MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AUGUST 9, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Reports and Updates from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Subcommittees.................. 1
Facilities Planning Subcommittee-(review draft of RFQ)............................................... 1
Public Awareness, Public Policy and State Initiatives Subcommittee.............................. 3
Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Subcommittee............................................... 4
Reports and Additional Comments From Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members 9
Scheduling Date and Time of Next Meeting................................................................. 9
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:04 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members present were: County Attorney J. Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness, Judge Doug Russell, 6th Judicial District Court Administrator Carol Edmondson, Clerk of Court Lodema Berkley, University of Iowa Facilities Representative Larry Wilson, Mobile Crisis Coordinator Mindy Lamb, MECCA Executive Director Art Schut, Richard Twohy, Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet, Dorothy Whiston, John Stratton, and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said that he has prepared a draft for the request for qualifications (RFQ) for the site selection feasibility study and comparison of locations for the proposed criminal justice facility. He got a template from Larry Wilson at the University of Iowa and used that to help him put the proposal together. He explained that RFQ’s are designed to be brief. Lehman said that they had consensus at the last meeting to look at different locations from an outside perspective in order to show the public that all the options have been investigated. R. Sullivan said that in the scope of services section it says several, and he was thinking that several could mean three or could mean 12 and the estimates that come back would vary greatly based on that. M. Sullivan said that he noted at the beginning of the document that the project is for three or four locations. Lehman said that a company may come up with a location to pursue that the committee itself has not even considered. He reminded the members that the company would be deciding upon the three or four sites to survey. M. Sullivan said that under “Scope of Services” on page two, he notes that the firm will evaluate several sites currently identified for their suitability and this could include sites that the Committee has not identified.
Stutsman asked if the RFQ defines what they mean by Criminal Justice Facility. M. Sullivan said that on the first page in the second paragraph, he specified that they are looking for a jail facility, administrative, and fleet operation space for the County Sheriff, and Court Services facilities. He said that this encompasses everything that the CJCC has been talking about. Harney said that he thinks they need to come to a consensus on what to call the space. He suggested Johnson County Criminal Justice Center. He said that if people think it needs to be something else, he would like to hear that. Stutsman mentioned that the Board agreed this morning that it would be the Johnson County Criminal Justice Center. Lehman said that he thought they don't necessarily have to have the word Criminal in it. Judge Doug Russell said that court involves more than criminal court. Stutsman asked if justice center would be more all-encompassing. Russell said he thinks so. He noted that at the Facilities Subcommittee meeting they came to the rough consensus that the Johnson County Justice Center would be an appropriate title because it would include civil and criminal court services as well as juvenile court services, Department of Corrections services, and the County Attorney. Stutsman asked if they are okay with changing the name to Johnson County Justice Center. The group agreed.
Harney asked if they will keep the Sheriff where he is or change the location. He wondered if that should be included in the study. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said that there was going to be a facility to house everything with the hope that the County would be able to sell the other two properties on Capitol Street. Harney said that they talked about both options, but he didn't think they had made a final decision. Pulkrabek said that the other consideration is that if they do have something on that block connecting the two buildings, they would want a secure connection. An above ground connection is a concern in terms of homeland security. R. Sullivan said that his thought is that the consultant would take these types of things into consideration. He said he wants to leave the plan somewhat open if possible so that the companies come up with options.
Lehman said that they have been looking at a timetable. M. Sullivan said that once they send out the RFQ, he imagines it would take about 30 days to respond. Then, they would need a selection committee to review all the applications and make a recommendation. He said that they will narrow the responses down to three to five firms and then make the selection. Lehman asked Wilson if this corresponds to the University's time table. Wilson said that three weeks is fine, or they can do it faster. Stutsman asked if they are okay with moving forward on this. Richard Twohy said that there should be integrative treatment space for people with substance abuse problems and mental illnesses. Lehman said they have talked about doing this. Harney said that he thinks they need to relay to the contractors that Johnson County wants space in the building for programming and such.
Lehman said that most people are seeing this document for the first time and should think about what they might want to change or add. Stutsman asked how they want to do this. She wondered if they should send comments to M. Sullivan or send changes to the whole committee. She said that she hates to wait for another joint meeting. Harney asked if County Attorney J. Patrick White has had a chance to look at the RFQ. White noted that he thinks the document needs some minor revisions. He said that the sub-committee had envisioned that the Board would approve it when it went out. He thought they could leave it open for a week or ten days for comments and revisions and then put it on the Board’s agenda two weeks down the road when it is ready. Richard Twohy wondered if they are back to doing just one or two sites including the Courthouse. Lehman said that as Pulkrabek explained, they need to keep an open mind. The courthouse should be one among other options. White said that is the whole idea behind doing three or four sites, to look at something other than the central location. The Board agreed to put this item back on the agenda in a couple of weeks.
R. Sullivan mentioned that he and Neuzil had a chance to go to the NACo conference. Among the exhibitors there were about 25 different firms that deal with jail overcrowding. Some proposed privatizing the facilities and others were looking at alternatives. He said that he got a chance to discuss jail facilities with someone from Boulder, Colorado, which is an area similar to Iowa City. Lehman asked what the media approach is going to be. He wondered if they need to begin now or wait until they hear back about the RFP. Neuzil said that he thought they could have a press release to give out. He said that would be a good thing to put on the agenda. R. Sullivan said that they have been spending a good deal of time playing devil’s advocate as they try to imagine why people might object to a new jail facility. Lehman said that the problem is that they don’t have the whole picture yet.
Pulkrabek asked if anyone has had the chance to review the document from John Neff. He said that he has not seen the report but understands that it is done. He thought that this is one big hurdle that they have reached, though they are not ready to go public with it yet. Neuzil said for those who might not know, one of the first charges of the sub-committee was to identify questions that arose during the very first bond referendum. One of the questions was how much it costs to house a prisoner in Johnson County per day. He said that as Pulkrabek is pointing out, they are starting to overcome this hurdle. He said that the questions will certainly come back when the issue goes public again.
Lehman asked Pulkrabek to give a short synopsis of those numbers. Pulkrabek said that the number has been fairly steady between 14 and 17 prisoners being housed out of County per day. He said that they haven’t seen any sudden spikes. He thought that the good news is that with Iowa County opening their new jail facility, Johnson County has been able to house several inmates there for $50 a day. That helped stop Johnson County from having to ship inmates so far. Lehman asked if Linn County is full. Pulkrabek said that Linn County has been full several times. He said that all of the bordering counties were full. He said that with Cedar County, they are competing with other counties who are housing prisoners there. He said that Scott County has a new jail under way, so in a year or two, Johnson County will have more options. Lehman said that sometimes people don’t want to move or cause problems in one location. Pulkrabek said that they do have some people who do not want to go and it does sometimes create hardship for the families. He said that someone is held in the Johnson County jail for at least ten days so they have time to contact an attorney and see if there is a chance to appear before a judge for bond reduction and such. He said that they try not to house sentence inmates outside of the County. He noted that the inmates with serious medical issues have to be kept in the area. Lehman said that some of these issues need to be addressed. Neuzil said that they need to estimate when they are going to reach the point that they cannot find space beyond their borders. He thought that would have a lot to do with when this whole thing comes to fruition. If they know that in several years, they cannot find space without traveling many counties over, then the project becomes increasingly urgent. He said that they know that they will eventually need a new jail; the question is when it will become an extremely urgent need.
MECCA Executive Direct Art Schut said that in terms of alternatives, there is electronic house arrest. The figures have stayed roughly consistent over the years. In 2002, the number of prisoners and prisoner days were high. He said that there has been a dramatic change in work release due to advances in GPS technology. Lehman asked how the work release program works. Pulkrabek explained that work release from the jail means that people come back in the evening. He said that previous to his administration, work release was much more difficult to qualify for. He noted that he loosened the requirements for work release. The GPS allows them to get more people out there while keeping track of them. He said that there is also home arrest when they are allowed to work during the day and go home at night. He isn’t sure why the numbers are so different for home monitoring for 2002. Schut said that he isn’t sure what was taking place that allowed them to get so many people out on work release. When someone is on home arrest, they have to pay per day. In lieu of one day in jail, they may do two or three days on home monitor and pay $20 per day out-of-pocket. One of the things for the future is to look at other people’s ability or lack of ability to pay that and try to have the County absorb some of that cost.
Harney asked how the record is on GPS. Pulkrabek said that they did switch companies. In general, the system has been working really well. They had a situation where someone strayed about 100 feet off of the highway, and they were able to figure out what happened. They suspended that person’s work release. Before they switched companies, they had some problems. Lehman said that with work release, they may not be freeing up beds, but the prisoners are keeping a job. Pulkrabek said that the benefit of work release is that when a judge recommends that a person serve time in jail, that person can do that as well as keep a job and take care of family. Granted it costs the person around $60 a day, but they do get to keep working and making some money. John Stratton asked if some of these prisoners carry over from month-to-month. Pulkrabek said that is possible. The numbers here are strictly the total number of inmates that at any point in that month were out. Stratton said that makes the totals a little off.
Schut said that they implemented treatment opportunities in July 2005. To date, the program has evaluated and assessed or had contact with 107 different individuals. While not all of them met criteria for alternative methods, there were 51 people who met criteria for alternative methods. The program is staffed by two individuals. He said these individuals may be identified through screening sheets that are completed when booking, referrals from lawyers or outside agencies or family, or at the request of deputies. They need to establish mental health and legal criteria, and everyone needs to agree to placement. As of July 18, 2006, the program has currently worked with 35 individuals who have entered jail. Schut explained that in addition to the traditional methods of diversion programming, this program has also worked with individuals who have interacted with the criminal justice system in the past and are on parole or probation. The attempt is to help people who are struggling so that they don’t end up back in jail. Twelve individuals met that criteria. Four additional individuals have been involved in the Alternatives Program. They are re-entering the community and need mental health services. He said that there is a significant relationship between re-entering a community successfully and being able to stay out of difficulty.
Mobile Crisis Coordinator Malinda Lamb said that she has run more detailed numbers. She said that she broke down the details more by person. She tried to come up with figures for how much time an individual spent in jail before alternative treatments and then after being in the program. She said that the numbers are rough estimates. Lamb explained that she also looked at the cost of medications per day. She offered a handout of this information for the 35 people who have been served by the Alternative Programs. She said that she also goes into the patient’s assistance program for medications. Stutsman said that it looks like in total, the County has saved almost $1,000. Lamb said that is right as far as medication goes. Lehman said that several are still incarcerated and wondered what their case is. Lamb said that those individuals were still incarcerated as of July 18, 2006, so it may be that the individual was still being interviewed for placement. Some of those individuals are out now. Lehman wondered if it would count as incarceration if an individual were just waiting for their sentence.
Lehman asked if the prescription drug cards were making a difference. Lamb said that she gathered the pricing information from the Waterfront Hy-Vee and figured that the cards are saving the County money. Lehman asked if they are anticipating things slowing down. Lamb said it goes in spurts. She said that last week, they had eight referrals but the week before that, they only had one. She thought it was hard to predict. She noted that they are pretty busy and doesn’t anticipate any slowing down soon. Lehman asked if there are costs being incurred as people identify the services they might need. Lamb said some go through Johnson County and some go through other counties or through State programs. Stutsman asked what the feedback was from the two conferences. Lamb said that they presented at the conference in Kansas City and it was a lot of larger departments of corrections. She noted that some people did contact them wanting to start up programs, but it was mostly departments of corrections at the conference. At the other conference, people were interested in how Johnson County did their program and what barriers they had and how they overcame those barriers. She said that Johnson County stood out as a leader at those conferences.
Schut said that the Substance Abuse program started in November 2005 with a couple of months of start up. From January 2006 through June 2006, the program has been relatively consistent. It provides substance abuse assessment services for those who are in jail for Operating While Intoxicated or other substance-related charges. The court decides whether or not individuals are indigent and need assistance to pay for the assessment. The intent is to make sure that people who are ordered to receive assessments get the assessments done in a timely manner. One of the problems of substance abuse is that showing up for things is hard to do. A MECCA staff person goes to the initial appearance and then the staff assesses the person for substance abuse concerns. Each evaluation takes approximately 60 minutes and then another 60 minutes spent completing the written report and contacting involved persons such as family members and social workers. The goal is to do seven to twelve assessments per week. In November through June, they had staff members at 167 initial court appearances. There were 120 court requests for assessments and 109 assessments completed. Eleven people declined. There were 18 other assessments done and paid through another mechanism. University of Iowa students were not assessed there. They are sent to Student Health to do the assessment for free. From January to June 2006, staff members attended court appearances on 126 days and completed 96 of the 107 assessments requested. There were 16 assessments done at the request of the individual or their attorney or mental health services provider.
Harney asked about the eleven people who declined assessments. He asked if the people were court ordered to take the assessment. Schut said that the court orders people to have a discussion with the assessment counselor. The court does not order them to do the assessment at that time. In 2006, 81 individuals had substance abuse concerns that resulted in treatment recommendations. There was no treatment for 15 people. There was extended outpatient care for 36 people, intensive outpatient care for 32, and residential treatment for 13 individuals. There are five people at MECCA who are trained to provide the assessments.
Neuzil asked if there is any way to measure contempt. Schut said that they talked about contempt numbers at one point, but he doesn’t have that information with him. Neuzil said that without this program, they know that some of these folks would not have gone through this process. Thus, they would have been in jail longer. Schut said they could look at those figures. Neuzil said that as they measure potential days saved in terms of jail time, this would be good to look at. R. Sullivan said he thought that seven to ten assessments would have added up to more on the total numbers than they were given. Schut said it varies. R. Sullivan asked if it is because they were anticipating more indigent folks than there were or because people are not qualifying. R. Sullivan said that if it were seven per week for 32 weeks, the figure would be around 220. Schut said that in the first month, there were only nine people, and in December there were only four due to start up. He said that over the last six months, there were 103 people. R. Sullivan said that he doesn’t mean to be critical. He was just trying to figure out if they had overestimated the number of people who would need treatment. White added that of the 96 assessments done, 81 needed some form of treatment.
Pulkrabek said that he thought the contempt numbers would come from the Attorney’s Office. White said that the contempt numbers would need to be surveyed on a case-by-case process especially now that Judge Gerard has pretty aggressively started running his own contempt docket of 30 or 40 a day, twice a month. Some of these are for financial reasons or substance abuse, but they would have to pull each file to figure out why. White said that if they are going to do a statistical analysis, they are probably going to have to pick a window of time and compare their sample group with the non-sample group. They could do this for a one-month period. Pulkrabek said that they couldn’t take just one month because the numbers would be inaccurate. White said that once the program leveled out, it could be done. He added that they could do two months to make sure. Pulkrabek said that it would be a huge task, but he was thinking of plucking out 3 months out of the year. He said he doesn’t know how they could get that done though. White said that perhaps an undergraduate intern could do something like that. White said that at this point, he wouldn’t put a really high priority on statistical analysis because there is one more step yet to take. He thought they need to go on to treatment evaluation. He said that his personal time will run out on the committee. Once they have the indigent assessment going, then he thinks they ought to talk about going on to the 81 of the 96 people who need some treatment. They could look at a subsidy for those people. He said that MECCA already does some, but there is room for the County to facilitate the treatment.
Stutsman asked if the Court has to order treatment. White said that they order evaluation and treatment. Schut said that people who are ordered to treatment are more persistent. Schut said the outcomes are as good or better than those who enter voluntarily. He said that as people progress through treatment, their minds are not impaired by drug or alcohol use, so they are more likely to stay engaged. Schut said that as far as space issues, the Board had wanted some more information and that is in the handout. He said there is basically one space in the jail to provide those activities; it cannot be used to do more than one thing at one time. There are issues around scheduling in that some activities like depositions are unpredictable. The transportation of prisoners interrupts programming and services. Schut also said that the jail has done some things in terms of not moving people out of county at the beginning in order to provide proper services. He noted that prisoners have to eat, have visitors, inmate counseling, medication, and so on. So, there is not a lot of time to schedule other activities. This is a significant problem. He noted that the Sheriff’s Department has done a great job of scheduling what limited jail space there is.
Schut explained that specific space needs involve a consultation space for depositions, legal representation, religious activities, probation, substance abuse, and mental health interviews. He noted that digital evidence is being used more frequently, so allowance needs to be made to utilize that media. The current visiting space is limited to four prisoners at a time. Then, the people who are waiting to visit need a space to wait. There is a need for a day reporting center and for on-site medical and dental services. Recreation spaces are limited both inside and out. The library space is limited and has had to be used for a variety of other functions. Pulkrabek said that the library essentially does not exist anymore. Schut said that there is little flexibility right now in terms of being able to isolate prisoners for their own protection or for the protection of others. There is really not sufficient space for religious services or programs. There is not volunteer space for people who help with life skills or GED training. There is also an issue around juveniles adjudicated to adult court. He said it is his understanding that those individuals need to be isolated by sight and sound from the adult population even though they are being held on adult charges. They also don’t have enough space for providing alternative treatments.
Lehman asked if they could include this information on space issues in the RFQ. Schut clarified that no one believes that every single activity needs its own space, but they do need more spaces to use for these things. Stutsman asked how much it costs for treatment of a prisoner. Schut said it depends on the exact treatment. If they did treatment on-site, it would be different than if they went to MECCA. He said that they did an experimental pilot project with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. In these cases, they increased comprehensive case management. Someone in conjunction with the treatment services does wrap-around services. That has been successful in enhancing follow-through and interrupting relapses. Stutsman asked if it is safe to say that most of these people are indigent. Schut said it is hard to be functional enough to have adequate income.
R. Sullivan said that in Boulder, Colorado, they just hired eight full-time case managers to tackle that population. Stutsman asked if an assessment allows them to figure out which people would be successful in a treatment program, or do they assume that everyone would be successful. R. Sullivan said that there is a judgment made regarding whom would benefit. Stutsman asked if everyone is eligible for treatment. R. Sullivan said that everyone is eligible. He said that one thing that he thinks the mental health treatment has been better at than the substance abuse treatment is that the mental health system understands that there are people who have severe and persistent problems and that those people need persistent support over time. He compared this to being severely asthmatic or having diabetes that requires on-going care. He said that there is a group of folks who have substance abuse problems that have similar issues; they need on-going support.
Harney asked if there is any additional treatment being offered to help with the issues that go along with the casino. Schut said that State-funded gambling services exist. Harney wondered if it ties back into crime. Schut said they could assess that. Schut explained that there are many co-occurring disorders. Lehman said that the casinos pay into a State fund to assist with gambling addiction. Neuzil said that this information about the limited space could be put on the website to enhance the case for a new facility.
White suggested the Board put an item on their formal agenda to bring the Jail Diversion Program off pilot status. He said that they need to take the word ‘pilot’ off of the program because it is clear that it has gotten glowing reviews and has become a permanent program. White added that if they take a total of 13,059 jail days before the program contact and the 224 after the program, they could make an argument that this program has saved 1,100 jail bed days. Neuzil suggested that they have Schut come back when they have more members of the public and the press present.
R. Sullivan said that another important consideration is that in 1999 leading to the referendum in 2000, money was important but not the only thing. There was a strong sense that if people need treatment and are not getting it, they wanted that fixed. There seemed to be an understanding that this would cost money, maybe even more. If they can report back that the cost of treatment is the same or less, that would be great, said R. Sullivan.
Neuzil said he is curious in regards to the consultant if they are going to give an appropriate time to move forward on the project. Lehman asked if they should set a timetable. Neuzil said that when the consultants are a part of that discussion, they need to hear some of those short- and long-term ideas about the future of the Courthouse. Lehman said that when they get a return on the RFQ, that may help them establish a timeline or goals for the next steps. Harney said there a lot of factors that contribute to the timeline of the project but that hearing back about the RFQ will certainly help.
M. Sullivan reported that the next meeting will be on October 11, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary