Meeting Information
Agenda for CJCC Meeting #3: May 17th 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
1. Review minutes and approve
2. Update on the process of the appointment of the new CJCC member who will provide some expertise related to the intersection of race and justice.
3. Continue the “presentations” of the CJ agencies and activities in Douglas County.
a. Judge Fairchild about the courts
b. Shaye Downing about the CJ system from the defense counsel’s position
4. Summary of the Douglas County CJ system
5. Review of the goals adopted in the bylaws and discussion about their meaning to the CJCC
6. Questions and discussion
7. Discussion about staffing the CJCC. What can members bring to the table in terms of the agency staff and resources? What must the CJCC provide in terms of staff?
8. Discuss objectives and possible timing for a retreat.
9. Final thoughts and nuts-and-bolts.
10. Set the agenda for meeting #4.
May 17, 2016
Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Meeting (CJCC)
County Commissioner Mike Gaughan, chair, called the regular meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2016.
MINUTES
Pam Weigand, Director of Youth Services, moved approval of the CJCC minutes for 04/26/16. Motion was seconded by Bob Tryanski and approved unanimously.
Those in attendance included: Mike Gaughan; Ken McGovern, Charles Branson, Bob Tryanski, Scott Miller, Susan Hadl, Leslie Soden, Tarik Khatib, Pam Weigand, Edith Guffey, David Johnson, Michelle Roberts, Mike Brouwer, Craig Weinaug, and Tom Markus. Robert Fairchild, Shaye Downing and Lori Alverado were not in attendance. Also attending from the KU School of Social Welfare assisting the meeting were Margaret Severson and Jason Matejkowski.
UPDATE ON APPOINTMENT
Gaughan stated he has setup meetings with a number of perspective candidates for the additional CJCC member. He hopes to bring a recommendation to fill the new appointment position to the next CJCC meeting.
PRESENTATIONS TABLED
The presentations from Judge Fairchild and Shaye Downing were tabled as they could not attend the meeting. Gaughan also asked Judge Miller to speak about municipal court matters at the next CJCC meeting.
DISCUSSION OF TOUR OF THE CORRECTION FACILITY
Gaughan opened the discussion regarding the tour of the Douglas County Correctional Facility taken by several board members (Tryanski, Hadl, and Guffey) who were accompanied by Commissioner Nancy Thellman and consultant Margaret Severson.
Hadl said she thought it was good to see what we’ve been hearing about in terms of the logistics involved with classifying DCCF residents, in terms of having to juggle corrections staff so as to not compromise residents’ free time or increase their isolation. This is a challenging situation because of necessary movements within the jail, and because the jail operates according to policy, laws and humane standards.
Guffey said she was impressed to find the jail so clean. She also wondered why the work release residents had to be in jail. She asked why they couldn’t be monitored on ankle bracelets or by some other process. Guffey said she was also impressed with the programming and how they have to move people around to meet space needs.
Tryanski agreed the tour was helpful to see the facility and understand the concept of the pods and how the projected plan is needed. It was surprising how little time the inmates have out of their cells which is probably due to the jail being overcrowded. He believes that can’t be helpful even for those without mental health issues. He also questioned why those in the work release program with minimum security risks have to be incarcerated.
Branson responded that many times those in the work release program are incarcerated on a mandatory minimum required sentence by state law, an example would be a third offense DUI which is a felony offense and accordingly, the convicted person is required to serve 90 days before they can be released. The work release program actually allows them to maintain their job while confined; giving them something to come out to after they serve their minimum sentence.
Miller said house arrest is something the individual has to pay for through bail bonding agencies, private vendors or Douglas County Community Corrections, costing $17 per day paid for by the individual. Some can’t pay the fee and some choose to opt out even though they may be eligible for the program.
Guffey questioned the cost to house a person in jail at approximately $70 per day paid for by the City versus $17 per day for house arrest.
Brouwer stated the Sheriff Department has been testing two new ankle bracelets for electronic monitoring. They are looking at cost and testing. If successful they hope to purchase 20 bracelets. However, minimum sentenced offenders are not eligible per state statute. During his research, Brouwer has identified 40 potential candidates who may qualify for electronic monitoring.
Miller added there are some people who seem like good candidates for house arrest because they are successful on work release, but instead have problems with substance abuse because there is no one to monitor that. Sometimes they have a better success rate due to the incarceration. Municipal court does a ton of house arrests. In the absence of house arrests the amount of jail days coming out of municipal court would be doubled.
Weinaug added house arrest is only available to those who can afford it. Miller stated that is something we’ve talked internally about for years.
Roberts said electronic monitoring is setup through independent agencies. Most of the time attorneys have an order and set it up for their clients. Work release is set up differently per county. Sometimes with house arrest people are allowed in a work release program, which is viewed as a privilege or reward program. The offender pays for their own bracelet. Some counties supplement the bracelets. The price of the bracelet is based on hourly wage of the person. In Roberts’ opinion, it is acceptable to require someone to pay an hour of their wages for the bracelet and in return, they can continue to work. Roberts also said some of the more sophisticated bracelets cost more but do more. You can program a direct route to a person to go to work with a time frame to get to work. If they don’t get there, there is an alarm and a phone call is sent immediately to alert the probation officer.
Tryanski asked what defines a jail by statute. Do people have to be confined in a cell? Branson responded the definition is defined by statutes and is complicated. Most statutes say a person must be confined in custody in such a way that they are held. Some statutes say they are not allowed to leave confinement. There is no short answer.
Miller stated some communities have an intervention program where people are held in dormitory like settings for first time DUI offenders. The main benefit would be programming because the offender has to work with substance abuse professionals. These institutions are run by private vendors and cost money.
OVERVIEW
Severson recapped the first two meetings for those who were not in attendance.
She believes it is beneficial for the council to keep in mind the ultimate objective is to enhance public health. It’s not just the criminal justice system involved. It’s the City Council, the County Commission, law enforcement, the public, and hospitals all have some role to play in keeping people out of the justice system and enhancing their lives so they don’t get involved in the justice system in the first place.
REVIEW OF GOALS
Gaughan asked the members of the council to share what the council’s goals means to them.
Soden said she wants to promote both public safety and have a more global public health outlook.
Gaughan said he thinks of the council as holding up a mirror to our system where we decide what we like about what we see in the mirror and what we wish to change. We also need to make people aware of the good things we see. We have an opportunity to amend the bylaws if we need to adapt.
Johnson said our relationship with law enforcement is based on a common understanding of the health and safety of the community. This council has the ability to provide an opportunity for people to share a goal and make a difference. Officers were trained as warriors and are now looking at their responsibility as guardians. That approach makes a great difference.
Guffey responded she is trying to process looking at the jail as part of the public health system. She had never thought of it that way. She has always thought of the jail as public safety so this is new to her.
Johnson added he is a graduate of the Sheriff’s Academy where he had the opportunity to watch the extent of training officers go through. He said that really help put their jobs into context. The level and variety of training they go through is far beyond public safety. It was eye opening.
Soden said jail is the final safety net within the system.
Gaughan gave the following example: of 100% of the people that are in our jail population, 10% we can do little about them coming back, and there’s the 50%, with little intervention, we know aren’t coming back. It’s the 10-40% to focus on their needs and provide skills to impact their live so they can move out of the system. Gaughan said this helped him understand the system efficiency.
Severson replied understanding the jail role in the health system does not come easy for people who aren’t aware of what the jail does. An example, a National Juvenile Suicide Study reported that juveniles are more likely to be in custody when at high risk for suicide. Yet the numbers show that suicides that occur in juvenile facilities are low. One has to appreciate what staff does to save lives every day. Severson said that happens in Sheriff McGovern’s jail too. Suicide risk is high, but compared to the thousands of people that come though the jails every year with what’s happening in our Douglas County facility, our suicide rate is low. That shows there is something special happening that has to do with promotion of public health.
Gaughan stated one of our first goals is develop a common understanding, to define and enumerate it, agree to it and share it going forward. We also need to define what we want to achieve. We need to be thinking about what’s coming up next and the challenges other communities are experiencing. We also need a common understanding of what our community should be achieving.
Gaughan asked the council to describe some of the barriers we face. Responses included confidentiality, a variety of funding sources and who pays for what, grant limitations on funds, and not knowing someone’s health background before incarceration.
Gaughan said one of our goals is to analyze the process, identify improvements and determine what is working or not.
Tryanski said his biggest concern is the format of this council may slow down some of the progress already started. He would like to see us establish priorities we can take action on soon and move forward. The community needs to know what’s happening.
Brouwer gave an example of Johnson County who utilized the sequential model as a framework to do their own community mapping to identify where systems were overlapping and where services were duplicated, and identify gaps in the system. That led to a road map of recommendations and projects they are still being used today including a mental health co-responder program and a crisis center. The biggest thing that came from that process was the relationships that were built between agencies and understanding each others’ roles. Advocacy led to a minor state statute change regarding people with mental illness in the state of crisis with law enforcement involvement.
Guffey said she would like to understand what happens to a person from the time they are stopped, arrested, and processed. What are the decision points and the options? She feels mapping would be helpful.
McGovern said we understand the system, but trying to explain to a parent with a child in the system can get frustrating for the parent. We have to slow down and explain the process and that it is not life ending. It’s a process.
Weinaug said he has observed our discussions do raise one question: if there may be better ways to handle our processes.
Miller offered to answer any questions Guffey or anyone else has on the council to better understand the process. He said he is sure the Sheriff will provide the same.
NEXT MEETING
• Next meeting, Tuesday, June 7, 11:00 a.m., County Commission chamber.
• Presentations by Judge Fairchild, Judge Miller and Shaye Downing.
• Discuss setting up a retreat
Gaughan moved to adjourn the meeting.
Time and Date