Dutchess County Alternatives to Incarceration

Do you think the July 28th letter to county legislators below from Sam Busselle (a long-time appointee to our county's Criminal Justice Council) is on target?

I do; if you agree with us, please sign on to this petition and pass it along to all you know.

Of note-- Busselle also recently stated that "on August 1st, the morning jail count was 277. This is as low as it has been in years. The "housed out" count is way down, too. With about 18 being brought back yesterday due to the low overall count, it was to be only about 27 or so "housed out". A year ago at this time, the daily "house out" count was 80-90."

Help make it happen; contact our County Legislature at 486-2100 or [email protected]

Joel Tyner
County Legislator (Clinton/Rhinebeck)
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488

p.s. Note-- other ideas below for sensible alternatives to incarceration for certain folks as well; recall as well how even Republican state legislators up in Tompkins County answered the request of county officials there like Legislature Chair Tim Joseph to effectively lobby the New York State Commission of Correction to oppose the NYSCOC's unreasonable demand for expansion of their county jail. The fact is that every single Republican state legislator representing Dutchess County has refused to lift a finger to do the same here when our County Legislature's Democratic Caucus asked him for the same help last year-- when the NYSCOC tried to force a doubling in size of our county jail (an unfunded mandate that would have cost Dutchess County taxpayers tens of millions of dollars).

---------------------------------------

Comments from Sam Busselle (CJC Citizen Appointment) on CJC Executive Committee memo to Brad Kendall - May 9th "ATI Cost Analysis"

1. Given the importance of the issues discussed in this memo, the urgency of dealing with the costs associated with housing-out for the jail and the need to inform the public; it is disappointing that it took three months just to get this document circulated to members of the Legislature and the Criminal Justice Council!

2. At least one of the recommendations (#2 to contract with an agency to provide 16 beds in a supervised existing rooming house) was described as "time sensitive." This program would save the County taxpayers as much as $110/day for each of 16 individuals or $52,800 per month according to the report. (Assuming the "operational" cost per day in jail is $150 cited on page 16) It would also reduce the number and cost of housed out individuals by 25-40\%.

It would be interesting to determine if such an ATI program requires legislature approval or if the program could have been initiated immediately through a contract with a county agency such as DSS or Mental Hygiene..

3. Prevention (Page 3) MH/JJ Family Therapy Program for youths is a wonderful sounding program. It will be useful to determine if this has reduced recidivism for the 40-50 youths served per year. It would also be advantageous to initiate a re-entry continuum at time of a PINS determination, an arrest or sentencing, instead of 3-6 months before the juvenile leaves probation. This earlier start period is recommended in a paper entitled "A New Sentencing Model" submitted by the Center for Community Alternatives to the CJC at the July meeting. In the case of youth, it should involve the school district as well as families and support agencies.

4. Youth Gangs (Page 3) The cost of this program was $115,000. It is my understanding that these funds came from a WIB grant, not County dollars.

As the report states, Prevention, in general, is hard to attribute to saved jail beds. However, it is useful to note that the youth population in the jail has diminished to the mid-forties in 3 of the six months of 2006 and the total number of admissions has not changed in many years. (Since a large proportion of the youth come from the City of Poughkeepsie, it might be useful to address the role and responsibility of the school district with the newly appointed Superintendent.)

Youth and Prevention have always been a priority of the County and CJC. The developmental assets initiative first funded in 2000 and all of the gang violence prevention initiatives over the last six years have made the public aware of the issues and some of the solutions. The amount of interest and funding provided by state agencies is an indicator of the exemplary, pro-active approach of this county.

With a greater reliance on Assessment and Screening, the prospect of reducing involvement by youth in the criminal justice system is promising and should have a direct effect on the number remanded to jail.

Supervised Community Residence for Youth (Page 6)

This recommendation has been made to the CJC and by the CJC to the legislature since the 1999 report. At that time it was stated that 12-15 jail beds would be saved. There has been nothing since then that has suggested that this residence would be anything but beneficial. It is substantiated in this report based on the number of youth in the Community Transitions day reporting Center who do not have adequate housing. Six years later we are still studying the feasibility of such a residence! Using the estimate of $40 per day for a supervised residence, this would save the county around $500,000 per year and as stated in the report: "not only have an impact on the jail, but also on the rest of the criminal justice system."

Mentally Ill Population (Page 8)

Regarding the recently hired Mental Health Outreach Workers, it would be useful to know the number of adults that are being served and if probation violations and incarceration have been reduced. This holds true for the MH Diversion Project, as well. When these positions were requested, were there any specific projected outcomes?

Transitional Housing - Four supported apartments will be designated for the population leaving Transitions. Has this occurred? Is this a sufficient number? Is it funded through Section 8 or another grant from HUD?

Assertive Community Treatment Team is interacting with the highest risk, seriously mentally ill individuals in the county to reduce the number who are cycling through the CJ system. Housing has become the biggest impediment for managing this population, yet the recommendation to establish a supervised residence for this population has not been put forth. To state that the Executive Committee has "no additional specific remedial recommendations regarding housing issues" must be considered unacceptable for this critical population.

It has been established that 15\% of any incarcerated population have a mental illness and are inappropriately remanded to jail or prison. That is 50 individuals in the DC jail. If alternative housing and programming was provided for half that population, we would be better serve them, reduce recidivism and impact the daily census.

Womens Issues (Page 10)

The two day workshop on gender specific issues resulted in some specific treatment programs for the female population including a residence. Since 1999 the CJC has been recommending a residence for women. Such a residence would reduce the number of women in jail, increase the likelihood of a comprehensive habilitation plan, and be likely to return individuals to the workforce. Funding is now available for a few women and their children. Gaining site acceptance has been difficult. (Assuming a $40/day cost of a supervised residence and a $150/day cost in jail, the taxpayer realizes a $40,000 annual savings per person and a more promising treatment plan.)
We must redouble our efforts to promote this humane and effective alternative. It would be beneficial to publicize the innovative work that the county and non-profit agencies are doing and disclosing the cost of doing nothing. This has served the public well when the comprehensive approach to issues of domestic violence was featured with a community workshop and news articles.

Parole Violator Population

This thorough analysis describes some progress to reduce the number of jail days spent by state probationers. It also makes a convincing case for a legislative amendment to change the law regarding use of local jails for state prisoners, particularly given the crowded conditions of the local jails and the overbuilt state prison bed surplus.

What has been done to address this recommendation with our state legislators? Have we crafted a bill that articulates the issues and recommendations? If not, why not? This would reduce the average daily population in the jail significantly.

In Summary

The ATI Cost Analysis submitted to the legislature in May raises more questions. Precious time has been wasted since this report was submitted and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent this year on housing-out inmates since the state waiver was revoked. During this time questions could have been answered and a comprehensive budget prepared for the 2007 fiscal year.

Housing for the most needy citizens of the City and county has reached crisis proportions. I believe that the county legislature must determine which of the alternatives described above can make an impact on these residents who are cycling through the CJ system. With supportive housing supplementing the extraordinary continuum of services available to these special populations, we can make a significant impact on the jail census. We can not accept the statement cited above that a working advisory council of the legislature and county executive Committee has "no additional specific remedial recommendations regarding housing issues"

Extensive work has been done through the CJC Committee structure. Much progress has been made in assessment and screening with the implementation of the "LSI-R" process, yet we are still using recommendations from a 2005 document to plan for the future. It is useful to revisit the 1999 CJC Report to the Legislature which refers to the National Institute of Corrections findings that dont seem to have changed:

(1) The jails population, which has averaged around 350 this year, (1998) includes 220 awaiting trial. Roughly 50\% of these are charged with misdemeanor (petty) crimes of a non-violent nature and could be housed and held, at little public risk, in less or non-secured settings perhaps eliminating or reducing the need for additional cells. Operating savings would be a bonus.

(2) The rate of recidivism of sentenced inmates in the jail is 62\% but is running 30-40\% in community alternatives to incarceration programs. The rate has reached as low as 17\% this past year when community-based ATI were preceded by innovative in-jail transitional programming

To have maintained the jail census at less than the average in the late 90s indicates that our comprehensive approach to every aspect of the criminal justice system is working and the alternatives in place are successful, but we havent implemented any residential alternatives since then including the programs for women, youth and individuals with mental illness. With programs in place for these special populations and state legislation allowing for the prisons to be used for parole violators, we can make a very significant impact on returning more of our citizens to the community and reducing, or eliminating the need for expensive, secure jail cells.

--------------------------------------

[note-- rest of information below from JT]

The Pretrial Services Resource Center reports there are more than 300 pretrial services programs in place now across the country and points to "A Second Look at Allevating Jail Overcrowding: A System Perspective."
[ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/182507.pdf;
pretrial.org/surveyresults.html]

Also see Dana Kaplan's fact sheet on Cost Effective Solutions to Jail Overcrowding:
realcostofprisons.org/pdfs/jail_reform_natl.pdf.

"The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) has developed a set of standards for pretrial diversion programs that provide an excellent starting point for jurisdictions looking into developing them."
[.napsa.org; pretrial.org/faq.html]

------------------------------------------

Tompkins County Legislature Chair Tim Joseph's own words on WVKR last August 21st:

"Last year the New York State Commission on Correction (NYSCOC) told us to more than double the size of our jail-- from 73 beds to 160 beds-- a $20 million expansion. The NYSCOC wouldn't even accept our compromise offer of 100 beds.

Eight years ago our jail population was 92 inmates-- now it's at 65 inmates. We've just been very pro-active with our drug courts to help turn peoples lives around-- so they don't end up back in our jail.

Note-- we're not turning dangerous criminals loose on to our streets; our county Office for the Aging surveyed elderly residents here last year on fear of crime, as they did four years ago-- the percentage of senior citizens who were afraid of crime was actually cut in half from 2001 to 2004.

We need to look at the whole cycle of what's really happening here. Once people are put in prison or jail, they're written off. They just end up getting dumped back into the community. They come back out into the community with nothing-- no resources. No place to stay. No source of income. A welfare system that doesn't take into account reality. Some steal to survive.

The number of inmates in state prisons has declined dramatically, while the number of inmates in county jails has increased because of all the state parole violators. The state releases inmates into parole, often then many of those violate parole, and end up in county jails waiting one to three months for a hearing. Parole officers are tremendously overworked with huge caseloads and can only meet with parolees five minutes once or twice a month at times.

To break this destructive cycle and ultimately save tax dollars as well, we're looking to start a new program in Tompkins County like Harlem's successful Community Justice Center Parole Re-Entry Court, where judges will be involved from the beginning.

A first step is that our county is now getting the names of those to be released next month from our local prisons, and our agencies are starting to do release planning; our Department of Social Services is starting to work with our jail and prisons on this.

I'm suggesting that judges consider 90-day sentences for certain offenses-- thirty days in jail, then thirty more days in jail at night-- while going to day reporting center during the day, and finally thirty more days attending the day reporting center (while sleeping outside of the jail at night). The day reporting center has counselors to help them find jobs, housing, and education.

Harlem's Re-Entry Court is run in cooperation with the parole system; the judge is an administrative law judge who works for parole. Parolees must come back to court each week; a team provides support (job counseling, housing referral, and resources for those with mental health, alcohol or substance abuse issues). The
judge gets a weekly report from the team."

------------------------------------------

Information on Harlem's Community Justice Center Parole Re-Entry Court
http://www.courtinnovation.org/demo_parole.html

[Dutchess County should consider this as well!]

The Harlem Community Justice Center, in cooperation with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Division of Parole, helps parolees from the Harlem community who have been imprisoned for non-violent, drug-related offenses make the transition from life in prison to responsible citizenship. The Justice Center links parolees to a wide range of social services, including drug treatment, health care, and mental health treatment. Where appropriate, these services are also offered to family members as well to help increase stability in the home. To promote increased accountability, participants are required to return to the Justice Center frequently to meet with case managers and parole officers and appear before an administrative law judge, who closely monitors their compliance with court orders. The goal is to prevent parolees from re-offending by helping them find jobs and assume familial and personal responsibility.

The Harlem Community Justice Center's work with parolees is based on the following principles:

Comprehensive Information: Potential participants undergo a pre-release assessment in prison to determine their suitability for the program. Parole officers in correctional facilities work closely with Justice Center staff to develop detailed profiles of participating inmates that include information about medical status (including mental health), addiction, criminal involvement, living arrangements, vocational skills and family composition. Based on this information, a customized treatment and supervision plan is prepared for each participant.

Accountability: After their release, parolees appear frequently at the Justice Center to report on their compliance with the treatment and supervision plans. To promote compliance, the Justice Center uses graduated sanctions and rewards. Sanctions for misbehavior, missed appointments and "dirty" urine samples may include curfews, increased court appearances and, in the most serious cases, return to prison. Rewards, which provide positive reinforcement for positive behavior, include reduced court reporting and relaxation of travel restrictions

Coordinated Services: The Justice Center emphasizes early identification of parolees' needs and speedy links to programs that deal with both employment and drug-relapse prevention. To improve service delivery, Justice Center staff, parole officers and service providers convene regular case conferences. When appropriate, parole officers will meet with the family members of parolees to encourage their assistance and support. The Justice Center has access to both on-site and community-based vocational and treatment services.