MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
FEBRUARY 1, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report From Alternatives And Treatment Opportunities Sub-Committee.................................... 1
Report From Public Awareness And Information, Public Policy And State Initiatives Sub-Committee 1
Report From Facilities Planning Sub-Committee........................................................................ 2
Report From Data Collection, Analysis And Reporting Sub-Committee...................................... 2
Additional Comments From Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members......................... 6
Comments From The Public.................................................................................................... 6
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:06 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman and Rod Sullivan.
Mobile Crisis Coordinator Malinda Lamb said that she and Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet are going to come before the Board on February 2, 2006 and give an update about the Jail Alternatives program. Stutsman said they met on January 11, 2006, at which time they went over what had been accomplished so far. They reviewed the current status of alternatives, current status on the substance abuse assessments, mental health assessments, electronic monitoring, the GPS monitoring, police alternatives, and the other alternatives identified by members. She said that there haven’t been any big changes. Stutsman mentioned that one thing which was disappointing was that not many people had participated in the MECCA substance abuse program. Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said that those numbers have increased since the first of the year. Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness said that she talked to Johnson County Public Defender Dick Klausner, and he said that they were not sure whether the judges quite understood when they could refer people to this program, so that may have something to do with the low numbers. Pulkrabek said it was still running below projected levels, but it has come up from what they were seeing early on.
Neuzil said that he and R. Sullivan serve on the Public Awareness and Information, Public Policy and State Initiatives Sub-committee along with Pulkrabek and Sheriff’s Major Steve Dolezal and some other community members. They continue to develop their committee, and also come up with some things to do. They are waiting for the Facilities Committee to give them some feedback so they can move forward on more public outreach. Their two major goals include creating a question/answer handout about why the 2000 jail bond issue failed. In addition, they are creating a timeline of events from 1979 to current of the things they have accomplished. Neuzil visited with Professor Rice at the University of Iowa and Rice has some students that would be able to assist the committee in additional research and outreach. Professor Rice is going to teach a course this semester that has to do with hands-on research, and is trying to get some hands-on research with a local issue that also has to do with the Iowa Legislature. Neuzil said that one of the things that Rice is developing for his students has to do with how the Iowa Legislature and the Governor’s “get tough on crime” laws have put additional strains on local over-crowding of the jail and the court system. Neuzil went on to say that some other things that Rice might look at researching include whether the University of Iowa has changed their philosophy on arrest rates once they went from a public safety department to an actual police department, whether Johnson County voters would support a new jail, and whether funding the jail with a bond referendum or jail tax would be more acceptable.
Neuzil reiterated that the three objectives of the committee are the creation of the sub-committee and getting a good feel for that, and the two other issues of putting together a questionnaire about why the jail bond issue failed, and putting it on the internet; and the timeline. R. Sullivan asked whether they had a separate sub-committee that was data-collection and analysis. Neuzil said that they did not. R. Sullivan said they consider this part of their work. He said that part of their role is to take that information and get it out to people. The same stands for information about facilities: this committee is responsible for disseminating any pertinent information to the public.
Harney, Lehman, Connie Champion and Kara Logsden, Pulkrabek, County Attorney J. Patrick White, Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne, Facilities Director David Kempf, Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan, and Larry Wilson from the University of Iowa are on this committee. Harney said that they are going to put together some goals and timelines where they want to be in this research. He said that some of the topics they have looked at include the space they would need if they were to build a new facility, where the jail would be, the possible location and size, and evaluating the feasibility of funding it through sales tax or a referendum is also part of their task. They met with a couple of the City Councilors and toured the area to see the actual sites they have discussed so that people could see them first hand. Lehman added that Wilson suggested that they set up some type of matrix to grid out the choices, which is what they do at the University. He said that by listing the pros and cons, some of the options may eliminate themselves as far as distance, accessibility, size, and cost.
Pulkrabek said he asked Gary Carlson for help in trying to determine how much it costs to house a prisoner in the Johnson County jail. He said they found this to be very challenging, and Carlson had agreed to come here and discuss this with the Board. He said that he hoped to get some guidance from the Board in terms of where they should go from here.
Carlson said this started with what seemed to be a simple question: How much would it cost to calculate the cost per day per inmate. He decided that there were three things that had to be determined. The first thing is to decide how to count inmates, and how to calculate short stays. He said that these things have to be determined before they can decide how to divide the total costs. He pointed out that gathering the information to come to that number isn’t as easy as they had thought. They started this in July 2005, and he has a thick binder of information that he has collected so far. Carlson said that with some software that they have, they can come up with the number of how many inmates went through the jail every day. He said that this isn’t as easy as it seems, since if someone gets booked in and has three charges against them, that means they are counted three times. Therefore, all of these have to be eliminated and cross-checked to make sure they aren’t double counting. He said that the department has counts at various times during the day, but nothing on paper.
Carlson said that the next issue is to decide what costs and expenses to include. He asked whether if they look at the budget for the jail if that includes everything they need to calculate. He said there is the question of debt allocation and should all of the salaries be counted toward the cost of housing an inmate. He said that the question was whether someone would come in and take what is in and allocated to the jail, or whether they need to be looking at other expenses incurred by the County and should some of those be allocated to it. He said that in going through it, it was very difficult without getting in and starting to do work, to decide how much it is going to take to come up with that comparative number. Carlson said that he thinks that some of those costs need to be allocated. He said that for example there are not any utilities charged to the jail at this point, which they would need to calculate.
Carlson explained that the third issue is to determine the cost of housing prisoners in Linn County or other counties. He said that this is more than the $60 a day that they charge, and that transportation and other costs need to be taken into consideration as well. He said there are no specific time records that they can tell that say that X staff member spent X amount of time doing transportation. Therefore, he said, they would have to come up with a determination of how much time needs to be allocated towards doing those types of things.
Carlson said that these are the three basic elements that have to be determined. He has talked to Pulkrabek, and is not sure at this point whether the Board wants someone to come in and do that calculation, or whether they need to have someone come in as a consultant to determine how it would be put together, or whether this would be all in one contract. He has talked to people in his firm who have done similar projects. They were hired by the U.S. Government and looked at a County and determine whether the cost that they were reimbursing for the INS detainees that they had was similar. He said that in that case, he went in and did an audit. He said that is different than in this case. In this case, if someone was in the jail at all, that counted as a day. He said that the big question gets down to the allocation of costs and expenses. He said he thinks that the inmate count can be accomplished using some software they have.
R. Sullivan asked what kind of timeframe Carlson thought he needed to get a sample to determine these costs. Carlson replied that right now he has FY 05 information. He said that the Board would have to decide what the timeframe would be. He would think that the more current the data, the more useful the information will be. He said he hasn’t looked to see what the budget for the jail was for this year versus the prior year, and doesn’t know whether the inmate count is higher this year. He recommended they look at least a 12 month framework. Unfortunately, he commented that this would raise the cost. He said that at this point he is seeing the cost for this project at $25,000-$30,000. Stutsman said that this means they will not proceed with the project. Pulkrabek agreed that the cost is a major problem. Lehman said he talked to ISAC’s Randall Hadley whose company does government auditing, and he gave him an estimate which was different. Carlson said he had attempted to contact Hadley, but hadn’t heard back from him. Carlson said that parameters have to be set, and that’s why he’s saying it needs to be a consulting engagement, which could save some money. He said he has spent about 20 hours on this already, and he needs to get to the point where either he turns it over to the County or gets going on the project.
Stutsman asked Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan if there was any possibility that Claiborne could do this. M. Sullivan said he was not sure he could answer that, since Claiborne is so new to the position. He said that if he did work on it, it would have to be after the budget period. Stutsman said that it sounds like some decisions need to be made, and maybe a committee could do that. Carlson said it would take some time from the Sheriff’s Department too, because someone will have to go in and make a decision on an employee by employee basis as to how their time is spent, and there aren’t any detailed records in existence.
M. Sullivan said that he doesn’t think that Claiborne had the knowledge from a law enforcement perspective to make those kind of determinations. Pulkrabek said that one of the big things that they need is access to Carlson’s software program that can sort the data. M. Sullivan said that they couldn’t do that in the County. Carlson replied that his company could do only part of the project such as calculating the number of inmates, rather than the whole thing. He said that just that would be a $1,200 project. He said that Johnson County could purchase the software, which is called ACL, and that most auditors have some version of it. M. Sullivan said that he didn’t think the County had it.
Stutsman said that Johnson County has a contract with Maximus, and her understanding was that part of what Maximus does is break down data like this. M. Sullivan replied that the local administrative expenses would have to be determined by Johnson County. He said that he doesn’t think that the information that the Board is trying to glean could be provided by Maximus. He said they could come in as a consultant and offer that service, but that would be different from the contract they have now. Stutsman said that since this is what Maximus is all about, the committee should talk to them. Carlson said that he would be happy to talk with Hanley and see if Hanley can do it cheaper. Carlson said that when he was first called, he thought that it was a $5,000 job. However, upon further examination, he saw that it was a much bigger job than he first anticipated. M. Sullivan said he would call Maximus, and see what kind of services they could provide.
Carlson said he has had no luck finding that any other County as done this. Lehman asked what Linn County bases their charges on. M. Sullivan said that jails already understand what the allowable margins are, and what the federal government will cover. Lehman asked how Linn County knows they are covering their costs, and asked whether they had done a study. M. Sullivan said that he did not know. Pulkrabek added that since the jail is such a localized issue, they need some type of a product that they can publicly defend, because there will be people who come in and pick it apart. He said it is important that they are able to defend it, and have a quality product. He said the other thing is that if the audit is done internally, there will be people out there who will say that the County is spinning their numbers. Carlson said that if the County can generate some of the numbers, then a consultant could come in and decide whether that seems like a reasonable approach and then do the final calculation. He said there are a lot of things that need to be put together, and someone is going to have to look at it and determine what all the questions are. He said this is where the fee comes from.
Stutsman asked if Carlson was presenting a proposal. Carlson said he is presenting options. Lehman said that Carlson is on a hold until he is given direction, and that the County owes him for some time he has already put in. Carlson said he has no intention of submitting the information, since he was just putting together a proposal. He said he isn’t looking to get paid for what he’s done, but would like to get paid to go forward. M. Sullivan said that he would call Maximus, and if they don’t do this kind of work that would allow the Board to make a determination on the consulting aspect of it. M. Sullivan said that defining all the different things needed to be found before the actual calculations are done is key. R. Sullivan said that Pulkrabek and Dolezal need to meet with Information Services Director Jean Schultz and determine what extent the County is able to do in-house. Carlson said that he thinks a lot of this could be done internally, but someone would need to oversee it.
Harney asked if in a study like this they want to incorporate overhead items such as utilities. Pulkrabek said that this is a question they need to address. Carlson said that the question is what the number is going to be used for; is it going to be comparative to Linn County or is it going to be the cost per day of all inmates. He said that these are two different numbers. He said the first thing is that they have to decide what they are trying to accomplish with the number they are trying to calculate.
Stutsman said that the question taxpayers have is whether it is cheaper to house inmates in Linn County than it is to build a $26 million jail. Pulkrabek clarified that the biggest cost is getting inmates in and out, not housing them over the long term. R. Sullivan asked Pulkrabek to check with Linn County Sheriff Don Zeller about cost per day. Pulkrabek said he had asked him before, but they didn’t have a scientific method of calculating the cost. He said that he would check with him again, along with other larger counties. Pulkrabek said that in Polk County, they were shipping their prisoners to Missouri and paying $30 a day, and housing federal prisoners for $80 a day, thereby making a profit. Lehman said they need a business plan. Stutsman told Carlson that it is eye-opening to see how complex this question really is.
Harney said that he is not so sure that they would want the University doing an analysis on whether it should be taxes or a referendum that pays for the jail. He said that he thought this task was given to the Budget Coordinator and the Treasurer. Neuzil said that it was just a suggestion. Harney said that he didn’t think they were at that point yet. Neuzil agreed. He said that Professor Rice had more interest in the bigger picture. Neuzil said that one thing that his committee talked about was that at some point in the near future they would need some direction from the Board on a timeline for the future. He said that it is too early to do that right now, but in two months they should be thinking about their goals for the next five years. R. Sullivan said that Carlson’s presentation made him think of a timeline. Neuzil said that they also need to let Lamb’s program, the MECCA programs, and the other Alternative programs continue to evolve. He said that they need to paint a better picture of what they are doing. Pulkrabek said that they don’t even have part of the data of what they would need to do these calculations.
Neuzil said his two questions are how much it costs to house an inmate, and how much Johnson County is paying for alternatives. He said that they need some direction for what they are going to achieve over the next couple of years. Harney agreed. Harney asked Pulkrabek if he thought they had enough information from July 2005-July 2006 to begin calculating the cost of housing a prisoner. Pulkrabek said they would. Harney said that his committee is looking at setting a deadline for picking a site. R. Sullivan said that this could give the public the impression that the Board is already going forward with the project without knowing the Gary Carlson numbers. Harney said that they have to do something at this point. Neuzil said that it is walking on a tight rope, but he thinks that people will realize that identifying a location is a responsible thing. R. Sullivan said that they have to make it clear that they want to choose a location because they want to be moving forward, but they are not dead set on this plan and if the numbers come back that show nothing should be done, they would take this into account. Harney argued that the decision cannot only be based on numbers, because they already have the jail inspector saying the space needs to be improved, and that they need an exercise room.
Richard Twohy said that he thinks they would have a lot more information and mobility about the treatment alternative sub-committee if they use the human resources that they have, including those who have paid direct attention to the treatment issues and what a sizable issues implementation of this awkward thing can mean for the County financially, as well as for the lives that are saved getting off of that revolving door. He said that unless there is a policy reason for not having someone who is a mental health consumer on the committee, and if there is he would like to understand why, he would like to see this happen. He said that this committee took on a broader mandate following last summer’s training than it had before. He said that he doesn’t see this broader mandate reflected in the current status of thinking, as is highlighted by Neuzil’s comment. He said that besides the jail they also have the issue of how to follow up and get the benefits of the training from this summer, by combining the treatment process across substance abuse, mental health, and criminal justice. He said there is a huge database of positive reports about that. Twohy offered help to the committee to do this. He said that Johnson County pretended that they would adhere to the essentials of the program, but the planning committee never met.
R. Sullivan said that this was an issue for the CJCC, not for the Board of Supervisors. Twohy said he thought that the Board appoints the members. Neuzil said that this was true, and that there were seven people on the CJCC. Neuzil said he didn’t have any desire to change the makeup of the CJCC since he thinks it’s a good committee. He said that at every single meeting it provides the opportunity for the public to communicate and be a part of the process. He said that he doesn’t think that things are being lost, and he wishes that more members of the public and the press would come to these meetings because this is the most important issue in Johnson County. Twohy said they would if they saw that the committee had an identified goal. He said that Johnson County needs to pay back the money from the grant that allowed people to attend the training this summer because they don’t qualify for it. Neuzil disagreed and said that there are a lot of things that have come out of this particular meeting such as the communication, the relationships, the program that they put together for mental health diversion, the eye-opening experience of realizing that having a dual diagnosis is something that is very serious. He said that all of these things were created by this training, and the CJCC continues to communicate with those entities, so nothing has been lost.
Pulkrabek said that getting all those different parties together at that training has allowed them to get the same people together again. Twohy said that the essence of the Gains Program is that it is essential to success that people who have these co-occurring disorders be part of the policy-sharing process, and that was made clear not only in the original contract that they signed, but also in the subsequent emails between the planning committee and the attendees. He urged Neuzil to enlarge his vision to recognize that a County with the great human resources that Johnson County has should be way further along in this process in part because nothing has been done to change the personnel on the committee, and the stated purpose of the committee still does not include this key thing from the training. He said that unless there is a reason why they don’t want people with mental illness on the committee, they need to rectify this situation.
Lehman said that this was good food for thought. Harney said the CJCC would look at it. He said that the committee did not adopt all the recommendations from the training group. R. Sullivan asked Twohy about the sub-committees, and asked if he felt he could get the same input at the sub-committee level. Lehman urged him to think about joining the alternatives sub-committee. Twohy said he would think about it, but he didn’t understand why someone with mental illness couldn’t be on the CJCC. He said that he received a request to fill out a progress report, which nobody from the training had done yet. He said that their expectation from the start was that consumers would be involved in the policy sharing process, and this County has refused to do so. Neuzil disagreed. Twohy asked who was on the committee who had mental illness. Neuzil said that all the members were from the public. Twohy said that wasn’t what was signed. Stutsman clarified that Twohy was talking about having someone with mental illness on the committee. Twohy said he was, and reiterated that there has been no consumer of services named to any of the committees. He said he was glad about the other things that were getting accomplished, but he thinks the committee should follow through on the promise they made. Harney said they would bring it up at the CJCC.
Adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary