HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-01-2015 - 7a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 1, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
SUBJECT: Jail Alternatives Work Group Report
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Memorandum Regarding Organizational Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager,
Placement of Jail Alternative Programs 919-245-2308
PURPOSE: To receive a Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of Jail Alternative
Programs, which was developed to analyze and recommend an organizational structure for jail
alternative programs operated by Orange County.
BACKGROUND: The FY 2015-16 Budget authorizes the County to hire three (3) County staff
to administer jail alternative programs. The recommended budget contemplated that the jail
alternative positions would be part of the Sheriff's Office. However, that recommendation
received scrutiny during budget deliberations, and the Board of Orange County Commissioners
asked for further consultation with stakeholders prior to making a final determination on
organizational placement. The Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of Jail
Alternative Programs is the culmination of additional stakeholder outreach, consideration, and
research.
The Memorandum contains the following key findings:
• The Pretrial Services and Drug Court Programs are currently contracted out to two
different vendors.
• The Programs represent a significant investment by the County in alternatives to
incarceration and are viewed as important tools to help reduce population pressure in the
jail, failures to appear in court, and recidivism.
• Supporters of the current Pretrial Services model endorse the independence of the
program, adherence to best practices, efficiency, and long standing relationships with
treatment providers and program participants.
• Stakeholders generally agree, however, that the programs would benefit from
internalization. An internalized model could improve stability and a sense of
permanency, increase accountability by focusing on day to day service delivery, foster
greater collaboration with other County services like mental health and employment,
2
provide access to needed information technology resources, and improve the
functionality of office space.
• Stakeholders who have the responsibility of defending the accused generally oppose
organizationally aligning the Pretrial program with the Sheriff's Office. These
stakeholders note concerns about the perceived independence of the program and the
treatment of information by employees of the Sheriff's Office. These concerns may limit
referrals and participation in the program.
• Stakeholders expressed less concern about the organizational placement of the Drug
Court Program but recognize the need for collaboration.
• National standards and best practices for pretrial services do not preclude organizational
alignment with the Sheriff's Office, but they do stress the need for the Pretrial program to
be perceived as independent from the other actors in the criminal justice system. These
standards also note the importance of information technology in successful operations
and encourage oversight by an interdisciplinary advisory board.
• A comparative analysis of pretrial programs in North Carolina reveals that the most
common organizational structure is an internalized program reporting to the County
Manager. This model is more common among counties with a population of 100,000 or
more.
• Best practices for drug court emphasize a non-adversarial approach to providing the
service and close collaboration among the decision makers and advocates working in the
system.
Based on stakeholder input, consideration, and additional research, the Memorandum
recommends the following next steps:
• Internalize the Pretrial Services and Drug Court Programs under the direction of the
County Manager.
• Recruit and hire a Criminal Justice Resource Manager to lead the new division and hire
authorized staff.
• Begin procurement of appropriate information technology resources for case
management.
• Remodel County office space in the courthouse for staff offices and client services.
• Create an interdisciplinary advisory board to provide policy guidance, set priorities, and
establish performance goals.
• Develop performance measures to promote accountability and monitor performance.
• Plan space in the new jail facility to allow for risk assessment, screening, and intervention
planning.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementing the recommendations contained in the report will have a
limited financial impact. The staffing is authorized and budgeted in the FY 2015-16 Budget.
Funding for case management software and remodeling can be provided with existing budgeted
resources.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following two Orange County Social Justice Goals are
applicable to this agenda item:
3
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents
• Pretrial and Drug Court programming allows participants to maintain
employment and reduce recidivism. It also connects individuals who are not
currently employed to employment resources.
• GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
• Pretrial and Drug court services physically monitor offenders to promote public
safety, and they ensure compliance with recommended treatment to address
the underlying causes of criminal activity and prevent it from happening in the
future.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board accept the
recommendations contained in the Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of Jail
Alternative Programs and authorize staff to implement the recommendations.
4
^iiio oimiomiWUmouuWM��pVU�WNm�I'VIM�p�Nm�
CAUk! �umuiuw yioIm uuuuuuouomu �uuumm0101�I�IIII oMOi oi ��IIIIIIIII �(�� innmouom W �� miuiuiwuWUVII� �IIIII
. R]� . . C .,.
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
200 South Cameron Street Phone(919)245-2300
Post Office Box 8181 Fax(919)644-3004
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
August 21, 2015
TO: Board of Orange County Commissioners
Bonnie Hammersley
Orange County Manager
FROM: Travis Myren
Deputy County Manager
RE: Organizational Structure of Jail Alternative Programs
The FY 15-16 Budget authorizes the County to hire three (3) County staff to administer jail alternative
programs. The positions include a Jail Alternatives Manager, a Pretrial Services Coordinator, and a Drug
Treatment Coordinator.
The recommended budget contemplated that the jail alternative positions would be part of the Sheriff's
Office. However, that recommendation received scrutiny during budget deliberations, and the Board of
Orange County Commissioners asked for further consultation with stakeholders prior to making a final
determination on organizational placement.
This memorandum is the culmination of additional stakeholder outreach, consideration, and research. It
reviews the current service delivery models, summarizes the perspectives of stakeholders with respect
to organizational placement, reviews best practice research and structures used by other County
governments, and provides recommendations on next steps.
Pretrial Services Program
The Pretrial Services program has operated as a non-profit organization under a contract with the
County since 1995. The contract had been administered by the Department of Social Services until the
beginning of the fiscal year when budget authority was moved to the County Manager's Office pending
the results of this analysis.
Pretrial Services offers supervision and supportive services to offenders who have pending charges.
These individuals have typically been held in secure custody until a first appearance when a judge has
determined they can be released into the community under certain conditions. Pretrial staff assist in
this decision making process by screening offenders with certain charges and providing that information
to the judiciary.
Page 1 1
5
One of the conditions a judge may impose is participation in the Pretrial Services program. Pretrial
services staff monitor participants on a weekly basis through telephone or personal contact to maintain
a connection to the court process and improve the likelihood the participant will attend future court
dates. The staff also actively seek and refer participants to treatment if it is indicated as an additional
condition of release. Once appropriate treatment is identified, the staff verify compliance with the
treatment plan and report violations to the court. A violation may result in revocation of the pretrial
release order and a warrant for the individual's arrest.
The services provided by the pretrial program are intended to begin addressing the underlying causes of
criminal behavior, increase the probability that an individual will appear at future court dates, and
decrease the probability of reoffending. If these outcomes are achieved, the program benefits the
individual, improves the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and reduces pressure on the jail
population.
Pretrial Services operates on an annual budget of approximately$140,000. This budget supports 1.8 full
time equivalent (FTE) employees as well as minor operating expenses. The program receives a majority
of its operating revenue from Orange County. Pretrial staff also generate a modest amount of revenue
by creating sentencing plans. These plans serve as expert witness testimony to a court official making a
sentencing decision. Sentencing plans are currently outside of the scope of services prescribed by the
contract with Orange County but represent an additional service to the judiciary. The program is
currently housed in leased space near the Courthouse.
Drug Court Program
Drug Court also operates as an independent contractor. Like Pretrial Services,the Drug Court contract
had been administered by the Department of Social Services until being moved to the County Manager's
Office pending the results of this analysis. One of the contractual differences, however, is that
administrative oversight is shared between the Chief District Court Judge and the County Manager due
to the significant role the court plays in supervising the program.
The goal of Drug Court is to rehabilitate drug and alcohol offenders who have been sentenced for a
drug, alcohol, or related offense. In order to participate in the program, individuals must have a
chemical dependency and must be willing to enter treatment. Participants are placed on probation with
Drug Court services added as an additional responsibility during an individual's probation sentence.
The conditions of Drug Court are imposed for a minimum of 12 months. Participation typically requires
random drug testing, searches, curfews, and compliance with a recommended treatment plan.
Individuals must also comply with all other conditions of probation, including designated hours of
community service. Participants are also required to attend court two (2)times per month to review
compliance with the program. Violations of these conditions result in temporary jail stays, and multiple
violations may result in revocation of probation.
Drug Court was previously funded through a State grant. However, state funding was eliminated in
2011, and since that time, the County assumed responsibility for funding the program. In the previous
fiscal year, Drug Court received $65,000 in County funds. This revenue supports a 1.0 full time
equivalent Drug Court Coordinator position and minor operating expenses.The program also receives a
$25,000 grant from the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Commission to pay for drug testing, modest
incentives for participant compliance, and staff development training. Space for the program is
currently provided by the County on the ground level of the Courthouse.
Page 1 2
6
Perspectives of Partners in the Criminal Justice System
Stakeholder outreach represented an important part of the organizational placement analysis. This
section relies on information gathered from interviews with partners in the criminal justice system and
current program staff. Interview participants were generally asked about the strengths and weakness of
the current contracted model compared to an internalized model and the advantages and disadvantages
of placing an internalized program in the Sheriff's Office. A list of the individuals interviewed is attached
as Appendix A.
All of the individuals interviewed expressed support for the goals of the programs and a desire to make
positive change through continuous improvement. This dedication and support is critical to short term
change management and to long term program success and enhancement.
Contracted Service Delivery Model—Pretrial Services
Proponents of the contracted model for pretrial services suggest that it operates well as an independent
agency and is trusted by many of the judges. Given its structure as a nonprofit, proponents believe it
avoids any perceived conflict of interest that may exist if the program were organizationally aligned with
one of the parties involved in the bond review process. Supporters also argue that the current model is
well balanced since the Board of Directors is comprised of representatives from all of the agencies
involved in the pretrial process. Some members of the Board of Directors also note that the program
complies with national best practices.
The Program Director and others indicate that the program is operated efficiently and saves money in
the long term compared to the costs associated with an internalized County function.
Supporters of the contracted model also cite history. Those in support of the contracted model believe
the Pretrial Services staff have developed long standing relationships with treatment providers, and
these relationships have improved efficiency and outcomes for participants. Supporters also argue that
the staff have developed an institutional knowledge of many of the program participants which allows
them to quickly tailor a monitoring and treatment solution which keeps nonviolent offenders out of the
jail.
Internalized Model
Internalization is generally viewed by stakeholders as providing permanency and stability to the
programs.The internalized model would not rely so significantly on the annual budget and contract
renewal process. Supporters of the internalized model suggest that accountability and oversight would
also be improved. As a contracted agency, program oversight has been less rigorous and focused
primarily on outcomes rather than day to day service delivery. Supporters of an internalized model also
believe collaboration with other County agencies would be improved, allowing for greater efficiency and
more ready access to services like mental health treatment and employment.
Nearly all of the stakeholders interviewed agreed that internalized programs would benefit from gaining
access to County infrastructure and resources. Neither program, for example, has a fully functioning and
supported case management system. The Pretrial program uses a spreadsheet to track clients while
Drug Court relies on a State system that is plagued by performance and reliability problems. Improving
information technology resources through the County could improve client tracking and would allow the
programs to track performance metrics more efficiently.
Stakeholders also recognize that internalizing the functions could improve the physical environment and
functionality of office space. Drug Court,for example, currently conducts drug screening in public
restrooms. County facilities could be reallocated to include a space for specimen collection. The Pretrial
program is currently renting space outside of the Courthouse. Proponents of an internalized model
Page 1 3
7
argue that the program would be more effective if staff were relocated to the Courthouse and
authorized to have appropriate access.
Program Oversight
Stakeholders were also asked whether oversight by the Sheriff's Office would impair the effectiveness of
the programs. Stakeholders universally recognize that the Sheriff is a collaborative partner who is
interested in improving outcomes for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. However,
stakeholders who have primary responsibility of defending the accused assert that oversight by the
Sheriff's Office represents an inherent conflict regardless of the individual holding the Office of Sheriff.
Those opposed to Sheriff's Office oversight note concerns over the independence of the Pretrial
program and the treatment of information shared with Pretrial staff. They suggest that Pretrial operates
best when it is independent from agencies involved in the arrest, detention, defense, and prosecution
functions. This ensures that the information provided to Judges is unbiased. Those opposed to Sheriff's
Office oversight also reported concerns about how information gained during Pretrial interviews may be
used by staff assigned to the Sheriff's Office. Potential participants may be less likely to share
information that could further incriminate them, and defense attorneys may limit referrals to the
program if their client is speaking to someone aligned with law enforcement.
Stakeholders were less concerned about the organizational placement of Drug Court. They recognize
that the program requires collaboration, and as long as that feature is maintained, organizational
placement is secondary.
National Standards and Best Practices—Pretrial Services
The National Association of Pretrial Services Association has published a set of standards for pretrial
service programs. These standards recognize that pretrial service agencies operate under a variety of
organizational structures. However, they emphasize that, regardless of organizational placement, the
program should function and be viewed by stakeholders as an independent entity charged with
providing information to the court and monitoring and supervising defendants. To facilitate this
independence, the standards recommend that the leadership and staff of the pretrial agency should be
allowed substantial independence to function as a neutral component of the criminal justice system.
The standards also address the treatment of information gathered by pretrial staff. They suggest that
information about individual defendants should be treated as confidential. Except for limited purposes,
this information should not be used by law enforcement or the prosecution to establish guilt in a current
or substantially related case.
Finally, the standards advocate for pretrial service agencies to be equipped with appropriate
information technology resources to perform their core functions. These resources should allow the
agency to manage and track financial performance as well as catalogue information about newly
arrested defendants,the results of risk assessments, recommendations made to the court on conditions
of release, and participant compliance with the program.
In addition to reviewing documented best practice research, an interview was conducted with Timothy
J. Murray of the Pretrial Justice Institute on the question of organizational structure. Mr. Murray argues
that the effectiveness of a pretrial program is not necessarily influenced by organizational placement.
Like the documented best practice research, he recommends that the pretrial agency be recognized as
largely independent from the other agencies involved in the process. Mr. Murray also emphasizes the
importance of an inclusive governance structure. He strongly urges the County to establish a
governance model that is representative of all of the actors in the criminal justice system and operates
with transparency and accountability.
Page 14
8
Comparative Analysis
A comparative analysis of pretrial service programs was conducted relying on survey information from
twenty-six(26) programs contained in a report titled, Compendium of Community Corrections Programs
in North Carolina for Fiscal Year 2009110. This survey data was supplemented with population
information and information from staff from other counties where the survey information was either
unclear or incomplete.A table containing detailed survey data is included as Appendix B to this report.
The data reveals that the most common organizational structure is an internalized program reporting to
the County Manager's Office.
• 70%of the twenty-six counties have an internalized pretrial service
• 20% use a nonprofit agency to provide pretrial services
• 10% use a regional service provider(Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments)
If the scope of the analysis is focused on the eighteen counties that use an internalized model, the data
shows that most of the internalized programs are organized as a department or division reporting to the
County Manager.
• 55%of the eighteen internalized programs are organized as departments or divisions reporting
to the County Manager's Office
• 40%of the eighteen internalized programs report to the Sheriff's Office
• 5% (one program) reports to the Courts
If the comparative analysis is confined to counties with populations over 100,000, the total number of
counties represented in the survey drops to fourteen, and the proportion of programs reporting to the
County Manager increases.
• 65%of counties with a population of over 100,000 have an internalized program
• Of the larger counties that employ an internalized model, 77% report to the County Manager,
10% report to the Sheriff, and 10% report to the Courts
National Standards and Best Practices—Drug Court
The documented best practice research for Drug Court programs also recognizes that the nature,
structure, and jurisdiction of Drug Courts vary widely across jurisdictions. The US Department of Justice
and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals indicate that the most successful programs
have common themes. Successful programs employ a non-adversarial, coordinated approach among
decision makers and advocates in the system including the judge, prosecution, defense, and treatment
providers. Successful programs also create partnerships with public agencies and community based
organizations to generate local support and enhance effectiveness.
The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts has also published a best practice document for
Drug Treatment Courts. This document encourages strong judicial leadership, a court team committed
to participant recovery, and shared decision making using an active local oversight committee.
Page 1 5
9
Recommendations and Next Steps
1. Internalize the Pretrial and Drug Court Programs under the direction of the County Manager
The data as well as perspectives from stakeholders support internalizing both of the existing jail
alternative programs under the direction of the County Manager. Internalization provides long term
stability and demonstrates the County's sustained commitment to jail alternative programming. The
programs would also benefit from gaining access to the County's infrastructure and depth of
resources in the form of oversight, information technology, and physical plant. The Adopted Budget
has already authorized the creation of three positions to support jail alternative programming, so no
additional position authority needs to be approved.
The data and perspectives of stakeholders also support the creation of a separate division or
department reporting to the County Manager. While the Sheriff's Office has been open to
supervising the program, concerns raised primarily by the defense bar may impair the perceived
independence of the program and impact participation. As required by the FY 15-16 Budget
Ordinance, the question of organizational structure should be revisited over time as the program
matures and programming evolves.
2. Recruit and Hire a Criminal Justice Resource Manager
A recruitment has been initiated by the County Manager's Office for the Criminal Justice Resource
Manager. Given the collaboration and shared trust that is required for a successful program,the
users of the services should take an active role in the recruitment process. An interdisciplinary team
should be assembled to oversee the recruitment and to make a hiring recommendation to the
County Manager.
Once the Criminal Justice Resource Manager is selected, that person will be charged with
coordinating an open, competitive recruitment for the Pretrial Services Coordinator and the Drug
Court Coordinator consistent with County hiring practices. Individuals currently under contract to
provide these services are eligible to apply for any of the positions.
3. Begin Procuring Appropriate Information Technology Resources
As a County department,the staff will have access to the County's enterprise financial and payroll
systems for financial management. The County should also begin the process of identifying business
processes and data needs to procure case management software.
4. Remodel Offices to Create Appropriate Office Space
The County will need to provide appropriate office space and employee access for program staff.
Space is available on the lower level of the Courthouse that is capable of housing all three staff and
features a private restroom that could be used for specimen collection. The County should proceed
with remodeling the area to provide appropriate office space to house staff and serve clients.
5. Create an Advisory Board
Consistent with the best practice research, the County should also create an interdisciplinary
advisory board to provide guidance on policies, help set priorities, and establish performance goals.
The Advisory Board should include all of the partners in the criminal justice system.
Page 1 6
10
6. Develop Performance Measures
The Advisory Board should identify critical program goals and outcomes. These goals and outcomes
should be operationalized into qualitative and quantitative measures that can be used to indicate
program performance.
7. Plan Space in the New Jail Facility to Allow for Screening and Intervention Planning
Space should be made available in the new jail facility to allow staff to conduct risk assessments and
screen individuals for program participation. The new jail may also offer opportunities for additional
partnerships, enhanced interaction, and additional programming.
Page 1 7
11
APPENDIX A
Jail Alternatives Work Group Report
Interview Participants
Charles Blackwood, Orange County Sheriff
Chris Blue, Chapel Hill Police Chief
James "Jay' Bryan III, District Court Judge
Joseph M. Buckner, Chief District Court Judge
Nancy Coston, Orange County Social Services Director
Mani L. Dexter, Orange County Assistant Public Defender
George P. Doyle, Defense Attorney
Sharron Hinton, Orange County Community Resources Manager
Russell J. Hollers III, Defense Attorney
Courtney Kennedy, Orange County Drug Court
Joyce Kuhn, Orange County Pretrial Services
Claire Miller, Orange County Social Services Board Chair
Kim Moretz, Buncombe County Pretrial Services Supervisor
Timothy J. Murray, Pretrial Justice Institute
Gudrun Parmer, Durham County Criminal Justice Resource Center Director
Beverly Scarlett, District Court Judge
James E. Williams Jr., Orange County Public Defender
James Woodall Jr., Orange County District Attorney
Page 8
12
APPENDIX B
PRE-TRIAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
County Population Program Program Recommend Electronic Drug/Alcohol Referrals Supervision
Responsibility Capacity Bail/Plea Monitoring Screening
Alexander County 37,198 County Manager 20 X X X X X
Brunswick County 107,431 Sheriff 140 X X X
Buncombe County 238,318 County Manager 200 X X X X
Caldwell County 83,029 Sheriff 32 X X
Catawba County 154,358 Non-profit Unlimited X X X X
Chatham County 68,698 County Manager 20 X X X
Columbus County 58,098 Sheriff 40 X
Cumberland County 319,431 County Manager 85 X X X X X
Davie County 41,240 Northwest 26
Piedmont Council
of Governments
Durham County 267,587 County Manager 120 X X X X
Ed ecombe County 56,552 Sheriff 120 X X X X
Gaston County 206,086 Non-profit 375 X X X X
Greene County 21,362 Sheriff 15 X
Guilford County 488,406 Courts Unlimited X X X
Mecklenburg 919,628 County Manager 3000 X X
County
Montgomery County 27,798 County Manager 30 X X
Moore County 88,247 Sheriff 20 X X X
New Hanover 202,667 County Manager 300 X X X X
County
Randolph County 141,752 County Manager 50 X X X
Robeson County 134,168 Non-profit 200 X X
Rowan County 138,428 County Manager 265
Stanly County 60,585 Sheriff Unknown X X X X X
Surry County 73,673 Northwest 40 X X
Piedmont Council
of Governments
Wake County 900,933 Non-profit 1000 X X X X
Yadkin County 38,406 Northwest 20 X X X X
Piedmont Council
of Governments