January 17, 2007
Administrative Center Room B190
7:30 a.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
CJMC: Kim Vogt, Steve Doyle, Judge Michael Mulroy (exc at 9:00), Vicki Burke, Scott Horne, Jerry Huber, Bill Hammes, Jim Nesbitt, Elliott Levine (exc at 9:00), Doris Daggett, Steve Helgeson, Gary Uting, Keith Belzer, Ann Quinlisk, Dr. Tom Trannel, Margaret Larson, Richie Johnson (exc at 9:00), Sharon Hampson, Tom Knothe J&L Committee: Vicki Burke, Keith Belzer, Maureen Freedland, John Medinger LEC Addition Members: Steve Doyle, Keith Belzer, Vicki Burke, Maureen Freedland, Sharon Hampson, Tara Johnson, John Medinger, Don Meyer, Roger Plesha, Jeff Schroeder, Chuck Spiker |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
Joe Bilskemper, Bernie Maney |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Jacie Gamroth |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jane Klekamp, Steve O’Malley, Kara Burgos, Pat Brummond, Jim Speropulos, Ray Ebert, Kermit Gunderson, Judge Roger LeGrand, Bridget Todd, Dan Springer, Kara Burgos, Gloria Doyle, Judge John Perlich, Terri Pavlic, Carey Group: Mark Carey, Barb Chatzkel, Dennis Kimme, Pat Orud |
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15, 2006 CJMC MINUTES AND THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN CJMC AND LEC ADDITION COMMITTEE
MOTION by Plesha/Vogt to approve minutes of the November 15, 2006 Criminal Justice Management Council and the September 21, 2006 minutes of the Joint Meeting between the CJMC and LEC Addition Committee. MOTION carried unanimously (Bilskemper, Maney and Gamroth excused).
LA CROSSE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ASSESSMENT – STATUS UPDATE AND WORKING SESSION WITH THE CAREY GROUP
Mark Carey, Dennis Kimme and Barb Chatzkel, all of the Carey Group, were present to review the scope of the project, summarize their findings to date, answer questions and listen to Board concerns, and to review their proposed next phase of the project.
The four objectives for the project are:
1. Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the jail function (they have done a preliminary report on jail staffing)
2. Ensure that justice sanctions collectively and individually are cost efficient. They will make sure that a continuum of services is available in order to minimize the use of the jail. The preliminary review of this indicates La Crosse has some pretty good sanctions on the lower end of the continuum, but not a lot of sanctions on the upper end of the continuum, which is the group of people in need of a little more supervision and attention
3. Ensure that sanctions operate according to the existing body of knowledge. There is a significant body of research that tells us what’s effective in terms of controlling people and changing the behavior. They will look at the sanctions that are in place to determine to what degree they line up with the research.
4. Use information to drive decision making. They will look at what we have currently and determine how well this intersects with evidence based programming.
Deliverables
October – February: Project Scoping and Information Collection - the intent is to finish the information gathering phase (jail staffing analysis, jail space analysis, population projections, inmate profiles, etc). These are listed in more detail in the project scope document.
January – April: Analysis and solution building (mapping, decision making protocols, gap analysis, etc). The information that has been collected will lead to analysis and solution building.
May: Final report and recommendations; help facilitate some decision making.
Goal
To provide the data and analysis that will provide La Crosse County with the best possible solution to deal with our increasing jail population. These solutions should be:
1. Evidence based
2. Cost effective – to the degree possible it should be cost neutral through the shifting of resources, i.e., cost shifting or moving staff around, etc.
3. Cost responsive
The most pressing issues that they heard from us through previous reports and interviews were:
Current jail capacity, space issues, staffing, programming and future needs
Issues surrounding mental health and suicide
Need for more effective handling of female offenders
Need to expand alternative sanctions so we reduce reliance on the jail
The issues that they feel we have a consensus on are:
Existing jail facility no longer serves La Crosse County’s current needs (often at or over capacity; has certain limitations; plus there has been a shift in how to handle the offender population)
Current housing of female offenders is not acceptable, cost effective or gender responsive
There is public support for treatment services
Data systems need to be improved
The jail suicide incidents of recent years have provoked a review of existing policies and training and much needed changes but more improvements are needed.
Preliminary Findings to Date:
They have found that La Crosse County is in a position to make some good decisions, as they were impressed with the leadership of the county. They felt that the CJMC was very important to have for an interdisciplinary review of policy. We have used past consultations well and have made tremendous progress within the last 4-5 years and we have followed progressive criminal justice practices in recent years. Our infrastructure is lacking in some areas, such as data systems, justice sanctions program, etc. to take the work to the next level.
Jail Design and Space
The goal of this report was to document the conditions and characteristics of the facility; establish its future utility as part of a long term facility master plan; understand design strengths that should be retained; and identify weaknesses that should be addressed in future renovations or expansion.
1. The current jail design, staffing constrictions, and lack of programming does not align with the modernized view of the courts nor does it fit in with national best practices. Things have changed since our jail was built; including knowledge, perceptions, etc, and we have grown considerably. Looking back, we know, that the way the jail was designed, is conflicting with our views of how to handle the offender population. We have very little programming space, small pod sizes that limit the amount of interaction. They will assist us in redesigning the existing
facility and find ways how to impact the way in which the offender leave the facility as better people.
2. The lower level has a lot of operational challenges (laundry, food services, intake, health Carey, etc). Because of what the upper level doesn’t do, a lot of the non-compliant inmates, i.e. mental health, disciplinary problems, behavioral problems, end up in the lower level area that was not designed to accommodate these kinds of inmates.
3. Existing space issues:
- kitchen, laundry, programming space, special needs, etc.
- The design of the 2nd floor does not allow for much interaction between the correctional officers and the inmates, thereby eliminating their ability to have an effect or be correctional. The basic ability to directly see what’s happening and monitor behavior and respond to it is limited by the nature of the design. There are many blind spots in the central housing area from the control station, as well as poor visibility of exercise and program areas.
- The lack of differentiated pods to provide incentives for good behavior or response to classification levels. Virtually all the pods are alike, so there is nothing in the character of the architecture to reinforce better behavior.
4. Female jail: Outdated, antiquated equipment is deteriorating, poor staff observation capabilities, no ADA capabilities or special needs housing, etc.
5. The expansion options are:
a. Vertical from second floor housing pod - When the building was originally designed, it was designed to expand vertically; however, there is virtually no elevator support.
b. Horizontal – The challenge with this is if you break out on the second floor, what’s underneath and how to connect it.
c. Build new – Cost issues.
6. Other issues for expansion of any form is that support has to expand with it.
Possible Remodeling Solutions
Remove non-bearing dividing walls between units to create larger direct supervision style units. Direct supervision is basically a way of operating a facility where you have officers in the living units constantly and are having regular contact with the inmates as opposed to intermittent visits. It’s a way of creating a culture that lends itself to pro-social exchange between the correctional officer and the inmate. Officers are trained to role model, teach as they interact and deal directly even with the mundane issues daily. Not only is there a benefit from the social interaction, but also in dealing with suicide attempts, assaults, etc. Direct supervision housing is directed toward compliant inmates, but still need areas for the non-compliant inmates. The Carey Group felt that our jail space design limits our ability and almost prohibits our ability to do direct supervision. With some structural changes and training, etc., we could possibly have a modified version. (The industry standard is @40-48 inmates to one officer in the direct supervision setting depending on what types of duties you are asking the officer to manage)
Double occupy cells (if walls are removed and dayroom space is added).
Jail Staffing Analysis
Goal: The goal of the report was to determine jail staffing needs for a safe, effective and cost efficient operation.
Conclusion: The jail is currently understaffed by six positions based on its current physical structure. (This could include cost shifting or staff shifting) A seventh position (Program Coordinator) is recommended because of the programming issues. Steve O’Malley indicated that there is money in the 2007 budget to hire a Program Coordinator and this will be brought to the County Board in February. No staffing changes recommended to the female facility. Staffing alone will not guarantee a jail environment that leads to safety and security.
Additional Opportunities
There could be a number of efficiencies and programming changes that could be put in place. This is still being reviewed.
Next Steps -Phase 3
Mapping Process – the goal of mapping is to get a full understanding of the entire criminal justice process. The three points looked at are: “What are the decision points?”; “Who are the decision makers?” and “What is actually the flow of offenders through the process?”. In early February, the Carey Group will be conducting a mapping workshop which everyone is encouraged to attend all or part of the workshop. They would like to pull together as many people as possible to get their view points and will also identify gaps. These dates are still being worked out.
Another part of the Phase 3 work is to establish a decision making model. They will develop a draft, test it with us and then measure the process for success.
Jail Related Analysis
In the next four months, they will be working on population trend projections, remodeling possibilities to improve existing structure, expansion construction options, female population options, etc.
Sanction & Program Issues
Also, during the next four months, they will be looking at inmate profiles, classification and assessment processes, mapping of decision making, surveying our major community providers that provide sanction related business to see how well they line up with evidence based practices; performing a gap analysis; looking at information system and decision making model.
All of these steps will lead to the final recommendation and facilitation. The Carey Group noted that these are not final recommendations, but these are based on what they have seen so far.
RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH PHASE III BY THE CAREY GROUP TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON A WIDE RANGE OF JAIL RELATED ISSUES, BEFORE PROCEEDING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER (LEC) ADDITION DESIGN
MOTION by Medinger/Meyer to approve resolution. Supervisor Medinger had some concerns regarding the wording of the resolution. MOTION by Johnson/Larson to amend resolution by deleting the words “by building an addition on the vacated site of the Huber facility” in the first paragraph. MOTION to amend failed on a 16/6 vote. Those voting no were Johnson, Larson, Trannel, Freedland, Hampson, Huber. (Bilskemper, Maney, Gamroth, Mulroy, Levine and Johnson excused) Supervisor Freedland requested that a breakdown be done of the $82,988 cost. Original MOTION carried unanimously. (Bilskemper, Maney, Gamroth, Mulroy, Levine and Johnson excused)
ADJOURN
There being no further business, MOTION by Vogt/Nesbitt to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 a.m. carried unanimously. (Bilskemper, Maney, Gamroth, Mulroy, Levine and Johnson excused)
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Council meeting.