Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2002.12.12 - 26764PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Personnel Committee Vote: Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote with Amos absent December 12, 2002 REPORT (MISC. 1102313) BY: PERSONNEL COMMITTEE, NANCY DINGELDEY, CHAIRPERSON RE: 52" DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION I — FY 2003 MICHIGAN SOBRIETY COURT CONTINUATION To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Personnel Committee, having reviewed the above-mentioned resolution on December 4, 2002, recommends the resolution be adopted. Chairperson, on behalf of the Personnel Committee, I move the acceptance of the foregoing report. MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #02313 December 12, 2002 BY: Public Services Committee, Hugh D. Crawford, Chairperson IN RE: 52 nd DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION I - FY 2003 MICHIGAN SOBRIETY COURT CONTINUATION To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS in 2001 the 52nd District Court, Division I (Novi) implemented a Sobriety Court to address the problems of increasing recidivism, increasing use of alcohol and illegal drugs, rising systems costs, and an increase in jail days ordered; and WHEREAS this program was initially implemented through the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), Michigan Sobriety Court Grant Program in 2001; and WHEREAS the Sobriety Court program retains offenders in treatment for a specific length of time with a goal of successfully reducing recidivism among repeat drunk drivers; and WHEREAS to support the continuation of the Sobriety Court program in a cost-effective manner, Division I proposes to increase the Sobriety Court Cost from $100 to $125, which is imposed on all offenders in this jurisdiction convicted of drinking and driving related charges; and WHEREAS the program provides intensive probation supervision and frequent alcohol testing of defendants; and WHEREAS the continuation of two (2) Probation Officer I positions is requested, with positions costs to be covered by Sobriety Court Costs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners authorizes the continuation of two (2) General Fund/General Purpose Probation Officer I positions (432205-09904 and 09905) within the Probation Unit of the 52'1 District Court, Division I (Novi). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 52 1 District Court, Division I (Novi) will report to the Public Services, Personnel and Finance Committees in June 2003 and December 2003 to provide an update on the program and related revenue generation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that continuation of the two positions be contingent upon sufficient revenue to cover the cost of the positions. Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I move adoption of the foregoing resolution. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Public Services Committee Vote: Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with McPherson, Obrecht, Garfield and Sever absent. SOBRIETY COURT REVENUE PROJECTION FOR FY 2003 & FY 2004 DESCRIPTION WHITE LAKE N_ON1 TOTAL SENERIO # 1 Average number of cases per year. 90 (69+111)/2 889 (848+930)/2 979 Sobriety Court Fee Assessment $125 $125 Projected Sobriety Court Revenue per year $11,250 $111,125 $122,375 Revenue at 95% collection rate $10,688 $105,569 $116,256 SENERIO #2 Average number of cases per year. 90 (69+111)/2 889 (848+930)/2 979 Sobriety Court Fee Assessment $150 $150 Projected Sobriety Court Revenue per year $13,500 $133,350 $146,850 Revenue at 95% collection rate $12,825 $126,683 $139,508 SENERIO #3 Average number of cases per year. 90 (69+111)/2 889 (848+930)/2 979 Sobriety Court Fee Assessment $100 $100 Projected Sobriety Court Revenue per year $9,000 $88,900 $97,900 Revenue at 95% collection rate $8,550 $84,455 $93,005 11/19/200202:03 PM BYRNE03.1/44\ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: BRENTHY JOH NSTON FROM: PATRICIA CRANE SUBJECT: SOBRIETY COURT; SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT DATE: 11/22/02 CC: MICHELLE B1LGER, JUDGE BRIAN MACKENZIE (PRESIDING) Sobriety Court was implemented twenty months ago. Sobriety Court is an eighteen-month program, which is divided into two nine-month phases; the intensive and the aftercare phase. Since March 5, 2001, one hundred and forty five defendants have been admitted into the program. Of those, sixty defendants are currently supervised in the intensive phase and thirty seven defendants are supervised in the aftercare phase. Of the graduate population, forty-five defendants have graduated from the intensive phase and twelve defendants have successfully completed both program phases. Sobriety Court, since its inception, has directed itself to the repeat offender. While the majority of participants are second offenders, 13% are before the Court on their third drunk driving conviction and 16.5% have been convicted of drunk driving four to six times; four defendants had committed five offenses and four defendants had committed six drunk driving offenses. The goal of Sobriety Court is to end a defendant's recidivistic drunk driving. Two participants have been charged with a drinking and driving offense while enrolled in Sobriety Court. Although it is difficult to address recidivism rates of a program still in its infancy, the goal of Sobriety Court to reduce drunk driving recidivism in this high risk population appears to be on track. Thirty-three defendants were unable to stop using or comply with the requirements of Sobriety Court. This number is unacceptable and is the motivation for continuous improvement. As we observed defendants who struggled and those who failed in Sobriety Court, we learned that frequent relapse and a return to using behaviors were key predictors of failure. The Sobriety Court team held a meeting with our treatment providers on July 12, 2002 to explore this issue with the goal of formulating a consistent programmatic response. Following that meeting, the Sobriety Court team created a protocol for sanctions following relapse. Consequently, the modalities of intensive outpatient substance abuse counseling and the three quarter house have been utilized with greater frequency. During the past six months, the 52 nd District Court submitted to a process evaluation conducted by Western Michigan University. A process evaluation examines program coverage and delivery. The researchers documented that Sobriety Court was in compliance with the Ten Key Components of Drug Courts. Further, the evaluation noted that the judges have embraced the principles of the team approach in the assessment of client progress and that all members of the team are encouraged and supported in contributing to client discussions. In conclusion, the evaluator stated " the result is a program that is enthusiastic in the best sense: there is a commitment to each client but also to the concept of the program and making it as good as it can be". Also, the Court is in the process of implementing a new program called First Step. The program is an introduction to the philosophy of Twelve Step Programs. The program will be conducted by sponsors in Alcoholics Anonymous and graduates of our Sobriety Court who have taken on the role of mentors. This program is a response to the request from recovering citizens in our community to be included in Sobriety Court. On December 3, 2002, the Court will host our third Sobriety Court graduation ceremony. It will be held in the Oakland County Commissioners Auditorium. More than thirty participants and their families will appear for the formal graduation. 2 762- FISCAL NOTE (MISC. 102313) December 12, 2002 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, SUE ANN DOUGLAS, CHAIRPERSON IN RE: 52nd DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION I - FY 2003 MICHIGAN SOBRIETY COURT CONTINUATION TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule XII-C of this Board, the Finance Committee has reviewed the above referenced resolution and finds: 1. By Miscellaneous Resolution #01042, the Board of Commissioners authorized the establishment of two Probation Officer I positions responsible for the case management of offenders participating in the Sobriety Court. These positions were to be funded by the revenue generated by a Sobriety Court fee of $100 per case. 2. These general fund funded positions will sunset on December 31, 2002. 3. To support the continuation of the two Probation Officer I positions in the Drug Court program in a cost effective manner, the Court is proposing to raise the Sobriety Court Fee from $100 to $125, to be imposed on all offenders convicted of drinking and driving related charges, effective January 1, 2003 and ending December 31, 2003. 4. The Sobriety Court Fee assessment is estimated to generate approximately $105,569 of revenue per calendar year (1,000 cases at $125 per case). The cost of the two positions for FY 2003 is $102,630. Revenue may exceed the cost of positions. 5. The cost of the two positions, salary and fringes is $75,000 for the nine months remaining in FY 2003, and $27,630 for the first three months of FY 2004. 6. The following budget amendment is recommended to the FY 2003 and FY 2004 budget: 52-1 District Court (Novi) Fund (101) FY 2003 FY 2004 Revenue 1-32-201100-20006-0296 Assessment Fees $ 75,000 $ 27,630 Expenditures 2-32-205200-20006-2001 Salaries $ 53,154 $ 19,582 2-32-205200-20006-2074 Fringes 21,846 8,048 Total Expenditures $ 75,000 $ 27,630 Net of Revenues and Expenditures 0 $ 0 FIANCE COMMITTEE FINANCE COMMITTEE Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Taub and Melton absent. G. William Caddell, County Clerk Resolution #02313 December 12, 2002 Moved by Sever supported by Suarez the resolutions on the Consent Agenda, be adopted (with accompanying reports being accepted). AYES: Brian, Buckley, Causey-Mitchell, Crawford, Dingeldey, Douglas, Galloway, Gregory, Law, McPherson, Melton, Middleton, Moffitt, Moss, Obrecht, Palmer, Patterson, Sever, Suarez, Webster, Appel. (21) NAYS: None. (0) A sufficient majority having voted therefore, the resolutions on the Consent Agenda, were adopted (with accompanying reports being accepted). HEREBYAPPOrl-f• FOREGOING RESOLUT III, Couniv Executive Date STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, G. William Caddell, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on December 12, 2002, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 12th day of December, 2002.