Group Meeting

National Institute of Corrections’ Jail and Justice System Assessment

for the Richmond CityCriminal Justice System

July 1, 2010

Consultants: Jim Robertson & Michael R. Jones

Appendix #5

July 1 Group Meeting Agenda1:00 pm Welcome and Opening Remarks Woody

1:15 pm Review Agenda RobertsonPurpose and nature of NIC’s TA Jackson/EvilleSchedule 2nd site visit Robertson

1:30 pm Findings & Recommendations Robertson/Jones

2:15 pm Break

2:30 pm Findings & Recommendations (cont) Robertson/Jones

3:30 pm Discussion and Next Steps Robertson/Jones

3:55 pm Closing Remarks Woody

Appendix #5

Expectations1. To identify national research and data relevant to urban populations on

programming for probation and better service delivery

2. To identify ways to better communicate and share resources and client/offender data between key stakeholders in the CJS

3. To provide unbiased insights on what we can do better

4. To identify what we can do to integrate services, be less redundant, and tap into community resources

5. To identify ways to further develop the Division of Justice Services Adult Services

6. To develop methods and identify means to fully fund and implement the alternative to incarceration plans identified in the CCJB Biennial Plan

Appendix #5

Expectations

7. To see the results of the data analysis

8. To hear about different bail and pretrial practices

9. To identify ways to motivate staff to do more evidence based practices

10. To learn what resources are available?

11. To gain insights on new jail construction

12. To discuss who should manage inmate services such as work release –should it be the Sheriff or the Courts etc?

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations

1. Good Foundation2. System Planning and Coordination3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:1. Good Foundation

Findings• Have worked well together; use good relationships to get things done• Produced beginnings of a solution• Recognize cannot build oneself out of the problem• Have identified and set aside resources – Is it the right amount? • Willing to try to help people avoid or leave a life of crime Recommendations• Still a lot to do• Must do important steps• Need to reconcile necessary remaining work to do with imposed time

constraints

Appendix #5

Facility Development Process OverviewAppendix #5

Facility Development Process: Phases

1. Project Recognition2. Needs Assessment3. Program Development4. Project Definition and Implementation

Plan5. Design6. Bidding7. Construction8. Occupancy9. Post Occupancy

Nine Phases… In Four Groups

Three “Go/No Go” Decision Points

Eight Tracks Spanning Multiple Phases:• Non-facility Alternatives•Transition•Site• Capital & Operational Costs• Project Delivery Method• Outcomes• Professional Services Acquisition• Building Support for the Project

Appendix #5

Project Costs and Owner Influence

Planning

2%

Design

6-8%

Construction

65%

Other Costs

23%

Occupancy

2%

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:2. System Planning and Coordination

Findings• CCJB has good membership and enthusiasm (#1)• Have quality staffing support - CJ Planner (#2)• Done a lot of good work (biennial plan)• Limited data to drive decision-making• Connection to City Admin/Council is uncertain • Members’ roles are unclear Recommendations• Adhere to a collaborative, cyclical, data/research-guided policy planning process (#3)• Maintain a focus on policy - “What should we do and why?”

Appendix #5

Types/Levels of Planning

Policy Planning Establishes purposes

What should we do and why?

Program Planning Selects courses of action

What can we do and how?

Operational Planning Allocates resources What will we do and when?

Reactive Decision-Making Putting out fires #$&#@!

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:2. System Planning and Coordination

Findings• CCJB has good membership and enthusiasm (#1)• Have quality staffing support - CJ Planner (#2)• Done a lot of good work (biennial plan)• Limited data to drive decision-making• Connection to City Admin/Council is uncertain • Members’ roles are unclear Recommendations• Adhere to a collaborative, cyclical, data/research-guided policy planning process (#3)• Maintain a focus on policy - “What should we do and why?”• Keep members invested (3 Cs) • Need more analytic capacity to convert data into information• Define staff role (report to vs work for) • Better partner with County Admin• Agree on members’ roles • Demonstrate positive outcomes

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Findings• System Indicators (see trends spreadsheet)• Incarceration context

Appendix #5

Incarceration Rates

ADP = average daily population.* Per 1,000 residents. Data for counties are from 2008 and data from cities are from 2006.The Richmond City rate was calculated from 2009 data: 1,463/204,451* 1,000.

Jurisdiction * Jail ADP Incarceration Rate **Los Angeles County, CA 19,836 2.01New York City, NY 13,494 1.64Maricopa County, AZ 9,265 2.34Santa Clara County, CA 4,660 2.64Baltimore City, MD 4,156 6.58Polk County, FL 2,456 4.23Denver County, CO 2,380 3.98Richmond City, VA 1,463 7.16Jefferson County, CO 1,247 2.32Albemarle County, VA 547 4.04Sebastian County, AR 450 3.66Boone County, MO 210 1.36national average 2.6 (approx)

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Findings• System Indicators (see trends spreadsheet)• Incarceration context• Jail water barrel dynamic

Appendix #5

Water Barrel Analysis for the Richmond City JailAppendix #5

Richmond City Sheriff's CustodyYearly Comparisons - ADP, Commits, & ALOS

A B C D E F G

1 Year ADP

Total Annual

Commits

Estimated ALOS in

Days

# of Jail Beds

Required for Change in Commits

# of Jail Beds

Required for Change

in ALOS2 2000 1,109 14,516 28.03 2001 1,089 14,256 27.9 -20 04 2002 1,072 14,878 26.3 48 -655 2003 1,434 18,431 28.4 256 1066 2004 1,526 22,411 24.9 309 -2177 2005 1,393 23,233 21.9 56 -1898 2006 1,529 24,277 23.0 63 739 2007 1,564 26,197 21.8 121 -8610 2008 1,527 25,919 21.6 -17 -2011 2009 1,463 20,744 25.7 -306 24212 Total % Change: 32% 43% -8%

13 Avg Annual % Change: 3.1% 4.0% -0.9%

14 Additional Beds Needed: 354 510 -156

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Findings• System Indicators (see trends spreadsheet)• Incarceration context• Jail water barrel dynamic• Jail tour findings• Lack of agreement on the problems cause by crowding • Jail has traditionally been viewed an unlimited resource• Jail crowding/population has been viewed as the Sheriff’s problem to solve rather than as the

System’s condition to manage• There is a lack of collaborative definition about the purpose/use of the jail (who put in and

for how long; Fiscal vs. Justice conservatism)

Appendix #5

Justice Conservatism vs. Fiscal Conservatism

Appendix #5

Certainty vs. Severity and Jail Bed Use

Certainty: More people go into jail and stay a shorter amount of time

Severity: Fewer people go into jail and stay a longer amount of time

• On a continuum – not enough jail resource to have it both ways for all inmates

Certainty Severity

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Findings• System Indicators (see trends spreadsheet)• Incarceration context• Jail water barrel dynamic• Jail tour findings• Lack of agreement on the problems cause by crowding • Jail has traditionally been viewed an unlimited resource• Jail crowding/population has been viewed as the Sheriff’s problem to solve rather than as the

System’s condition to manage• There is a lack of collaborative definition about the purpose/use of the jail (who put in and

for how long; Fiscal vs. Justice conservatism)• Who’s consuming the jail bed resource?

Appendix #5

Who Is Using the Jail Beds?

• There is a group of high volume inmates who stay a short time in jail.

• There is a group of low volume inmates who stay a long time in the jail.

• These two groups have a different impact on jail bed use.

Appendix #5

Impact on Beds by Inmate Volume and Length of Stay for the Richmond City Jail

63%

5%

12% 10% 10%2%

1%

7%

18%

72%

(10,680)

(916)

(2,001) (1,662) (1,696)(29)

(13)

(90)

(238)

(944)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Less than 3 Days 3 to 7 Days 8 to 30 Days 31 to 90 Days 91+ DaysAverage Length of Stay in Days

Percentage of Inmates Released and Beds Needed byAverage Length of Stay

Richmond City, 2009

% Inmates Released % Beds Needed

Appendix #5

Inmates Staying 91+ Days1,696 incoming inmates (10%) consume 944 (72%) of beds.

DispositionNumber of

Inmates Percent

Guilty 848 50

Suspended Sentence 203 12

Nolle Prosequi 203 12

Charges Dismissed 203 12

Probation Dismissed 68 4

Court Order Release 68 4

State Sentence 34 2

Bond 34 2

Null Code 34 2

Total 1,696 100

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Findings• System Indicators (see trends spreadsheet)• Incarceration context• Jail water barrel dynamic• Jail tour findings• Lack of agreement on the problems cause by crowding • Jail has traditionally been viewed an unlimited resource• Jail crowding/population has been viewed as the Sheriff’s problem to solve rather than as the

System’s condition to manage• There is a lack of collaborative definition about the purpose/use of the jail (who put in and

for how long; Fiscal vs. Justice conservatism)• Who’s consuming the jail bed resource?• Over-reliance on programs to solve crowding• Underdeveloped jail population data analysis

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Recommendations• Strive for an uncrowded jail• System decision-makers take ownership over the jail population – view it as limited; prevent

it from being crowded• Define the purpose of the jail, and then the number and type of beds needed to fulfill this

purpose• View the jail as ‘the alternative’, rather than as the default/standard• Consider a smaller jail plus other options (prevention)• Consider a self-imposed soft cap, for jail and programs

Appendix #5

Findings and Recommendations:3. View of the Jail within a Systemic Context

Recommendations• Strive for an uncrowded jail• System decision-makers take ownership over the jail population – view it as limited; prevent

it from being crowded• Define the purpose of the jail, and then the number and type of beds needed to fulfill this

purpose• View the jail as ‘the alternative’, rather than as the default/standard• Consider a smaller jail plus other options (prevention)• Consider a self-imposed soft cap, for jail and programs• Continue on with these data analyses to inform upcoming planning efforts

Appendix #5

Comments & Questions

Discussion & Next Steps

Appendix #5