• No results found

Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Plan of Action

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Plan of Action"

Copied!
44
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

1

Criminal Justice Advisory Council

Plan of Action

(2)

2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

PLAN OF ACTION

This Plan of Action is the result of numerous conversations with key stakeholders of the Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC). This Plan:

• Represents agreement within CJAC of a philosophy and vision for Salt Lake County’s criminal and social justice system.

• Embodies consensus on next steps; an action plan for moving forward.

• Provides critical data to further the understanding and dialogue of the offender population, assesses how to most effectively and efficiently use limited resources to impact criminal behavior.

• Offers a glimpse into our current criminal and social justice system and discusses how what is currently in place makes a difference.

• Explores the current criminal justice research to find areas where we can learn more about best practices.

• Identifies areas in need of improvement.

This document is not intended to provide – or convince anyone – that CJAC has all of the answers to the challenges presented by crime, and those committing it, in Salt Lake County. It is not intended to address all of the challenges that we face. There are many challenges and they are multifaceted and complex. The document does, however, represent a renewed commitment among key stakeholders toward cooperation and coordination in meeting these challenges.

The report begins with CJAC’s vision for the criminal justice system, and then provides a description of the offender population based upon an analysis of jail booking data. It then highlights what the research indicates works with offender populations to reduce the rate of recidivism, which incorporates an analysis of the impact of what currently exists in Salt Lake County. From there the document takes a closer look at what the criminal and social justice system currently looks like in Salt Lake County, including identifying areas of positive impact and areas in need of improvement. Finally, this document presents CJAC’s plan of action to help the criminal and social justice system build what is working well and improve areas of deficiency.

Why We Care

Public safety is a primary role of Government. Within Salt Lake County, the Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC) has the responsibility to develop a comprehensive plan that promotes a safe community. The plan guides the Mayor, District Attorney, Sheriff, County Council and other CJAC partners in making policy, program, and budgetary decisions that advance public safety.

(3)

3

There are, and always will be, limited resources with which to work. To this end, it is critical that Salt Lake County has an efficient and effective criminal and social justice system in which the key stakeholders coordinate and collaborate closely in their efforts to reduce crime.

In this spirit, the Criminal Justice Advisory Council has put together the following operational plan designed to promote:

• A Safe Community

• An Efficient and Effective Criminal and Social Justice System

• Individual Success (i.e., Offender Rehabilitation)

• Reduced long-term costs

Criminal and Social Justice System Philosophy and Vision

1 A Dynamic, Comprehensive, Data-Enhanced Criminal and Social Justice System that

Maximizes Public Safety, Accountability and Individual Success

The philosophy and vision for Salt Lake County’s Criminal and Social Justice System is characterized by the following:

• Comprehensive

A criminal and social justice system that is comprehensive in nature is a system that recognizes the various levels of risk to public safety that individual offenders present, the diverse treatment needs of those who commit criminal acts, and the need for a range of sanctions to hold offenders accountable. A comprehensive criminal and social justice system offers a wide variety of options to best accomplish its goal of a safe community. This system utilizes assessment and best practices to match programs, sanctions and treatment to the need of the individual offender to prevent the likelihood of re-offense once someone comes into contact with the system.

• Dynamic

A dynamic criminal and social justice system is one in which individual offenders move through the system based on assessed need and level of risk to the community. A dynamic criminal justice system also utilizes data and research to make changes to the system and processes based on need and long-term effectiveness (measured by achievement of outcomes).

(4)

4

• Data-Enhanced

It is critical to measure the effectiveness of the criminal and social justice system through research and data collection. The gathering of data will be used to inform decisions at various key points in the criminal justice process (i.e., screening and comprehensive need assessments), to assist in making recommendations to policy-makers, and to measure program effectiveness and system efficiency.

• Balanced

An effective criminal and social justice system in Salt Lake County must maintain the critical balance between public safety, accountability, and individual success (i.e., “balanced-approach”). There must be capacity in the system that allows key

decision-makers (e.g., prosecutors, defense, courts) to divert individual offenders to programs or treatment when appropriate, to provide adequate supervision in the community when called for, and to incarcerate when necessary.

An effective criminal and social justice system must also maintain balance and

respect for the divergent roles and responsibilities of elected officials and the different branches of government.

Defining the Offender Population

2

Understanding the history of the offender population allows policy makers to make better policy and resource decisions. The data below shows that, in general, the characteristics of the offender population remained fairly consistent from 2001-2006—in terms of overall population, level of charges, types of crime and length of stay. During the latter part of 2007 and 2008, the percent of those with felony charges increased in proportion to the overall jail population. The number of “book and releases” has been increasing—and is currently around 800 prisoners per month..

The total number of Salt Lake County inmates has remained steady for the last six years, hovering around 2000. This is probably due to multiple factors; including the maximum capacity of the Adult Detention Center and county policies such as the Jail Cap

Management Plan that has affected patterns of incarceration.

2 All Data in this “Defining the Offender Population” are provided by the University of

(5)

5

Total Number of Salt Lake County Inmates (2001-2008)

Degree of Offense

The relative percentages by degree remained fairly steady from 2001 to 2006--Felony Three offenders make up the largest group of jail inmates for this time period followed by Felony Two offenders. Misdemeanor A and Felony One have occupied the third place slot at various time, both varying between 10% and 15% of the total population.

Misdemeanor B offenders have been reduced from a high of 22%, down to their current proportion of 9% of the inmate population. During 2007 and in 2008, the percent of those with felonies has increased from 64% in 2006 to approximately 73% in 2008.

Salt Lake County Inmates by Degree (2001-2008)3

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% MC MB MA F3 F2 F1 Degree P e rc e n t W it h D e g re e a s M o s t S e ri o u s C ri m e 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(6)

6 Type of Offense

In 2007, drug offenders surpassed property offenders as the most common category in the county jail population and have remained in the top category since that time. Offenders with a drug crime as their most severe charge now make up 27.7% of the Salt Lake County Jail population. Property offenders, formerly the most numerous category, now make up 26.6% of the Salt Lake County inmate population.

Inmate Population by Category (2001-2008)

Length of Stay

Overall, the average Length of Stay for all committed inmates in Salt Lake County has shown little systemic change over the last six years, although there has been some variation within that time. The minimum monthly average for releases was 49 Days in May of 2002, and the highest was 81 Days in January of 2008. As expected, length of stay by degree, for most months reported, was ordered with Felony One releases serving the most time and Misdemeanor C the least.4

4 It should be noted that the average length of stay among the jail population has also

been influenced by Overcrowded Releases and Early Commitment Releases over the past couple of years. Individuals who, in the past, would have spent some time in jail while waiting to bail out or waiting for arraignment are being released within hours of their booking, and sentenced inmates have been released early from commitments due to overcrowding pressures.

(7)

7

Average Length of Stay for Releases by Month 2001-2008 (only for commitments)

For August, 2008 Releases, the average length of stay was:

• All Commitments: 68 Days

• Felony One Commitments: 145 Days

• Felony Two Commitments: 108 Days

• Felony Three Commitments: 91 Days

• Misdemeanor A Commitments: 70 Days

• Misdemeanor B Commitments: 21 Days

• Misdemeanor C Commitments: 3 Days5 Prior Bookings

Overall, 37% (or 6,369 offenders) of offenders had no prior bookings for any offense since 2002; 16% had only one prior booking. Approximately 10% had two prior offenses.

Percent of Offenders With Prior Bookings (2008) N = 17,179 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Prior Bookings % o f O ff en d er s

While the chart above shows low percentages of inmates actually return to jail more than five times, there are those who return numerous times. The data show 706 offenders had between 11-15 prior bookings; 291 had between 16 and 30 bookings; and 62 had more

5 This category and Felony One vary a lot due to small numbers. Misdemeanor C varied

(8)

8

than 30 bookings since 2002. These offenders are what we call the “frequent flyers” who use a large portion of the criminal justice system resources. The frequent flyers are often homeless and have severe mental illness and/or substance abuse issues. The County has begun programming for these individuals (e.g., JDOT) with successful outcomes.

What Works with Offenders? The Research

Reducing long-term recidivism rates is key to improving public safety in our

communities—lower recidivism rates mean that fewer people are committing additional crimes. Lower recidivism rates also indicate that people are more accountable for their own behavior and generally more successful in the community.

A large number of studies have been conducted on the most effective options for reducing recidivism—or the number of arrests for new offenses.

The general finding is that while incarceration achieves certain goals (e.g., taking criminals off the streets), it is not effective at reducing recidivism. This means that to significantly impact recidivism, particularly among the frequent flyer population, jail must be accompanied with additional programming. Offenders who do not receive programming are more likely to re-offend than those who receive additional services. The benefits of programming include both community-based and jail-based programs. The research also finds that longer sentences are not more effective than shorter jail stays in reducing recidivism.

On the other hand, treatment has positive impacts on reducing recidivism. In fact, for mentally ill offenders and drug offenders, treatment results in much larger reductions in recidivism than time spent in jail.

Recidivism Rates:

The table below displays the recidivism rates for all inmates booked at the Salt Lake County jail (including those booked and released) for different types of crimes. These rates reflect those who have at least one new charge and do not reflect those coming back in the system for old warrants, etc.

Population--

All Booked in the Jail

1 Year Recidivism Rate for New Charges

3 Year Recidivism Rates for New Charges

Person Crimes 23% 38%

Property Crimes 27% 43%

Drug Offenders 25% 42%

For the three most numerous categories (person, property and drug offenders), the 12 month recidivism rates are relatively low (all around 25%). It is important to note some vital characteristics of this population: first, drug offenders do not have drastically worse

(9)

9

recidivism rates from person offenders and they have lower rates than property offenders. Second, for this cohort, almost half of the recidivism occurs after the one year mark.

3 Year Survival (% Releases with no new charge bookings)

6

Person, Property, Drug Offenders

If we look at only those who are committed to the jail, the recidivism rates go up somewhat, particularly for those committing property crimes.

Population—

Committed Offenders

1 Year Recidivism Rate for New Charges

3 Year Recidivism Rates for New Charges

Person Crimes 23% 45%

Property Crimes 34% 50%

Drug Offenders 25% 42%

6 This survival curve is from the cohort of all booked individual between 1/1/2002 and

(10)

10

Programs that Reduce Recidivism

Different programs are effective for different populations in reducing recidivism. For example, for the general offender population, cognitive behavioral therapy is most effective while for substance abusers, community-based treatment is most effective. Reviewing the recidivism statistics, we find that those who can be successful in the community on their own are less likely to come back into the criminal justice system and are less likely to be those needing programming and treatment. It is the high-risk

individuals that need additional services. Therefore it is important that programming provided within the criminal and social justice system focus on and serve those who are at the greatest risk of homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse.

Research indicates that it is important to match the intensity of services to the individual. For example, high risk offenders need to receive more services and more intense services. Recidivism can actually increase when low risk offenders receive more intense services (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). Also, treatment must focus on criminogenic needs and target domains where the individual has demonstrated higher risk. Finally, treatment should take into account the abilities and learning styles of the individual. This includes providing culturally appropriate services, services that take into account the cognitive ability of the individual and the practical limitations of the individual (i.e., the ability of the individual to pay for or be transported to services)

The information below around program effectiveness comes from a number of evaluation sources including meta analysis from a Washington State study, literature reviews,

program evaluations, and data analysis from the University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center.

General Offender Population

For the general offender population, cognitive behavioral programs have been shown to be both very effective and very cost-effective, resulting in both high victim and taxpayer savings. Other cost effective programs for general offender populations include basic education and life skills programs (Byrnes, Fowles, & Hickert, 2006). Reasoning and Rehabilitation is a program that has come into wide use in the United States and the UK, and there are many studies showing its effectiveness (Hollin & Palmer, 2006).

(11)

11

The table below outlines the effectiveness of different programs for the general offender population.7

Program Reduction in Recidivism

for Participants

Total Cost Savings per Individual Other Cognitive Behavioral

Therapy

25% $14,247

Basic Education 24% $12,307

Life Skills Program 20% $11,064

Reasoning and Rehabilitation

22% $12,742

HARP (Housing First) 18% $6,852

Homeless Assistance Rental Program (Housing First Model) HARP reductions in new Charge Bookings: 18%

Cost Savings per HARP participant $6,852

Housing First is often defined as an intervention in which housing resources are provided with no requirements or contingencies (e.g., abstinence or employment). Three studies specifically examined the efficacy of Housing First interventions. Housing First is

generally seen as effective in improving housing outcomes, but has a more limited impact on additional measures of interest (e.g., substance abuse, psychiatric ratings,

employment, quality of life, etc.). Studies indicate that in treating homelessness that coexists with mental illness and substance abuse, Supportive Housing tends to improve some housing variables as well as a few other variables (e.g., abstinence measures, housing quality, psychiatric rating scales, stressful life events, etc.) when compared with no treatment, case management only, or even abstinent-contingent conditions. However, many of the studies reported mixed results, with the Supportive Housing interventions failing to provide improvements on all measures of interest.

The current literature on Supportive Housing and Housing First interventions aimed at addressing homelessness and related concerns reflect the difficulty of working with this population. A closer examination of these efforts suggest, though, that Supportive Housing and Housing First models can be effective in making progress with homeless clients experiencing mental illness and substance abuse when they are appropriately matched to the needs of the clientele.8

7 Data from “The Cost of Crime. A Cost/Benefit Tool for Analyzing Utah Criminal Justice

Program Effectiveness” (Fowles, Byrnes, & Hickert, University of Utah).

8 Housing Assistance Literature Review all from (Van Vleet R. , Hickert, Becker, Fowles, &

(12)

12 Day Reporting Center9 (DRC)

Research regarding the effectiveness of DRCs in reducing recidivism has found mixed results. In addition to the possibility of reducing recidivism, a number of studies have found DRCs to be, at the very least, a less expensive alternative to incarceration (Craddock, 2004; Parent, Byrne, Tsarfaty, Valade, & Esselman, 1995) and an effective method of relieving jail overcrowding.

The Utah Criminal Justice Center evaluation of the Salt Lake County Day Reporting Center found the following:

Of those clients who reported to the DRC, half (51%) successfully discharged from the program. Clients were less likely to successfully discharge if they had a property or drug offense on the booking that resulted in the DRC placement, delayed reporting to the DRC after being released from the jail, and if they were released from the jail on an

overcrowding release (OCR).

Although nearly half of DRC participants had a new jail booking, only 37.9% of those had a new charge at the time of that booking. Therefore, fewer than one in five (18.3%) DRC participants had a new charge that resulted in a jail booking after entering the DRC. Factors associated with increased odds of having a new jail booking were: having a drug or property offense at the booking resulting in the DRC placement and having a more severe degree of offense at that booking. Contacts between clients and their case managers lowered the odds of a future jail booking by almost half.

Probation and Offender Reentry

There is evidence that halfway houses, pre-release education, and drug treatment

aftercare in the community all increase the odds of the released offender’s success in the community (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). Specifically, for drug offenders, research suggests a transition through community programs like outpatient drug treatment or therapeutic communities (Belenko, 2006).

In terms of comprehensive programs for re-entry, there are no definitively effective programs. There is a growing sense that the programs for re-entry should target the type of offender and specific domains of an offender’s functioning. Re-entry should focus on providing housing, employment or job training, education and, when applicable, drug treatment or mental health case management (Travis & Petersilia, 2001).

Substance Abusers

Substance abuse and criminal activity have long been identified as interconnected problems that are symptoms of broader deviant thinking and behavior patterns (De Li, Priu, & MacKenzie, 2000). An early study found that 83% of prisoners reported having

9 Literature Review and text from day reporting center all quoted from (Van Vleet,

(13)

13

used illicit drugs at least once prior to incarceration (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Furthermore, research has shown that the frequency and severity of offending escalate as drug use increases (Belenko, 2002; Harrell, 2001; Inciardi & Martin, 1997; Inciardi, Martin & Butzin, 2004). Although this relationship does not necessarily indicate that substance use triggers criminal careers, substance abuse has been proven to intensify and sustain criminal activity (Inciardi et al., 2004).

This clear demonstration of the connection between substance abuse and crime has led to over three decades of large-scale criminal justice efforts seeking effective community-based alternatives for reducing drug use among offenders (Belenko, 2002). Following the implementation of prison-based therapeutic communities (TC’s, which soared in the 1960s and 1970s but later dissipated due to prison overcrowding and cut budgets) came the drug court movement. While drug courts continue to rapidly expand, the need to decrease costs associated with treatment further led to the development of other alternatives.

The table below outlines the effectiveness of different programs for the substance abusing population (based on national analysis of programs). Therapeutic communities

(residential treatment) outside the jail are the most effective option in reducing

recidivism, followed by Therapeutic Communities in the jail as long as there is follow-up care in the community. Without the follow-up care, these programs have little impact on recidivism.

Program Reduction in Recidivism

for Participants10

Total Cost Savings per Individual11 Non-jail therapeutic community 32% $16,968 Adult Incarcerated Therapeutic Community with Community Aftercare (CATS) Without Community Aftercare 23% 4% $10, 585 $ 88

Adult Drug Courts 19% $8,006

Adult In-prison community based treatment (DOGS)

12% $5,880

Adult community-based outpatient SA treatment

15% $7, 362

10 The percentage of reduction in recidivism is based on those who would have returned

to jail. For instance, the one year recidivism rate for the overall jail population is 25%. The percentages in the table are a reduction based on the 25% who would have returned.

11 Data from “The Cost of Crime. A Cost/Benefit Tool for Analyzing Utah Criminal Justice

(14)

14

The following sections outline the effectiveness of Utah’s programs. Drug Courts

Average Percent Reduction in Recidivism: 18% Average Cost Savings per Individual Treated: $8,005

Drug courts have been shown both to reduce recidivism and result in a cost savings to the community and criminal justice system (Byrnes, Fowles, & Hickert, 2006). Researchers think that this program is effective because it can administer rewards and sanctions in a more immediate and certain manner than traditional courts, while increasing the

likelihood of maintaining pro-social bonds to society (Marlowe, 2002). Specifically, the drug court in Salt Lake County has shown drastic reductions in recidivism (Salt Lake County Drug Court outcome evaluation, 2001). In addition to reducing recidivism, drug courts have also been shown to result in increased participant employment (Peters & Murrin, 2000).

Substance Abuse Residential Treatment and CATS

Average Percent Reduction in Recidivism: 22.8% (assuming community aftercare) Average Cost Savings per Individual Treated: $10,585

Residential treatment and therapeutic communities have been shown to be, on average, programs that significantly reduce recidivism. (Byrnes, Fowles, & Hickert, 2006) (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006). In-jail treatment has been shown to be more effective when paired with community aftercare (Byrnes, Fowles, & Hickert, 2006). Substance abuse residential treatment is one of the best validated, effective treatments for criminal offenders (Hollin & Palmer, 2006).

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs (DUI)

SLCo Jail Inmates incarcerated with a DUI as their Most Severe Crime: 5.7% 12 Month Recidivism for All Booked DUI Offenders: 11%

12 Month Recidivism for All Committed DUI Offenders: 10%

Recent research has shown positive effects of short jail stays with a treatment component in reducing recidivism for DUI offenders (Kunitz, Woodall, Zhao, Wheeler, Lillis, & Rogers, 2002).

Drug Offender Reform Act (DORA) and County Offender Reform Act (CORA) Utah has not yet evaluated DORA or CORA. However, there is much to learn from Proposition 200, a law in Arizona that mandated diversion, and emphasized treatment for single conviction drug offenders. It requires treatment and or counseling with the threat of sanctions for non-compliance. For a first conviction, incarceration in forbidden, for a second offense, prison is not an option, but for later crimes both are possible sentences. Proposition 200 has several similarities to DORA and CORA in that its emphasis is on identifying, assessing, and diverting nonviolent offenders to drug treatment. Preliminary data from the first year of operation is promising. Specifically, out of 932 probationers

(15)

15

treated in 15 counties, 61.1% successfully completed the treatment program they were diverted to (one county had a successful completion rate of 92.9%). This is a positive number of completers considering the rigor of the program. In regard to substance abuse measures, data from one year following treatment initiation indicated that 76.3% of urinalyses (UAs) were negative (UA’s were taken as a condition of probation). This suggests that the majority of offenders diverted to treatment were drug free for a substantial period of drug treatment.

Preliminary cost effectiveness data has also been assessed for the 551 offenders diverted from prison in the first year of Proposition 200. When accounting for projected costs associated with prison terms ($5,053,014), probation ($306,399) and Proposition 200 expenditures ($2,183,553), it was estimated that Proposition 200 provided a fiscal year savings of approximately $2,563,062. While all data from these Proposition 200 studies are preliminary, it does suggest that substance abusing offenders can be diverted, treated and rehabilitated outside of prison or jail at lower costs (Arizona Supreme Court, 1999). Receiving Centers

There is relatively little research on the concept of receiving centers in the criminal justice system, but the studies that have been done suggest that these centers act as an efficient means for delivering services to substance abusers and mentally ill offenders. A pilot receiving center for criminal offenders in Orange County, Florida was designed to aid in the diversion of offenders requiring mental health services and substance abuse treatment. The program was designed to hold offenders for 24 hours, but found that this goal was often difficult and only met the 24 hour mark 47% of the time. Additionally, the program had trouble limiting their population to diverted offenders. The report concluded that the program could function to effectively divert mentally ill offenders if 1) longer term community beds were made available for the participants at discharge and 2) they could limit their participants to those who would otherwise end up in the jail

population (Martin, Myers, Nelson, Philips, & Smith, 2003).

A receiving center in Maryland for mentally ill offenders that received its population post-booking, reported that this new system reduced “system cycling” for these

individuals and reduced the use of traditional criminal justice resources (Conly, 1999). The evaluation was not quantitative, but it concluded that the center provided an efficient means for directing services for individual who are better served in treatment than in the traditional criminal justice system.

Salt Lake County is currently operating a 5-bed Pilot Receiving Center. According to the Salt Lake City Police Department, 87% of its 1,130 admissions would have been booked into the jail without the Receiving Center option.

(16)

16

Offenders with mental illness represent 31% of the inmate population in Utah, which is six times greater than the rate of mental illness in the community. 7% of offenders have a debilitating mental illness. Nearly 90% of the offenders with mental illness also have a co-occurring substance abuse issue. Offenders with mental illness generally return to jail twice as quickly as the general offender population. Leaving this large group of inmates untreated represents a large cost based on this rapid time to return to Utah prisons and jails.

For the mentally ill, it is important to focus on the type of program and how it is

implemented. Some jail diversion programs have had dramatic success, reporting up to 72% fewer days in jail for diverted offenders while others have little impact.(Hoff, Baranosky, Buchanan, Zonana, & Rosenheck, 1999).

Mental Health Court

The evaluation of the Salt Lake County Mental Health Court found very positive effects on increasing access to treatment and reducing recidivism in offenders with mental illness:

• Treatment access was significantly improved for Mental Health Court (MHC) participants compared to tradition court subjects

• MHC participants had drastic reductions in new change bookings (47% reduction from year prior to year after participation) (Van Vleet R. , Hickert, Becker, & Kunz, 2008).

Case Management for Mentally Ill

Several studies have found a significant reduction in recidivism through community case management approaches to treating mentally ill offenders (Ventura, Cassel, Jacoby, & Huang, 1998). Ventura et. al., found a 22% reduction in recidivism for offenders treatment with this approach.

Jail Diversion Outreach Team (JDOT)

Early statistics from the JDOT program tell the story of success. Clients, prior to participating in JDOT, had an average of 25 bookings per client and 813 days served in jail. Between September, 2007 and March 2008, there were a total of 3 bookings and a total of 48 days served in jail, none on new charges.

The Criminal Justice System as it Currently Exists in Salt Lake County

The current criminal justice system in Salt Lake County involves many partners,

processes, and programs to hold offenders accountable while providing skills and

treatment to allow them to be successful in the community while ensuring public safety.

(17)

17

The core purpose of the Criminal Justice Advisory Council is to act as a policy recommending body for Salt Lake County to guide decisions regarding the criminal justice system. CJAC utilizes data collection, research and dialogue among its strategic partners to inform and make recommendations to key policy-makers.

CJAC Partners

The Criminal Justice Advisory Council is comprised of the key decision-makers in Salt Lake County’s criminal and social justice system. It consists of the Salt Lake County Mayor, members of the County Council, the Sheriff, District Attorney, district and justice court judges, Salt Lake County’s Department of Human Services, and other vital County staff. CJAC also includes state legislators, representatives from municipal government, local prosecutors and law enforcement, and other key partners such as the Legal

Defenders Association.

CJAC’s strategic partners have unique roles and responsibilities in the criminal justice system. They come to the table with a focus and perspective that represents their office. For example; the Sheriff – as Salt Lake County’s top law enforcement official – has main responsibility to manage the jail and to patrol our streets to ensure public safety. The District Attorney has the responsibility to hold those who commit criminal acts

accountable for their behavior. The Department of Human Services seeks to give

individuals the skills to succeed in life. And so forth.

The strength of CJAC lies in bringing together the various parts of the criminal and social justice system, including elected officials and different branches of government, to

collaborate and coordinate in the development of a comprehensive and systemic strategy to address criminal behavior in Salt Lake County.

The coordination and collaboration among CJAC’s partners has improved significantly in the past couple years, but there continues to be room for improvement.

CJAC Responsibilities

The Criminal Justice Advisory Council’s purpose is to:

• Provide a mechanism for coordinating the functions of the various branches and levels of government concerned with criminal and social justice within Salt Lake County.

• Promote the coordination and communication of criminal and social justice agencies.

• Develop and promote broad philosophical agreement concerning the objectives of the criminal justice system.

• Coordinate countywide efforts to reduce crime and victimization.

• Identify and promote the implementation of specific policies and programs to reduce crime in Salt Lake County.

• Study, evaluate, and report on the status of crime in Salt Lake County and on the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and programs that are aimed toward the reduction of crime.

(18)

18

• Promote and enhance information-sharing and timely communication between criminal and social justice partners.

• Improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system

• Develop a comprehensive criminal and social justice plan.

Salt Lake County Criminal and Social Justice System

A Balanced Approach

The current criminal and social justice system provides services at three different levels: 1. Pre-Incarceration Intervention or Diversion

2. Alternatives to Incarceration 3. Incarceration

Pre-Incarceration Intervention/Diversion Services

Pre-Incarceration Intervention/Diversion services are programs in the criminal and social justice system that divert an individual into a community treatment program in lieu of being admitted into jail. This includes individuals booked and released into a service in the community and those that bypass the jail altogether (e.g., law enforcement taking a mentally ill individual to a hospital).

There are currently few services in Salt Lake County that directly divert people who commit crimes from the Adult Detention Center to services in the community. While there has been discussion and some planning to further develop processes, assessments, and resources to allow this to occur on a greater scale, there is still much to be done. The list below outlines what is currently available for adults who commit offenses and are assessed as appropriate for a direct path to services in the community:

CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Officers: Local law enforcement officers who are trained to identify and address mental health issues in the community often leading to a de-escalation of the incident, admission into a hospital, or a direct link to community-based mental health services (e.g., JDOT).12

Pre-trial Services: All persons who are taken to the jail are screened by Pre-trial Services to determine if they are eligible for release either to Pre-trial Services or on their own recognizance. If they are determined appropriate for Pre-trial Services, they receive a non-financial release from jail and supervision. Upon release from jail, staff members monitor defendants’ compliance with court-ordered conditions of release and court attendance. Staff also makes referrals to

12 It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Office is in the process of certifying all of their

corrections officers in CIT to assist in the management of mentally ill offenders in the jail. Current Mental Health Officers are already certified.

(19)

19

various educational and treatment agencies within Criminal Justice Services and the community.

Day Reporting Center (DRC): The Day Reporting Center is typically utilized as an Alternative to Incarceration for offenders who are court ordered to the DRC in lieu of being sentenced to jail (i.e., Alternative to Incarceration); however, the DRC also receives individuals released from the jail due to overcrowding (OCR). These individuals receive similar services as those in Pre-trial Services.

County Offender Reform Act (CORA): The CORA program is also primarily an Alternative to Incarceration at the time of sentencing; however, approximately one-quarter of those in substance abuse treatment through CORA were court-ordered by a judge or referred from Pre-trial Services.

Receiving Center Pilot: This pilot designates 5 beds at the Volunteers of America (VOA) detoxification center as the behavioral health “receiving” center. Persons who are identified by Salt Lake City Police for public intox, substance-influenced behavior, or co-occurring behavioral health disturbances are taken to the center in lieu of the jail when public safety concerns allow. The VOA provides a van to transport individuals to the center. Persons diverted are assessed for substance abuse disorders, mental health disorders, and co-occurring conditions. These individuals have access to appropriate community treatment upon request. Salt Lake City Police reported that 87% of the 1,130 admissions since the pilot began in February would have been booked into jail without the Receiving Center as an option.

Program Avg. Served Monthly

Pre-Trial Services 1,306

Day Reporting Center 225

CORA 86 new admissions

Receiving Center—Detoxification Clients 152

Community Alternatives to Incarceration

While there are currently few pathways to divert directly to community treatment in lieu of the jail, there are a number of programs that seek to reduce time spent in the jail at the time of sentencing. These alternatives to incarceration typically target non-violent

offenders for whom substance abuse and/or mental illness is identified as a primary factor in their criminal behavior, and offenders who do not present a significant risk to the community and would benefit through direct supervision and program referrals. These alternatives also provide a tool for judges to hold offenders accountable while sentencing them to a course of action that will reduce their likelihood of returning to jail.

A significant body of research, both nationally and locally, shows that community-based substance abuse and mental health treatment are very effective in providing skills

(20)

20

necessary to live successfully in the community thereby reducing the number/percent of persons who return to jail in the future.

The primary objectives of community alternative programs are to:

Connect the target population with community resources such as housing, substance abuse and/or mental health treatment, employment, and educational resources to promote success in the community.

Supervise and assist those released to the community to encourage participation in identified programs to reduce the likelihood of return to incarceration.

Reduce the crimes committed (in number and severity). The community-based programs include:

Probation: Probation is available through Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services for misdemeanor crimes. (The State’s Adult Probation and Parole provides supervision and services for felony crimes). Probation Services provides an opportunity for offenders to live in the community with appropriate

supervision. Offenders are required to check in on a regular basis and have access to drug and alcohol education, substance abuse treatment, mental health

treatment, and other services. Those sentenced to Probation also address the impact of their crime on the victim and community.

Day Reporting Center (DRC): Many of the individuals at the DRC are court ordered to the Day Reporting Center instead of being sentence to the jail.

Offenders are ordered to the DRC for up to 90 days with the possibility of one 30-day extension as recommended by the court. While at the DRC, the offenders are closely monitored through daily in-person reporting, and receive the following services: life skills classes, job skills counseling and job placement assistance. Each client has an Individualized Service Plan that identifies specific areas of need (e.g., substance abuse treatment) and directs the person to the programs and interventions based on this assessment.

County Offender Reform Act (CORA): The CORA program provides community-based substance abuse treatment for prisoners who can be safely released from the ADC and who are in need of substance abuse treatment services. An independent substance abuse assessor, located at the jail, assesses individuals to determine the level of treatment needed. Prisoners released through the CORA program have access to Residential, Intensive Outpatient, and

Outpatient services. Due to the severity of the treatment need and lack of appropriate housing, most offenders are placed in residential treatment.

Mental Health Services: Prisoners assessed with a severe mental illness can be connected to community-based treatment through either of two processes--the Mental Health Release program and the Valley Mental Health (VMH) Inreach Program. Through the Mental Health Release program, persons with severe mental illness who are determined eligible for release through the Pre-trial

(21)

21

screening process are released directly to Valley Mental Health for treatment services. The VMH Inreach program targets persons who are receiving services from Mental Health Management (MHM) while in the jail. MHM develops a discharge plan and works closely with VMH to release the prisoner to services in the community.

Jail Diversion Outreach Team (JDOT): This multidisciplinary team was established at VMH to provide in-home services to people who have multiple incarcerations and serious mental illness. MHM connects those appropriate for JDOT through their discharge planning process. The team provides intensive, community-based services to a minimum of 60 criminal-justice involved persons with mental illness. Services emphasize integrated mental health and substance abuse interventions.

Homeless Rental Assistance Program (HARP): The lack of affordable housing options in the County has slowed the process of moving inmates from the jail to community treatment resources. There is consensus – and research that shows – that stable housing plays an important role in the success of individuals released from jail into treatment programs. Salt Lake County Human Services and the Salt Lake County Housing Authority have collaborated to identify housing options for homeless clients with mental illness and those released from jail to substance abuse programs or other criminal justice programs. Those living in HARP-funded housing are required to have a case manager.

Drug Court: Drug Courts remove defendants from the traditional criminal justice system and place them into a court environment where the judge is actively involved in their progress toward recovery. Drug Court clients receive treatment and counseling, make regular appearances before the judge, and have frequent drug tests. Upon graduation of drug court, guilty pleas are withdrawn and criminal charges are dismissed. If clients are not compliant with the Drug Court program, they face graduated sanctions which can include time in jail.

Mental Health Court: Salt Lake County currently has a successful Mental Health Court for persons with serious mental illness (schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) who have committed misdemeanor and felony crimes. Participants are referred from the legal defenders, District Attorney, or Valley Mental Health. The Mental Health Court is a collaboration between criminal justice and mental health agencies in Salt Lake County. The goals of the Mental Health Court include expedited case processing, creating effective interactions between mental health and criminal justice systems, improving the mental health and well being of participants, protecting public safety, reducing clinical and legal recidivism, improving access to mental health resources, and improving the monitoring of mentally ill offenders. A guilty plea is entered and held in abeyance, or a person is required to participate in the Mental Health Court as a condition of their probation. Upon successful completion of the program, the case is dismissed or charges are reduced.

(22)

22

Domestic Violence Accountability Program: Domestic violence offenders are sentenced to the Probation unit at Criminal Justice Services. Programming includes risk assessments for all offenders, frequent contact with probation, employment assistance, and state-mandated domestic violence treatment.

Increasing supervision will increase victim safety and hold offers accountable to a higher level.

Electronic Monitoring: The Sheriff’s Office Alternative Incarcerations Unit operates an electronic monitoring program through the jail. The program capacity is currently 120 prisoners, with the ability to expand based on allocation of additional staff and resources. Jail inmates are identified for this program through a comprehensive risk assessment and assigned to a Sheriff’s Deputy case worker. They are then placed into one of four sub-programs:

o R.E.A.P. (Reintegration and Employment Assistance Program): Employability skills course targeting prisoners with a history of unemployment or

underemployment.

o S.P.L.D. (Sheriff’s Prisoner Labor Detail): Supervised prisoner work crews providing valuable labor services to the community, government agencies, and non-profit organizations.

o Full-time Employment: Prisoners with verified full-time employment are allowed to continue working under remote supervision by their case worker.

o Home Confinement: Prisoners are locked down in their residence due to inability to work or for intermediate program sanctions under remote supervision by their case worker.

Program Avg Served Per Month

County Offender Reform Act (CORA) 86 new admissions

Mental Health Treatment 715

Felony Drug Court 512

Misdemeanor Drug Court 106

Mental Health Court 100

HARP (apartment units) 80

Electronic Monitoring 120 (capacity/month)

Domestic Violence Accountability Program 185

Incarceration

The Adult Detention Center (ADC) incarcerates individuals while they wait disposition of their case or once they are sentenced. The ADC also serves as a gatekeeper to pre-incarceration diversion programs and alternatives to pre-incarceration. It is most often the first point of contact in the criminal justice system where a screen or assessment for substance abuse, mental illness, or public safety risk is completed -- particularly for first-time arrestees.

(23)

23

Individuals arrested in Salt Lake County are taken to the ADC where they go through the booking process. At the time of booking, inmates are screened for risk (e.g., criminal history, nature of current charge), substance use, and mental illness. Based on the screening results and jail bed capacity, persons are admitted into the jail, released to Pre-trial Services, released on their own recognizance through Pre-Pre-trial Services, or are released as a result of overcrowding (i.e., OCR).

The table below shows the number of bookings, screenings, and overcrowding releases during 2008:

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug

Bookings 2,833 2,789 3,003 2,867 2,936 3,142 3,059 3,238 Pretrial Screenings 2,339 2,296 2,461 2,298 2,306 3,276 3,291 OCR (# charges) 1,564 1,679 1,886 1,534 1,893 2,158 2,231 2,252 OCR (# Individuals) 787 808

The ADC houses nearly 2,000 inmates daily. To date, in 2008, the average daily count at the ADC is 1,992 – up from 1,956 or 2% from the same time in 2007.

The number of Overcrowding Releases (OCRs) has significantly increased during 2008, from 1,564 charges in the month of January to 2,252 charges in August. In the past, Overcrowding Releases have typically been reported according to the number of charges; however, beginning in July and August of 2008 the Sheriff’s Office has also begun to report the number of individuals released due to overcrowding; 787 in July and 808 in August. It is important to note that individuals that fit the category of OCR are not eligible for release under Pre-trial Services.

In the past couple of years, there has been discussion over how many jail beds are needed to meet the needs of Salt Lake County. Appendix B outlines different methodologies and jail bed estimates.

Programs in the Adult Detention Center (ADC)

Inmates that are admitted into the jail go through an internal classification process which looks at areas such as criminal history, security concerns, and medical considerations to determine risk. Based on this assessment, prisoners are classified as maximum, medium, or minimum security.

Prisoners in minimum security at the ADC are eligible to participate in a number of different programs. (Prisoners in medium and maximum security do not participate in programming that assembles them in one location. There are a limited number of

(24)

24

is generally voluntary – prisoners complete a form requesting participation. A prisoner can participate if they have a need for the program, sufficient time on their sentence to complete the program, pass the necessary security clearances, and the program is not filled.

The primary objective of jail programs is to provide education, vocational training, life skills and treatment services to prepare prisoners to be successful in the community. The core programs and services in the jail include:

• Educational Opportunities: Include high school diploma courses, GED (offered by Granite School District), English as a Second Language, and Citizenship courses.

Life Skills: A structured 5-week Life Skills program that includes Pathways to Change, REAP, Money Management, Parenting, Personal Health, and a

Resources Seminar. Approximately 20 prisoners can participate during each session.

Mental Health Services:

o Mental Health Assessment: Those screened for mental illness at the time of booking receive a complete mental health assessment by Mental Health Management (MHM), the jail’s mental health services contractor, within an hour of entering the jail. MHM screens nearly 1,000 people each month. Approximately 80 inmates per month are determined to have a severe mental illness. Approximately one-quarter are released to Valley Mental Health to receive services, while the remainder stay in jail due to the severity of their charges – some are released through the OCR process.

o Mental Health Management: Provides assessments, medication

prescriptions, and treatment services to persons who have been identified with mental illness while in jail. MHM services include discharge planning for persons with serious mental illness. The discharge plan outlines

services that will be delivered in the community upon release from jail. This plan is negotiated with Valley Mental Health, Salt Lake County’s mental health service provider.

o NAMI Bridges: Utah’s Chapter of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) has identified peer mentors, persons who are themselves recovering from mental illness, to provide “Bridges” training to inmates who are seriously mentally ill. These peer mentors enter the jail to develop relationships with mentally ill offenders, to provide the Bridges mental health training curriculum, and to serve as mentors towards successful recovery from mental illness.

Substance Abuse Services:

o The Correctional Addiction Treatment Systems (CATS): an in-house substance abuse program run by Valley Mental Health. In general, those

(25)

25

who participate in CATS are court-ordered to treatment in the jail. The remainder of CATS participants request treatment and enter into the program if beds are available and if they have sufficient time on their sentence to complete the program. A substance abuse assessment is conducted after the individual begins CATS.

o Drug Offender Group Services (DOGS): an in-house substance abuse program provided by Valley Mental Health at the ADC. DOGS is an “out-patient” treatment model (compared to CATS which is a residential model).

o Prime for Life (PFL): a manualized, 16 hour class taught by certified PFL

instructors that has been adopted by the State of Utah as its DUI

educational curriculum. PFL is a psycho-educational curriculum designed to improve readiness for change and provide basic education about

substance abuse. It can also be used as a pre-treatment group. Vocational Training

o JIVE (Jail Industries, Vocations, and Employment): Inmates have work opportunities in the community while housed at the ADC. The inmates are paid for their work and have the opportunity to use existing skills, learn new skills, and have employment upon release. This program will continue to grow quickly as the Jail has received its JIVE Bus, which is expected to double the numbers in this program. It is important to note that the money inmates receive from this program goes to pay for their incarceration, victim funds, restitution, fines, and savings for the prisoner upon release.

o Horticulture (Master Gardener): Inmates learn about horticulture and grow produce that is sold at the local farmer’s market. Revenues generated from this program are used to expand this program and other inmate

services and programs. The Horticulture program will continue to grow with the building of the Jail’s Greenhouse in November, 2008.

The jail also offers a wide variety of “at will” programs for inmates. Examples include religious programs, Health Department prevention activities, and yoga.

Program Avg. Served per Month

Life Skills Programming 17

Mental Health Management 2,920

NAMI Bridges 95

CATS 64 males, 32 females

Prime for Life 50

JIVE 26

Master Gardener 18

(26)

26

Assisting inmates assimilate back into the community is critical to reducing the risk of re-offense and return to jail. To address a gap in services, Human Services and the Sheriff’s Office received funding in 2008 to implement a re-entry program. The program includes two components--Re-Entry Planners and a Case Clearer.

The objectives for this program include:

Developing a re-entry plan with inmates prior to release into the community. Connecting persons released from the jail to community services identified in their re-entry plan.

Supervising and assisting these individuals to encourage follow-through with programs and services identified as a part of their plan.

Partnering with judges and the LDA to develop a supervision continuum to support continued services in the community for offenders.

Work with courts in multiple jurisdictions to clear outstanding warrants so that upon release prisoners are not immediately re-arrested and booked on an old charge.

Re-entry planning begins with an assessment process. Inmates at the ADC meet with a re-entry planner to create an individualized re-entry plan that includes needed skills and treatment programs based on assessments conducted while incarcerated. The re-entry plan also incorporates establishing community connections upon release.

Re-Entry Specialists carry a maximum of 60 inmate caseload each and work closely with the inmates to develop the plan, advocate for the individual, track progress, and connect inmates to services in the community upon discharge.

The case clearer works with the legal system to clear outstanding warrants so that those released from the ADC do not immediately return based on these outstanding warrants without first having the opportunity to succeed in the community.

Those participating in the Re-entry program have access to many of the services

discussed in the Pre-Incarceration Intervention and Alternatives to Incarceration sections above, including:

Day Reporting Center

Substance abuse treatment—including residential, intensive outpatient, and outpatient placement based on need.

Mental health treatment through Valley Mental Health.

Housing through the Homeless Rental Assistance Program (HARP) Employment assistance through the DRC and HARP

There are many stakeholders that stand-out as critical in implementing this “balanced approach” to criminal and social justice in Salt Lake County. These include local law enforcement officers, substance abuse and mental health treatment providers, correctional

(27)

27

officers at the jail, criminal justice services, to name a few . What is less apparent, sometimes, is the importance of those that play a central function in determining the path of an individual through the criminal and social justice system. Will this person be sentenced to jail? Will he/she be invited to participate in the Drug Court? Will he/she be sentenced to treatment in the community? These stakeholders share a great deal of responsibility in maintaining a balanced approach to how Salt Lake County addresses criminal behavior. They also play a critical role in enhancing the efficiency of the criminal justice system, which allows for more effective use of limited resources. These stakeholders include:

District Attorney’s Office13

The District Attorney’s Office is a key player in the overall criminal justice system. Their primary goals are to:

• Hold offenders accountable through a process that is fair and timely.

• Ensure safer communities by working to reduce crime and citizen’s fear of crime.

• Promoting effective coordination in the criminal justice system.

The District Attorney’s Office is the primary prosecutor for felony prosecution in Salt Lake County. Cases are referred to the DA’s office from the local law enforcement. When there is sufficient evidence, the DA files the case with the Court. The office continues to participate in the case, coordinating with the other partners in the criminal justice system (e.g., court, jail, probation, community treatment program) until a disposition has been determined.

The District Attorney’s office has implemented a number of processes to increase the efficiency of their office. These include:

• Allowing criminal charging documents “Informations” to be filed upon a statement rather than being sworn in front of the judge. That has saved officers the time and expense to go to court on every case and swear to the documents

• Using a computer system, PIMS to allow officers to screen cases electronically rather than driving to the D.A.’s office or using a paper screening packet carried to the office (This is being implemented in stages and is not yet complete)

• New procedures to report the results and reasons for screening decisions back to officers. This continues to be a work in progress.

13 It is important to note that while this section highlights the District Attorney’s Office,

prosecutors at the municipal level play a similarly central role on misdemeanor level offenses.

(28)

28

• Partnering with State agencies to develop a process for electronic search warrants that will allow officers quicker access to prosecutors and judges in obtaining warrants. The system also cures the need for the court to retain a copy of warrants signed but not yet filed.

• Implementing a more convenient and effective method for officers to access attorneys. These include: providing cell phones with email abilities to all attorneys; a single number with a menu the officers can call and access an

attorney during evening hours, weekends and holidays; and assigning a homicide and major call out list of attorneys to go to the scene of major crimes to assist law enforcement.

• Creating a special team dealing with domestic violence that includes seven

attorneys, one social worker and two investigators to work those cases. The result of this effort is a complete turn around of the dismissal of domestic violence cases.

• Creating a division of investigators to locate and serve subpoenas to witnesses to reduce the loss of cases due to witnesses not showing for court, and a process to deliver subpoenas to police officer witnesses by email.

Legal Defenders Association

Offenders who are indigent and cannot afford a defense attorney are appointed by the Court an attorney from the Legal Defenders Association (LDA). Generally, the LDA receives the client file in 2-3 days and meets with the offender in the jail within a week. The LDA assesses the clients for mental illness and substance abuse issues. Based on the results, the client is referred to the Social Work unit within the LDA’s office. The goal of this unit is to identify services to meet the needs of the offender and make

recommendations to the judge at the time of sentencing. This may include a

recommendation to release the offender through Adult Probation and Parole to access community services instead of sentencing them to the jail.

The LDA also works closely with the jail staff to provide oversight to those inmates who are on medications.

Courts

The District Court and Justice Courts throughout Salt Lake County are key partners in a balanced criminal and social justice system. Judges play a major role in determining the type and length of sentencing an individual offender receives, as well as determining the possibility of participating in community-based alternatives to the jail..

(29)

29

The Courts also play a much more active part as a provider of sorts through their problem-solving courts; such as the Drug Court, Mental Health Court, and Domestic Violence Court.

Effectiveness of Existing Services and Jail Bed Days

The existing continuum of services offered both in the jail and in the community have a significant impact on recidivism, which, in the end, helps reduce pressure on jail beds. While we would not state that the continuum reduces the need for jail beds, it does make more room for the higher-risk offenders who need to spend time in the jail.

Overall, the existing continuum of services saves approximately 20,133 jail bed days per year. This estimate is based on the following:

Average one year recidivism rate to the jail (25%)

The average recidivism reduction effect for each program offered (based on studies for the University of Utah Criminal Justice Center)

Estimated total number served in each program discussed above for 2008. The average length of stay for all misdemeanor commitments (47 days).

(The data for recidivism, effect-size, and length of stay were provided by the University of Utah Criminal Justice Center. The jail bed day savings model was developed by Salt Lake County Mayor’s Office)

An Example of the model: Drug Court. 1 year Jail Recidivism Rate Drug Court Reduction in Recidivism (effect size) # Served in 2008 # Served who would recidivate based on jail recid rate. Reduction in Recivism based on Effect Size

Avg LOS for Misdemeanant Total Jail Bed Days Saved 25% 19% 574 574*.25=144 144*.19=27 47 days 27*47 days=1,269

Calculating this number for each program in the continuum and adding the days, we arrive at the 19,146 bed days. At this level, the programs save 428 admits to the jail and approximately $2,237,575 in 2008. These savings accumulate each year—in the second year, the savings continue and a new cohort enters programming. The savings are then over $4 million in year two.

If we base the model on the estimated 3-year recidivism rate to the jail (41%), the number of jail bed days saved increases significantly to 33,916 jail bed days in 2008. At this level, the programs save 722 admits to the jail and $3.77 million annually for each year after that.

(30)

30

(The dollar figures are based on $75 per day in the jail and an estimated $1,700 per arrest incident for booking, local law enforcement and court time costs (Bexar County, Texas study, 2006).)

The Cost of Crime Report (UCCJJ and the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Consortium at the University of Utah, 2005) estimated the costs and benefits for each program type. As part of the report, they estimated the costs and savings to the tax payer and victim for each program type. The costs and savings are per each individual that participates in the program. Based on these calculations, the existing criminal and social justice continuum saves society $80,163,258.

In addition to financial return-on-investment, these programs change the outcome for people with substance abuse and mental disorders. These programs offer them a chance for treatment and recovery instead of homelessness and jail stays.

Areas Working Well in the Overall System

There are many things good about Salt Lake County’s criminal and social justice system. Evaluations of individual programs have found them to be effective tools for improving education levels and life skills, reducing substance abuse problems, reducing symptoms of mental illness, and reducing criminal behavior.

Independent evaluations have been completed for the following programs; Day Reporting Center, Mental Health Court, Drug Court, and HARP. Initial assessment of programming in the jail also shows promising results. While these early results show great potential, it is critical that on-going evaluation and assessment continue.

The success of many of these programs is also an indication of cooperation among stakeholders. The effectiveness of the Mental Health Court, for example, relies heavily on the collaborative effort and mutual commitment of the courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, service-providers, and community organizations.

Also, as outlined in the sections above, the criminal and social justice system reflects a broad array of options along the continuum of pre-incarceration intervention, alternatives to incarceration, and incarceration to deal with criminal behavior. Stakeholders are committed to working together to maintain and build off of these successes. They are committed to gathering data, improving assessments, using research and dialoguing to maximize the different options currently available and those that will be in the future (i.e., Receiving Center, Oxbow, etc.).

The early, and continual, success rests upon this on-going collaboration and coordination of the various partners in the criminal and social justice system. A partnership that transcends individual offices is critical to provide individuals that come into contact with the criminal justice system the greatest hope for success in the community, to ensure that

(31)

31

those that present a risk to the community’s safety are kept off the streets, and to make sure that individuals take full responsibility for the victimization or harm caused.

Areas for Improvement in the Current System

Salt Lake County is considered a model and leader in addressing criminal and social justice matters in many regards, both locally and nationally; however, there is still great need for improvement.

Assessment/Data Sharing

A number of screening and assessment opportunities and tools are currently used in the criminal justice process. Each are appropriate for the population they serve and each assist in decision making for a specific organization and service. A sample of the screenings and assessments currently conducted include:

o Pre-trial Screening: Occurs at the time of booking

o Medical Screening: at booking

o Mental Health Screen: at booking

o Classification/risk assessment: after booking to determine whether a prisoner should be housed in minimum, medium, or maximum security.

o Mental Health Assessment: conducted at booking or while in the jail if the screening indicates a need. Results determine treatment in the jail and appropriateness for treatment in the community.

o Substance Abuse Assessment: conducted in the jail to determine whether a prisoner is appropriate for release to community placement

o Education assessment: conducted by Granite Peaks in the jail for those who are interested in educational courses

o Substance abuse and Mental Health assessments: conducted by the Legal Defenders Association to determine need for treatment.

While one could argue that the quantity and quality of screening and assessment tools exist to meet the needs, there is general consensus that the inability to access the information in a common location leads to duplication in processes and an inability to make the best decisions possible for offenders because one entity rarely has the full picture of the individual.

Resources

There is a lack of resources to meet the needs of those coming through the criminal justice system. A quality system would include sufficient resources targeted at the most efficient and effective services to reduce or eliminate pressure on the busiest parts of the system while ensuring accountability, public safety, and success of individuals as they leave the system and re-enter the community. Some of the key pressure points at this time include insufficient:

References

Related documents

Several recent studies examine whether the choice between private and public school is influenced by the racial composition of the local population (see, for example, Conlon

As a people who represent the continuing struggle for American freedom, the case of the Black Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes demonstrates how hegemony introduced the

The Asian group had significantly more females, more contact lens wearers, lower pre- operative tear volume, less tear film sta- bility and greater pre-operative ocular sur-

Since we can assume variations in Li concentration are not occurring on a wavelength similar to the pixel size (14.6 nm), these must be measurement error. The regridded maps act

The minutes of each meeting shall be drafted by the Secretary and approved by the President within forty five days of the meeting and, in conformity with By-Law 6.1.1., notice of

The possible additional impact of these provisions on EU regulatory change, the continued realization of the EU precautionary principle and the attainment of high levels of

(If you don’t like the idea of soldering directly to the original Williams CPU board you can extend the wires and connect them to any other known-good source of power. Keep the