Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2007.07.19 - 28431July 19, 2007 MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 07165 BY: Public Services Committee, Jeff Potter, Chairperson IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS — MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR FY 2008 To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the State of Michigan offers funding to local communities under PA 511; and WHEREAS this funding is targeted to divert non-violent offenders from prison into local jail or sentencing alternatives; and WHEREAS Oakland County has been receiving Community Corrections funds since 1994; and WHEREAS the application has been completed and is requesting funding in the amount of $3,800,384 for plans and services and probation residential services; and WHEREAS the grant application seeks full-time funding for positions 7424, 7425, 7426, 7427, 7428, 7429, 7430, 7431, 7432, 7433, 7434, 9003, 9243, 9247, 9291, 9295, 9648, 9649; .5 of full-time positions 7834 & 9396; and PTNE position 9292 within the Community Corrections Division; and WHEREAS the grant application seeks full-time funding for positions 7419, 7420, 7418, 7421, 10393, and PTNE funding for positions 7417 & 9397 within the Sheriff's Department; and WHEREAS any programs created through these funds become part of the County's Comprehensive Community Corrections Plan; and WHEREAS PA 511 of 1988 requires that the "County Board or Boards of Commissioners of the County shall approve the proposed comprehensive plan prepared by their advisory board." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the application to request $3,800,384 from the State Office of Community Corrections for the purpose of continuing programs contained within the Office of Community Corrections FY 07 grant application for offenders who meet PA 511 eligibility is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves the proposed comprehensive plan prepared by the Community Corrections Advisory Board. 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 GRANT REVIEW SIGN OFF — Community Corrections GRANT NAME: MDOC - Community Corrections Comprehensive Plan and Application FUNDING AGENCY: Michigan Department of Corrections DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON: Barb Hankey / 248.451.2306 STATUS: Application — Requires resolution DATE: June 11, 2007 Pursuant to Misc. Resolution #01320, please be advised the captioned grant materials have completed internal grant review. Below are the returned comments. The captioned grant materials and grant application package (which should include an application Report from Fiscal Services to the Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners, the Board of Commissioners' Liaison Committee Resolution, the grant application, and this Sign Off email containing grant review comments) may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for review and signature, with informational copies to the appropriate Board of Commissioners' committee(s). DEPARTMENT REVIEW Department of Management and Budget Approved. — Laurie Van Pelt (June 01, 2007) Department of Human Resources: Approved by HR. — Jennifer Mason (June 05, 2007) Risk Management and Safety: Approved By Risk Management - Andrea Plotkowski (June 07, 2007) Corporation Counsel: After reviewing this grant application, there appear to be no unresolved legal issues that require action at this time. — Karen Agaeinslci (June 08, 2007) 296,449 296,449 59,925 H20-01 296,449 59,925 59,925 345,765 345,765 345,765 702,139 702,139 702,139 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION - OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BUDGET SUMMARY Oakland County FY 2007 FUNDING SOURCES ccis TOTAL PROGRAM - ACCOUNT CATEGORY PROGRAM PLANS & LOCAL TOTAL CODE SERVICE FUNDS DDJRP/CTP MDOC RESOURCES FEE REVENUES OTHER FUNDING FUNDING Community Service Placement A19 - - - - - - - Work Crew A25 - - - - - Sub Total - -- - - - - Education - - - - - - - Educational Services BOO - - - - - - - Cognitive Change B17 215,591 - 215,591 57,381 - - 272,972 Sub Total 215,591 - 215,591 57,381 - - 272,972 - Employment & Training - - - - - Employment & Training Services COO - - - - _ - - - - Sub Total _ -- - Intensive Supervision - - . - - - - Day Reporting DO4 - - - - - - - Electronic Monitoring D08 - - - - - - - Supervision D23 _ 81,933 81,933 - - - 81,933 Sub Total - 81,933 81,933 - - - 81,933 Mental Health - -- - - - Outpatient E18 - - - - - - Sex Offender Treatment E19 - - - - - - Sub Total - - - - - - - Pretrial Services - - - - - - - Screening/Assessment F22 468,278 - 468,278 1,177,956 - - 1,646,234 Supervision F23 104,300 - 104,300 387,507 - - 491,807 Electronic Monitoring F24 30,989 - 30,989 187,257 , - - 218,246 Sub Total 603,567 - 603,567 1,752,720 - - 2,356,287 Substance Abuse - - - - - - Testing G17 61,932 - 61,932 613,543 - - 675,475 Outpatient Treatment G18 107,333 107,333 - - 107,333 Cognitive Treatment G19 - - - - - - Sub Total 61,932 107,333 169,265 613,543 - - 782,808 Case Management _ - - - Screening/Assessment 122 33,000 9,049 42,049 93,253 - - 135,302 Jail-Based/Case Management 123 140,000 140,000 23,327 - - 163,327 Community Case Management 124 260,000 98,134 358,134 717,970 - - 1,076,104 Sub Total 433,000 107,183 540,183 834,550 - - - 1.374,733 Other ZOO - - - - - - - Sub Total - -- - - - - - Total Program Funding 1,314,090 296,449 1,610,539 3,258,194 - - 4,868,733 CCAB Administration Personnel 68,649 68,649 560,164 - - 628,813 Contractual Services 30,769 30,769 199,390 - - 230,159 Equipment 68,218 - - 68,218 Supplies 500 500 1,700 - - 2,200 Travel 750 750 3,000 - 3,750 Training 750 750 - - 750 Board Expenses - - - - Public Education 1,000 1,000 4,877 - - 5,877 Other - - - Sub Total . 102,418 102,418 - - 102,418 Totals' 1,416,508 296,449 1,712,957 3,258,194 I 4,971,151 Rider D MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FIELD OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATION - OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DDJRP BUDGET SUMMARY Oakland County FY 2007 DDJRP Assessment & Treatment Services In Jail Housing/5 Day Assessment Residential Services Total DDJRP Funding MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS "Expecting Excellence Every Day" Planning and Community Development Administration Office of Community Corrections Comprehensive Community Corrections Plan and Application Fiscal Year 2008 CCAB Name: Oakland County Email the application to: and Send one copy of the application to: MDOC-OCC@michigan.gov DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Planning and Community Development Administration Office of Community Corrections Grandview Plaza Building, 1st Floor P.O. Box 30003 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Due Date: May 31, 2007 Note: Counties with multi-year contracts are required to complete Section 1, Introduction, and a new Comprehensive Plans and Services Program Description Plan for any program proposed to be changed. SECTION I INTRODUCTION A. General Information 1. Name of CCAB Oakland County Contact Person Barbara M. Hankey Title: Manager Address 2300 Dixie Hwy suite 200 Phone Number: 248 451-2306 City Waterford Fax Number: 248 451-2319 State MI E-Mail: hankeyb(a,oakdov.corn Zip 48328 2. Fiscal Agent Contact Person Laurie VanPelt Title: Director of Budget Address 2100 Pontia lake Rd Dept 409 Phone Number: 248 858-2163 City Waterford Fax Number: 248452-9172 State MI E-Mail: vanpeltloakqov.com Zip _ 48328 ---- 3. Federal I.D. Number 4. CCAB Chairperson: Fred Mester Title: Circuit Court Judge Address 1200 N. Telegraph Bldg 12 Phone Number: 248 858 0355 City Pontiac Fax Number: State MI E-Mail: mesterfoakqov.com Zip 48341 5. Type of Community Corrections Board: County City/County City Regional 6. Units of Government Represented: 7. Date of Submission: 8. Date Application 5/18/2007 Approved by CCAB: 9. Date Application Approved by Government BOC approval is pending Unit: B. CCAB Membership Representing Name County Sheriff Ann Russell Chief of Police Rollie Gackstetter Circuit Court Judge Fred Mester District Court Judge Phyllis McMillen Probate Court Judge Pamela Davis County Commissioner Hugh Crawford Service Areas Lisa McKay County Prosecutor Deb Carley Criminal Defense Doug Oliver Business Community Mona DeFransico Communications Media Fran Anderson Circuit/District Court Ken Aud Probation Officer General Public Donna Hounton C. Summary 1. Briefly summarize the key points of the Community Corrections Comprehensive Plan and provide an explanation of how the state prison commitment rate will be reduced and/or how the use of the local jail will be improved as a result of the implementation of the plan. Information included shall provide a clear understanding of local issues, long and short term goals, local priorities, and strategies to address local issues and the State Community Corrections Board Priorities. Tip: Excel maintains a 1200 character limit per cell. Once you have entered 1200 characters "wrap text" will not work. Ur-..''Ait Enter" to create a hard return for your text. The focus of this year's comprehesive plan is on offenders that fall within the SGL N/A category. We believe this category is largely comprised of probation violators, and therefore will be developing a "profile" of these offenders through additional reports requested from the state office. We will also use the COMPAS on technical violators to be sure their needs are being addressed. By doing so the number of violators should be reduced thereby reducing the number being returned to prison. We will also continue our focus on straddle cell felons with PRVs >= 35 for jail sentences rather than prsion. This reduces the prsion commitment rate and enhances our revenue stream through the CJRP. The use of time cuts for successful completion of in-jail programs has been successful in lowering the LOS at the jail for the felony population by 9 days. These programs will be continued. By turning over the population quicker we are able to house more felons at the local level again thereby reducing the prison commitment rate. The plan also has a re-newed focus on efforts to divert offenders at the pretrial stage. The JPIS data shows that those who are in custody, particularily misdemeanors at the time of sentence, recieve sentences that are double of those offenders who are not in custody. SECTION II ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC PLAN A. INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR STRATEGIC PLAN Strategic Issues, Goals, and Priorities have been established by the Office of Community Corrections in accordance with Public Act 511 and State Board priorities. CCABs will be required to establish Key Objectives and Strategies based upon OMNI Felony Disposition, JPIS, CCIS and local data that will support these Goals and Priorities. Strategic Issues are identified as Felony Dispositions, Jail Utilization and Local Priorities. S trategies such as "continuum of sanctions/services" and "public education" may be appropriate to support your objectives. For example, to support the objective of reduced prison commitment of probation violators a strategy might be to improve knowledge and understanding by stakeholders of principles of risk and need and the importance of appropriate matching of offenders to programs. OCC will provide the CCABs with OMNI Felony Disposition and JPIS data. CCABs are to analyze this data along with local CCIS data and develop Key Objectives and supporting Strategies that will provide for the attainment of Goals and Priorities established by the State Board and OCC, as well as local objectives and priorities promoted in the comprehensive plan. Example: For the Strategic Issue of Felony Dispositions, consider the stated Goal and Priority outlined in the application and complete an analysis of your county's prison commitment rate data provided by OCC. Establish objectives related to prison commitment rates. For example: 1. Reduce PV commitment rate to 25% 2. Reduce Straddle rate to 35% 3. This will result in an overall PCR of 22% Under "Strategies," outline in bullet form those steps to be taken, including continuing, new and revised programs, new initiatives, and revised policies or practices, that will support the attainment of the objectives you have specified. Identify if these are "new", "continuation," "modification," or for short term (this fiscal year) or long term implementation. For Example: 1. Develop policy for "structured sentencing" that allows straddle cell offenders and probation violators to serve jail time with jail based programming, followed by Residential Services or intensive supervision with continuation of programming in the community. (New, FY 08) 2. Initiate a jail and community based Cognitive Behavioral Treatment program that targets higher risk/need straddle cell and probation/parole violators. (New, FY 08) 3. Improve communication and sharing of information with stakeholders and referral sources so they are more knowledgeable and comfortable with available programs and principles of risk/need. (New, FY 08) 4. Reduce number of pretrial and misdemeanant offenders in jail so additional straddle cell offenders and probation violators can be housed and treated in the county jail. (Long term) 5. Target Straddles, Probation Violators, and Parole Violators for Residential Services. (Modification) Page 4 1. Felony Disposition Analysis (Note: Multi County CCABs are to complete an analysis for each county.) Strategic Issue: Felony Dispositions Public Act 511 of 1988 stipulates that counties shall develop a community corrections comprehensive plan and provide an explanation of how the county or counties prison commitment rate will be reduced by diverting non-violent offenders, and promote recidivism reduction while public safety is maintained. The Act is intended to encourage the participation in community corrections programs of offenders who would l ikely be sentenced to imprisonment in a state correctional facility or jail, who would not increase the risk to public safety, have not demonstrated a pattern of violent behavior, and do not have a criminal record that indicates a pattern of violent offenses. GOAL: Reduced demand for prison resources and related budgetary requirements. PRIORITY: Reduce prison commitment of offenders who can be safely and effectively sanctioned and treated in the community by following the principles of effective intervention (risk, need, responsivity). Using OMNI Felony Disposition data supplied by OCC for Calendar Years 2005, 2006, and the 1st quarter of 2007 provide an analysis of felony dispositions in your county(s) and how local policies, practices and programs are having an impact. Include information on the "offender target population" and "offender eligibility criteria" that identify offenders suitable for community corrections programs which have beer approved by your local unit of government; and how available sanctions and services as well as the MDOC Special Alternative to Incarceration program, electronic monitoring program for probationers and the County Jail Reimbursement Program, will be utilized to support your local objectives and priorities. Consider such issues as increase/decrease in the total number of felony dispositions, changes in law enforcement, prosecutorial or judicial practices, trends in prison commitment rates, in general and for specific SGL categories, and offender characteristics. Note: Attach a copy of your local definition of "pattern of violence" and general "offender eligibility criteria" that have been approved by your CCAB. Total dispositions for CY 2006 were 7076 which is an increase of 316 offenders over CY 2005. The largest increase was seen in the SGL N/A category with an increase of 257 offenders for a total of 2135. This increase led to 110 more offenders recieving prison over last year, raising the PCR from 24% to 26.2%. Group 2 offenses account for 71% (1523) of the offenders in the SGL N/A category with 22% (338) of them recieving prison. It should be noted that only 12 were cited as being either on parole or CC probation at the time of offense. This category has historically been comprised of PVs which probably holds true for this year as well. Given the significant rise of numbers in this category, both overall and in those who recieved prison, I can only assume that the effects of the Stelapak ase are still haunting us. Probation agents are much less tolerant of violators and are recommending stiffer penalties for those who do. Although there were 95 more offenders in the Intermediate category these offenders had literally no affect on the PCR, there was actually a .2% decrease in the prison rate. The straddle cell category experienced a decrease of 57 offenders, even so there were 69 over last year. Only 23% of the 463 straddle cell offenders recieving prison were group 1 offenses. The remaining 77% (355) were in Group 2, however 64% of these were o or CC probation at the time of the offense. This leaves 128 offenders with "other" as the status at time of the offense, in looking at this group more closely it was discovered th. these offenders had PRVs equal to or greater than 50, which could account for the judge's decision of prison. Of the remaining 44 that had PRVs less than 50, 17 were recom non-prison dispositions by the probation agent. Had the judges followed the recommendation for these 17 offenders the PRV would have been 30.1%. If all 44 of these offend been given other dispositions the PRV for this category could have been 28.3%. The Presumptive prison category also experienced an increase of 21(620) offenders, with 54 being sent to prison. This resulted in a 2.2% increase in the PCR. Overall the county's PCR was 22.3% with the straddle cell PCR at 31.3%. While our overall PCR is only slightly lower than the statewide average of 22.8%, we are significantl 5.4% in the straddle cell area than the statewide average of 35.5%. Page 5 a. Key Objective(s): Note: Use numbered outline format. Example: Reduce PV commitment rate to 28%. Objective # Objective To reduce the SGL N/A commitment rate to 24% or less 1 To reduce the Straddle cell commitment rate to 26% 2 3 4 5 b. ,Strategies: Note: Include all current or modified policies/practices/programs that support reduced prison commitment rates as well as new initiatives using numbered outline format. Example: Promote repeated commitments to residential services for probation violators rather than using incremental sanctions such as jail and prison (Modification, FY 08). Strategy # Strategy Use the OMNI database information to develop a "profile" of offenders within the SGL N/A guideline group. (continuation FY 08) 1 Require agents to build on the COMPAS assessment to determine appropriate programming for violators based on risk and need (New FY 08) 2 Promote the use of options other than jail such as PRC and PV WWAM for felony violators in lieu of jail (continuation FY 08) 3 Target straddle cell Group 2 offenders with no known status at the time of offense fcr programming through the use of the COMPAS assessment 4 specifically Life, Employment and Skills Program (LESP), Challenge to Change (CTC), and Step Forward (modification FY 08) 5 c. Assessment: Note: Using JPIS, OMNI, CCIS and local data as appropriate, briefly explain how you will assess the attainment of your objectives including how frequently you will measure your objectives, e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc. A variety of data sources will be used to ensure we are attaining our stated goals The OMNI data has become an extremely relied upon and useful tool in gaging our success. We will continue to use this as our main benchmark source. We have also been using a data warehouse to capture and review data. This reporting tool allows us to look at trends, categories of offenders, etc. It has proven to be helpful during the jail crowding emergencies in projecting number of releases, calcualting new release dates. etc. However our main evaluative tool for day to day operations Is the C*Star database. This database has proven to be one of the best investments in both time and money we have evermade. Since the database is web based we are able to access reports is a timely fashion and can perform ad hoc reports as needed. The staff each have access to reprots regarding caseload, when reports am due etc. this helps them to stay organized and meet deadlines. The Supervisors have access to several other statisacal and work product reports which assist them in meeting goals, address staff productivity and quality. Page 6 C. Jail Utilization Analysis (Note: Multi County CCABs are to complete an analysis for each county.) 1. In CY 2006, how many times did the County declare an official Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency per Public Act 325 of 1982: 3 Does your county submit JPIS data and do the quarterly reports reflect the actual jail utilization? 2. If no, when will the data be submitted and/or what steps have been initiated to resolve any yes discrepancies? 3. Provide an analysis of local jail utilization using the JPIS data (if available) including the average daily populations, lengths of stay as well as the policies and practices (i.e., bed allocation plans, earned credits, and status of any jail overcrowding task forces) of local stakeholders that influence population distributions. The rated capacity for the jail in CY 2006 remained at 1804 however our ADP was 2050, which is 246 over and 114% of capacity. It appears that some of the programs that have been implemented to ease jail crowding have had an affect as the ADP was 71 less than in CY 2005, desp:. the fact that we had over 1,200 more offenders housed. The ALOS in all categories was also reduced resulting in the overall LOS dropping to 29.1 from 31.7. This could just as easily be credited to the 3 emergency releases in CV 2006 involving 712 inmates. The misdemeanor populaticn continues to be a problem with nearly 60% of the total population being comprised of misdemeanor offenders both pretrial (25%) and sentenced (34%). Misdemeanor offenders who were sentenced after admission received sentences nearly twice the amount (35.1 days) as compared to those that were sentenced prior to admission (17.9 days). Therefore our focus needs to be on shortening this length of time either through more expedious docking of in-custody misdemeanor cases or through diverting misdemeanor cases into pretrial release. Achieving a reduction in the ALOS from 35 to 25 days would result in a savings of 10 days on 3,671 offenders or 36,710 which translates into 101 jail beds. One of the most problematic misdemeanor offenses is DWLS / driving related infractions. CY2006 saw 2,461 offenders released for these charges with an ALOS of 12.4. If even half of these cases could be placed into alternative programming it would result in 1,231 x 12.4 = 15,264 jail days savings or 42 beds. It would also lower the misdemeanor sentenced population to 30%. Felons account for about 35% of the total population (with 6% being classified as other). The same trend holds true for the felony population in that those sentenced after admission receives sentences that are 26% longer than those sentenced prior to admission (98.1 and 77.5 days respectively). However it should be noted that the ALOS for offenders sentenced after admission has decreased from 107 in CY 2005 to 98 in CV 2006, this very well could be in response to the felony plea program which expedites in custody cases. Automatic time cuts for offenders on trusty status, who complete the Life Employment and Skills Program (LESP) or the Challenge to Change program continue. Time cuts will also continue to be requested for other inmates who either complete programming or who have demostrated model behavior while incarcerated. 4. Clearly describe any initiatives of your local community mental health agency and law enforcement for reducing jail admissions and/or length of stay of mentally ill offenders. The Oakland County Jail and Community Mental Health have developed one of the finest jail diversion programs in the state. The program has 2 components, the first is a pre-book which is an option open to the police officers prior to making an arrest. The second is a post book program called Jail Alliance with Support (JAWS). If an offender is booked into the jail who is suspected of having a mental illness he/she will be diverted into a special dorm. The offender will be seen by a psychiatrist, and other team members to develop a stabilization plan and a plan for reentry. Once these things have been completed the jail team will contact the court requesting a release based on the supervision plan. The pre-booking part of the program centers around a training curriculm for officers to recognize and deal with mental illness. Identifying mental illness is the first step in diverting offenders, 42 of the 43 police agencies within Oakland County have been trained. If an officer chooses to divert a defendant they are taken to Common Ground which conducts all the screens for CMH. If the defendnat qualifies for services the officer enters into an agreement with the deft. that if the defendant engages in treatment no charges will be filed. The agreement is snet to the Jail liasion person for tracking purposes. If after 30 days the defendant has not engaged in treatment the arresting officer is notified and charges may he filed 4. Provide a brief explanation detailing how the local jurisdiction plans to use the county jail reimbursement program to house offenders in jail who would otherwise be sentenced to prison. The eligibility criteria for our in jail cognitive behavioral program is straddle cell offenders with PRVs greater than 35. Using this criteria has allowed us to keep more of these offenders locally and use it to our advantage under the CJRP. The LESP currently has 3 grups running to meet demand. Page 7 5, Clearly describe any local practices or procedures intended to improve upon offender reentry - the transition process from jail to the community whether release is at the pretrial, presentence, or post-sentence stage. Include efforts that are meant to better prepare offenders for successful reintegration such as: established community linkages to address housing, employment, healthcare, family and other issues; assessment of criminogenic risk/needs; transition planning including intiatiation of treatment and social service interventions, etc. While not formally referred to as such, Oakland County has been providing jail re-entry services for a number of years. One of the purposes of a bond report and recommendation is to address barriers to retruning to court and or engaging in illegal behavior while on bond. Conditions of bond and supervision are used to mitigate these barriers and assist the defendant with any issues she/he may be experiencing. It has long been the role of the supervision casemanager to make referrals and linkages to needed services for their clients, if the offender is in custody she / he will most likely be assisted by an inmate counselor. The jail currently has 17 of these positions who main focus is to assist the offenders in their transition into the jail and out of the jail. Defendants are to have a discharge plan prior to leaving the facility, obviously this doesn't happen f9r . everyone as some are aburptly released or transfered, but a cognizant effort is made for each offender. All of the programs currently offere. in the jail: LESP, Challenge to Change and Boot Camp have requirements for aftercareor discharge plans. Each of these programs deals with issues the offender may face upon release, and attempts to provide strategies for dealing with those issues. One of the ways we identify these issues is through the use of the COMPAS risk and need instrument. The COMPAS assessment drives program placement to ensure that offenders are being matched with the appropriate treatment / supervision services. The COMPAS assessment is used by Step Forward to fashion an individualized case plan that addresses the identified crimenogenic risk and needs. These risks are addressed through goals set in co 6. Strategic Issue: Jail Utilization Jail resources should be prioritized for use by individuals convicted of crimes against persons and/or offenders who present a higher risk of recidivism. Local comprehensive community corrections plans should reduce the demand for jail beds by diverting non-violent and lower-risk offenders, promote recidivism reduction while maintaining public safety, and reduce jail overcrowding. Goal: Operate local jails at 90% or less of the rated design capacity which can reduce the costs and liabilities for the county. Priority: Improve jail utilization and reduce need to board inmates in other facilities, avoid releases under the emergency overcrowding act, maintain jail at or below the rated design capacity. Current Jail Utilization: Note: Regional CCABs should list each county and the rated design capacity (RDC) for each facility. Please refer to JPIS data for detailed information County Oakland County Rated Design Capacity 1804 Utilization as percentage of Rated Design Capacity. 113.60% Page 8 Strategy # Strategy 1 2 3 a. Key Objective(s): Note: Please refer to the most recent JPIS data while establishing objectives to improve jail utilization. The objectives should be supported by the data. Example: Reduce LOS of sentenced misdemeanants by 10 days. Objective # Objective To avoid releases under the emergency jail overcrowding act 1 To reduce the misdemeanor LOS after admission to 25 days 2 Reduce the sentenced misdemeanor population to 30% 3 4 5 b. STRATEGIES: Note: Include all current, proposed, or modified policies/practices/programs to improve jail utilization such as sheriffs good time, trustee credits, earned release policies, etc. Example: Grant additional 5 days credit beyond sheriffs good time for trustees (continuation). To use the amendments (if passed) to the Emergency Jail Overcrowding Act to be proactive in the management of the jail poluation thereby avoiding releases. Develop an objective pretrial risk assessment that will assist in identifying those misdemenaor offenders that can be safely released into the community rather than sitting in jail. Work with courts to ensure that in-custody misdemeanor cases are given priorty courts dates for return in order to expedite case processing Create a program aimed at DWLS offenders who currently are incarcerated 4 5 c. Assessment: Note: Using JPIS, OMNI, CCIS and local data as appropriate, briefly explain how you will assess the attainment of your objectives including how frequently you will measure your objective, e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc. While the JPIS data is a useful tool for yearly comparison and analysis, we use business objects as our day to day reporting tool of the jail populaiton. Each day I can review the jail population through this database. We will also use in-house databases to track number of referral into programs to determine if we are achieving our goals. Page 9 D. LOCAL PRIORITIES: 1 Present information relative to any other local priorities, e.g. public education, which have not been identified in the above sections. The Oakland County Criminal Justice Coordinating Counsel continues to work on and support selective projects. The focus of almost the entire last year, and into next year, has been on the updating and amending of the Emergency Jail Overcrowding Act. Major propsed changes to the act include being able to take action when the population reaches 90% of the rated capacity, and including the pretrial population in the releases. This should give us more flexibility in proactively dealing with the jail population before it reaches crisis proportions. taff or Community Corrections is currenity working on 2 major projects which will have a significant impcat on local issues. The first is a comprehensive website detailingevery aspect of our programs. The easily accessible information coupled with forms, maps, and FAQs should prove useful not only to clients but to the general public as well. In addition to historical information about Community Corrections the home page will also have a space where recent events and/or news can be posted. This will allow for the website to also be a good public relations tool for our Division. The second project is the development of an objective pretrial risk assessment tool. This tool will be designed to maximize the number of defendants that can be safely released into the community. We will be requesting technical assistance from Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) to secure the services of a professional firm that has extensive knowledge in this area. It is hoped that the development of such a tool will divert more offenders from entering the system. However, this is predicated on the fact the District Court Judges and Magistrates be a part of this system so that they commit to, and use the final tool. We are working closely with MDOC to provide to them as much informaiton on clients as possible. We have recently granted access to all 100+ apents to our C*Star database. Agents now have the ability to look up any defendant and determine what, if any programs he/she was in, when they were in those programs and how they did, they also have access to all drug testing results and will soon have access to the COMPAS (see Risk / Need tab). Page 10 Assessments are conducted by: CCAB Staff Service Provider (Residential Services Vendor, etc.) Third Party Assessments are conducted at: Assessments are restricted to: If you checked other please describe: Pre-arraignment Pretrial Pre-sentence Post-sentence Felons Misdemeanants Other E. RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES: The principles of effective intervention require that an offender's risk of recidivism be assessed using an objective instrument designed to measure risk of recidivism on criminal populations. The instrument must assess both static risk factors and dynamic risk factors, or criminogenic needs. The instrument must have been tested for validity and reliability. Current literature identifies three asses. mant instruments that meet the above criteria: LSI-R, COMPAS, and the Wisconsin Risk/Needs. This section is NOT considering general assessments such as the NEEDS, psychological or personality assessments, or substance abuse assessments. Does your CCAB use: Wisconsin COMPAS None of the above If your CCAB uses one of the above instruments, please provide information on the process for administering the assessment. Mark with "x" for all that apply. LSI-R Assessment results are used to: Assessment results are provided to Circuit Probation? Assessment results are provided to the Prosecution? Assessment results are provided to the Defense? Assessment results are provided to the Service Providers? Support release on bond Target Straddles/PVs for prison/jail diversion Case Planning or program placement Pretest/Posttest of dynamic needs Other Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Briefly describe the local assessment process as marked above. Especially explain multiple responses to a single question. Identify areas in need of improvement in current risk/needs assessment policies/practices. The COMPAS has been selected as our tool of choice and we are in the process of introducing it into most of our programs. The CIAU is using the COMPAS on selected inmates within the jail at both the pretrial and post conviciton stage. Results of the assessment are used to drive program recommendations and placements. While a COMPAS assessment is not required for entery into the Challenge to Change progam, one is completed on every clients usually within days of statign the program. This informaiton is used to address client specific needs and develop a release plan. The Step Forward program using the COMPAS at the point of intake. Each client's treatment / supervision plan is then built around their assessment. In fact the case management module with the COMPAS is the module we are using to ensure goals are set according to need and progress is tracked. We are in the final stages of having COMPAS moved from our intranet to the internet. Of course the program will still have all types of securities but will allow for non- county employees to access the informaiton. So MDOC agents will be albe to access COMPAS assessments from their computers and incorporate the inf. Page 11 FISCAL NOTE (4ISC. #07165) July 19, 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, MIKE ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS - MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR FY 2008 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. The date of notification was June 9, 2007. The application was due May 31, 2007. The application is the same as the current award. See the attached Schedule A. 2. This is the fourteenth (14) year of the grant application with Michigan Department of Corrections, Office of Community Corrections. 3. The grant period is October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. 4. The application requests funding in the amount of $3,800,384. Funding sources are as follows: State funds $3,800,384 and no required County match as detailed in the attached Schedule A. 5. Fiscal Services has estimated costs at $512,763 ($405,260 Community Corrections) and ($107,503 Sheriff). Funding adjustments will need to be made prior to grant acceptance. 6. Application seeks full time funding for positions 7424, 7425, 7426, 7427, 7428, 7429, 7430, 7431, 7432, 7433, 7434, 9003, 9243, 9247, 9291, 9295, 9648, 9649; .5 of full time positions 7834 and 9396; and PTNE position 9292 within the Community Corrections Division. 7. The application also seeks full time funding for positions 7419, 7420, 7418, 7421, 10393, and PTNE funding for positions 7417 and 9397 within the Sheriff's Department. 8. Application and acceptance of this grant does not obligate the County to any future commitment. Continuation of the grant is contingent upon future levels of grant funding. FINANCE COMMITTEE FINANCE COMMITTEE Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Potter, Middleton and Coulter absent. Ruth =on, County Clerk Resolution #07165 July 19, 2007 Moved by Potts supported by Zack the resolutions (with fiscal notes attached) on the amended Consent Agenda, be adopted (with accompanying reports being accepted). AYES: Burns, Crawford, Douglas, Gershenson, Gingell, Gosselin, Gregory, Greimel, Hatchett, Jacobsen, KowaII, Long, Middleton, Nash, Potter, Potts, Rogers, Scott, Spector, Suarez, Zack, Bullard. (22) NAYS: None. (0) A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolutions (with fiscal notes attached) on the amended Consent Agenda, were adopted (with accompanying reports being accepted). I IIREBY APPROVE 111 FORE6014 RESOURION 7 / STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Ruth Johnson, 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 July 19, 2007, 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 19th day of July, 2007.