 30%. Deschutes County community corrections supervises 168 misdemeanor sex offenders and misdemeanor domestic violence offenders. Ninety five percent of these are on medium or high field supervision and are supervised with the same intensity as felony domestic violence and sex offenders. These offenders are afforded all the same programs as felony offenders. Misdemeanor and felony sex and domestic violence offenders require more time and effort than most felony offenders due to the special circumstances required in supervising these types of person to person offenders. Requirements of these offenders include weekly treatment sessions, polygraphs and special statutory and regulatory rules. Department officers strictly enforce no contact with victim or minors conditions applicable to these offenders. These offenders may be assigned to electronic monitoring due to community or victim risk. Other offender types are assigned to electronic monitoring as sanction or as an alternative to incarceration. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 3 At any given time the depaitment may have six to seven certified officers involved in supervising misdemeanor offenders. Misdemeanor sex offenders are assigned to the same officers as felony sex offenders and likewise with domestic violence offenders. A total of 3 FTE are necessary to effectively supervise 168 misdemeanors sex and domestic violence offenders. Summary: To date and over recent years all county community corrections departments have provided some level of misdemeanor supervision. The chart below shows that some departments provide very limited misdemeanor supervision and others provide a considerable level of supervision. The chart also displays the level of state community corrections grants funds provided to sheriffs departments. Although not universal it appears that several of the departments that provide higher level of misdemeanor services also retain larger shares of the state grant funds. Chart 1 Misdemeanor supervision levels and grant allocation levels 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% o4 \ae 6- oc ra �a o �a5 oc .`ca �° o\a oc .co ° �1 oQ oc 8't." Fa a� o`F o` or ay ec o�� J�O°JA ,a �a\`° eyrJ �� y �r�\ G J oscva`y ��ay GJ G\a�a�ac�ara \\aa �� a� �ayr`cAa° o�\ ,,re`� Comparison between Misd and Jail Split 10 Percentage of Misdemeanor Population ® Jail Split Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 4