Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
1
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
CORRECTIONS,
JAILS DIVISION

Local System Assessment
Washtenaw County

Ann Arbor, MI
October 7-9, 2003
Executive Summary,
Findings & Recommendations
TA 04 J1007
Consultants:
Robert Gibson
Robert Aguirre
_______________________________________________________________________
2
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Summary
Washtenaw County is a good place to live from the standpoint of public safety. The
crime rate is low and the county has an extremely low incarceration rate.
This situation greatly decreases expenditures– a particularly nice situation.
The county and courts reflect the county’s population in that the officials are intellectually
sophisticated and very capable. They strive to operate the county using modern
concepts to provide effective and efficient government. The County has conducted or
coordinated many collaborative activities and designed multi-agency planning sessions
such as the “Communities of Interest” meetings which will provide a great foundation for
many of the recommendations in this report. Washtenaw County has the political will,
knowledge, skills and abilities to manage its justice as well or better than any county in
the nation.
The courts, along with the prosecutor and public defenders office, supported by the
county, have instituted major changes in court organization and processes that have
increased efficiency and effectiveness and decreased the jail population over the years.
They have even pushed this farther during the past year with the encouragement of the
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Despite these facts, it is possible to have too low of an incarceration rate if all criminal
justice system officials, including the defense, say that there is not enough jail space.
Almost all policy makers and staffs say that they have to work hard to suppress their
usage of the jail. Operations are being affected in law enforcement, the courts,
alternative programs and more. The county is already addressing this issue by providing
a professional analysis of the space needs by an architectural firm with the intent of
including a jail expansion within the next budget cycle.
There several recommendations that are critical to fulfill if the Washtenaw County justice
system is to be able to carry their good work forward. The first primary recommendation
is that the county formalize and institutionalize their collaborative experience by creating
a Criminal Justice Collaboration Council. The county has had many similar bodies over
time, such as Community Corrections oversight body; however, the mission of CJCC is
more comprehensive. Community Corrections should be an arm of the CJCC and it
should include all of the principals of the justice system, to include the county.
The county should improve the justice information systems. The jail, courts and
community corrections seriously lack the information necessary to properly manage. If
the county is to continue to move forward using modern management processes then
better information is a critical ingredient. Building additional bed space will not resolve
the need to continually focus on better alternative programs and that means using jail
information to identify the which lower risk populations exist and the tight measurement
of community corrections (in general) programs that are effective with particular subpopulations.
_______________________________________________________________________
3
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Findings
Washtenaw County Criminal Justice System;
There are a lot of right things going on in Washtenaw County.
1. Washtenaw County is a relatively safe community. Crime rates are relatively low
as recorded in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and have not been
increasing, as has the population, during the past several years. There are some
intuitive thoughts by law enforcement officers that there may have been a recent
increase but the most recent data is not available from the state yet.
2. Washtenaw compounds this good news by having a very relatively low
incarceration rate. Almost all criminal justice system officials say that the
incarceration rate is too low but it is clear that the community is using very
expensive jail cells very carefully. This appears to also reflect Washtenaw County
community values.
3. Washtenaw County officials reflect their community in that they are intellectually
sophisticated and have a very strong desire to operate well maintained, modern
managed operations. This applies to county administration, courts, jail,
prosecutor’s office, community corrections, and more.
4. Local Citizens are very comfortable with justice operations and their sense of
safety and wellbeing – perhaps too comfortable for their maximum safety. While
the technical assistance providers were onsite for a very short time this impression
was gained when talking to municipal and county elected officials.
5. The County is in tough economic times but is still in relatively good shape. Homes
and commercial building is continuing at a brisk pace and the county is growing
rapidly and expanding its tax base.
6. There is a history of effective collaboration amongst the various justice system
actors in the county.
7. There is a very sophisticated group of citizenry throughout the community and as
well as within the government agencies. Washtenaw County has an extremely
competent and intellectually diverse talent pool from which to draw. This
permeates the local governments in many ways.
8. There is a history of effective collaboration amongst the various county and justice
system actors within the county. Washtenaw County has all of the skills and
talent needed to manage its own justice system. There have been (and are
ongoing) many efforts with varying degrees of success to marshal and coordinate
the many agencies and people involved in justice system management and
_______________________________________________________________________
4
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
operations. These efforts are working but do not go far enough and the process is
not institutionalized along the lines of a permanent criminal justice collaboration
council, CJCC, (see addendum related to CJCCs). The legislatively mandated
community corrections council is similar but has a much less comprehensive
mission than does a traditional CJCC.
9. The court, prosecutor, defense and other justice systems officials have made
considerable policy and process changes that appropriately expedite cases of
defendants in jail.
Examples include the creation of the unified court system through which the courts
have established an efficiency design for all defendants by centralizing all
preliminary exams. All courts hear all cases which has reportedly decreased
average jail days significantly. District Court can take pleas and violation of
probation cases are brought before the court in within one working day. The
courts are leading a renewed effort to work with the prosecutor and defense to
institute additional case processing measures specifically focused on incarcerated
inmates. This is being done in conjunction with a statewide effort of the Michigan
Supreme Court.
10. At the moment the county may be on the verge of being caught in the politics of
immobility – or not. Washtenaw County and the courts can possibly fall into
unnecessary and debilitating disagreements or it can surge ahead with the many
extraordinary efforts that are being organized implemented by both the county and
the courts.
11. Decision support information is severely inadequate. There is not enough
management information in useful formats to be able to operate the criminal
justice system in a modern way. There is no way to manage this very complex
and sophisticated system of courts and county agencies properly without more
information – not just data – but information. This especially includes the jail,
community corrections and the courts.
There are exceptions that include the prosecutor’s office and community
corrections. The latter is included in both categories because of the prodigious
efforts of its former manager. Even so, this woefully inadequate data system
requires a gargantuan amount of effort each time and it undermines the functions
of that office.
12. The jail is crowded and too small. All criminal justice agency personnel agree –
from law enforcement to the courts, the prosecutor and defense, probation and
community corrections.
13. Because of the size of the jail there is a lot of suppressed usage of the jail by the
courts, all local law enforcement agencies, probation and parole, community
corrections, and even alternative programs.
_______________________________________________________________________
5
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Alternative program staffs say that their programs are less effective if there is not
a realistic chance that termination results in jail. Law enforcement reports that
their actual operations are impacted because they will not be able to arrest and jail
defendants caught in an operation. Courts are stymied both in setting bail, dealing
with violations of probation and sentencing offenders.
14. The County is working right now to provide additional jail capacity. There is a
concurrent study by an architectural firm to examine the jail facilities with the intent
to prepare a plan for the upcoming budget cycle. Assuming that it will be a
credible study then this is going to help respond the finding mentioned above.
15. Pretrial defendants make up a majority of the jail population. This may be more
due to the ability of the courts to influence the jail population through sentencing
practices than it is to control law enforcement arrests even through the bonding
process. With very limited jail space and the population constantly at or beyond
capacity, then any increase in one area’s workload will result in a decrease
somewhere else. This may result in the jail being used for higher risk pretrial
detainees as opposed to a facility used for punishment or sanction of lower risk
offenders.
Changes in laws and operational changes have an impact as well. For example,
the state has a mandatory arrest requirement for defendants charged with
domestic violence. The county also has a very large federal grant that enhances
law enforcement and prosecution and other resources that are specifically focused
on arresting and prosecuting persons charged with domestic violence. Persons
charged with domestic violence offenses now make up the single largest inmate
sub-category. What will happen when the grant ends?
There may be a new effort to criminalize a much greater number of persons who
are delinquent on paying child support. If this is implemented, it is unclear what
impact will it have.
Other pretrial concerns include inconsistent bond setting at the initial hearings, not
enough defendant information at the time of the bond setting, not enough
alternative programs for pretrial (or sentenced inmates), and warrants are not
centralized.
16. Many officials said that they do not believe that there are enough alternative
programs for either pretrial or sentenced inmates. Community corrections has a
number of programs but they are very limited in size and resources. And despite
the best efforts of the community corrections office, there is not very much
analysis of programs to determine not just whether particular programs are
successful or not but which programs are successful with whom. Even the best
program is successful with some kinds of people and not with others.
_______________________________________________________________________
6
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
17. Officials agree that there are not enough mental health and ADA services
available. There is a bit of controversy over how well the available resources are
used and whether they provide the right mix of services.
18. There are a number of law enforcement issues surrounding the change in policy of
having the Sheriff no longer independently patrol non-incorporated areas of the
County. There is no recommendation because this is a policy decision.
_______________________________________________________________________
7
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Recommendations
1. Reconfigure the various justice systems’ committees into a Washtenaw
County Criminal Justice Collaborating Council.
Washtenaw County should create a permanent Criminal Justice Collaboration Council
and ensure that it includes all of the principals of the primary agencies involved in the
criminal justice system. One of this policy group’s objectives is to resolve the questions
about the jail, but the Mission is to manage the system. This should be an official
collegial body with explicit mission statement, governing rules and strategic plan.
2. Provide the CJCC with a Coordinator whose time is dedicated to provide
services for the Council.
One agency should provide personnel to staff the CJCC for planning and other support
needs. The staff assigned must have enough time to do the job properly and collect the
right information for this group to use. It can be the most important and effective action
the county can take in the long term and short term. Especially as it pertains to the jail,
the information gatherer can literally save the county hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, in the years ahead.
3. Conduct a strategic planning session for the Council soon and prepare a total
criminal justice system plan.
Washtenaw County should prepare a Public Safety Strategic Management Plan that
provides the community with an overall public safety design and an improved jail. It
should include a more detailed population analysis that projects the kind of correctional
services, including different kinds of jail beds, needed in Washtenaw County. It should
take into consideration Washtenaw County criminal justice system policies and practices
to include pretrial and sentencing practices along with the use of community alternative
programs currently in operation and others that might be implemented. This should be
done immediately, in conjunction with the other recommendations regarding planning.
A part of this plan should include an overall community education and outreach group to
help educate the citizens without alarming them as to the realistic needs of the justice
system and to gather information from the citizenry about their needs, wants and views.
4. Prepare an information plan that defines the information needed to serve the
council and staffs of the various agencies.
An information collection and analysis plan should be created that will be used to prepare
a template for data and information that the CJCC thinks is needed to regularly monitor
_______________________________________________________________________
8
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
the system. This should be included in the strategic plan and involve the jail and each of
the other major components in the local criminal justice system. Each agency should
design a plan to identify what they should be collecting to track performance and impact
information. They should want to determine what is happening, what is working and
what can be improved. This should be done immediately, in conjunction with the other
recommendations regarding planning.
Specifically the three information systems and processes that should be improved
substantially and as soon as practical are the jail, the courts and community corrections.
Improve each of their automated and non-automated information systems so that they
can generate management information reports that portray the detailed makeup,
processes and success of services provided.
As mentioned in the Findings (above) state laws, policy changes and the like can have a
tremendous impact on the justice system. Information should be available to be able to
plan for known changes such as the domestic violence mandatory arrest law or the
implementation of a federal grant that pours millions of dollars into the arrest and
prosecution of offenders charged with domestic violence. If the same kind of event is
beginning to increase the criminalization of Child-Support scofflaws then Washtenaw
County can prepare in advance on how to deal with it.
Defendants and offenders in jail and alternative programs should be tracked to determine
which services are effective with whom. Which programs more effectively reduce
recidivism, drug use, etc., with which sub-populations? No county in the United States
has more citizenry who understand the complexity of such questions and how to
measure them than Washtenaw County.
5. Review the current ongoing jail study and consider the adequacy of the
facility within the new criminal justice strategic plan. Increase the number of beds
in the corrections facility.
The current jail is inadequate in terms of space. Determining how much more space is
needed requires much more work and thought by Washtenaw County officials. The
County is doing just that and has commissioned a study with the intent to include
additional bed space in the next budget cycle.
6. Expand programs in the jail with their continuation in the community.
To the degree that is practical under current circumstances consider additional
programming that is connected to programs within the community. More information is
needed to examine both the jail population and the community corrections needs for
Washtenaw County. This should be a very high priority because as more bed space is
added it will be filled to capacity and it should not be the only correctional resource that is
expanded. But alternative programs should be chosen based on an analysis of the
population based on a matrix of factors.
_______________________________________________________________________
9
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
7. Consider other kinds of facilities and programs to include pre-booking
screening and assessment services.
It is clear that pretrial defendants are a major issue within the population so Washtenaw
should consider creating an up-front screening and assessment process that allows the
county to make the best decisions based on professional experience and metrics to
decide what corrections and treatment environments will be the most effective. This can
also lead to a much more clear idea as to what programs are needed to make effective
interventions.
The same basic process can be applied to both pretrial defendants sentenced offenders
in the same place – a defendant/offender management center.
8. Notify the Public Defender’s Office of Appointments Immediately by Electronic
Means
This is a very discrete and specific recommendation because it stands out in the
discussions of the larger issues and it impacts so many defendants that it should be able
to be resolved immediately using a little ingenuity.
_______________________________________________________________________
10
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The Report
_______________________________________________________________________
11
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Disclaimer
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Corrections
1960 Industrial Circle
Longmont Colorado, 80501
RE: NIC T.A. 02 J1041
This technical assistance activity was funded by the Jails Division of the National Institute
of Corrections. The institute is a Federal agency established to provide assistance to
strengthen state and local correctional agencies by creating more effective, humane,
safe, and just correctional services.
The resource person who provided the on-site technical assistance did so through a
cooperative agreement at the request of the Washtenaw County and through the
coordination of the National Institute of Corrections. The direct on-site assistance and
the subsequent report are intended to assist the agency in addressing the issues outlined
in the original request and in efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the agency.
The contents of this document reflect the views of Robert Gibson and Robert Aguirre and
do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the National Institute of Corrections.
_______________________________________________________________________
12
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Washtenaw County, Michigan
Local System Assessment
Table of Contents
I. Findings ......................................................................................................................4
II. Recommendations .....................................................................................................8
III. Background ............................................................................................................. 17
IV.
Request for Assistance ...................................................................................... 17
III.
Forward ............................................................................................................... 19
V. The Jail Population ................................................................................................... 20
VI. The Washtenaw County Jail Facility ..................................................................... 51
VII.
Crime and Criminal Justice in Washtenaw County ......................................... 59
Prosecution ..................................................................................................................... 65
Judiciary and the Courts.................................................................................................. 72
Washtenaw County Court Case Filings ........................................................................... 74
Criminal Defense ............................................................................................................. 86
Community Corrections, Probation and Pretrial Alternatives ........................................... 88
Sheriff’s Office ................................................................................................................. 92
County Administration ..................................................................................................... 92
Treatment Resources: Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse .................................... 93
Criminal Justice System Management ............................................................................ 94
System Information ......................................................................................................... 95
VIII. Community Meeting .............................................................................................. 98
_______________________________________________________________________
13
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Index of Charts
CHART 1 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, TOTAL JAIL BED DAYS PER YEAR, 19972002......................................................................................................................................... 22
CHART 2 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION, 1981-2001
................................................................................................................................................. 23
CHART 3 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, BOOKINGS, 1997-2002 .................................. 25
CHART 4 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, ALOS, 1997-2002 .............................................. 26
CHART 5 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION AVERAGE DAILY
POPULATION AS A PERCENT OF JAIL CAPACITY, 1997-2002 .............................. 27
CHART 6 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION ADP BY LEGAL STATUS AS
A PERCENT OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, FOR THE 2002. ............................... 28
CHART 7 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION SNAPSHOT ON APRIL 29,
2003 BY LEGAL STATUS AS A PERCENT OF THE WHOLE POPULATION. ....... 29
CHART 8 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION: FIVE SNAPSHOTS – OCT.
2001, MAR. 2002, SEP. 2002, MAR. 2003, SEP. 2003 BY LEGAL STATUS AND
CHARGE LEVEL AS A PERCENT . ................................................................................ 30
CHART 9 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION: FIVE SNAPSHOTS – OCT.
2001, MAR. 2002, SEP. 2002, MAR. 2003, SEP. 2003 BY LEGAL STATUS AND
CHARGE LEVEL AND VIOLENT AS PERCENT OF THE POPULATION .............. 31
CHART 10 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
UNSENTENCED POPULATION BY MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002
................................................................................................................................................. 32
CHART 10-A WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION SNAPSHOT APRIL 29,
2003, BY KIND OF CHARGE BY PERCENT. ................................................................. 33
CHART 11 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: BOOKINGS - UNSENTENCED
POPULATION BY MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002........................... 34
CHART 12 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: ALOS - UNSENTENCED POPULATION BY
MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002. ............................................................ 35
CHART 13 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
SENTENCED POPULATION BY MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002 . 36
CHART 14 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: BOOKINGS - SENTENCED POPULATION
BY MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002 ...................................................... 37
CHART 15 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL: ALOS - SENTENCED POPULATION BY
MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES, 1997-2002 ............................................................. 38
CHART 16 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY MONTH: MARCH 1999DECEMBER 2000 ................................................................................................................ 39
CHART 17 WASHTENAW COUNTY MALE AND FEMALE JAIL POPULATIONS BY
MONTH: MARCH 1999- DECEMBER 2000 ................................................................... 40
CHART 18 WASHTENAW COUNTY FEMALE JAIL POPULATION BY MONTH:
MARCH 1999- DECEMBER 2000...................................................................................... 41
CHART 19 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY BY PERCENT 1996 – 2003. ......................................................................... 42
_______________________________________________________________________
14
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
CHART 20 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY AGE CATEGORY BY
MONTH: MARCH 1999 – DECEMBER 2000 (MISSING DECEMBER 1999-MARCH
2000) ....................................................................................................................................... 43
CHART 21 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY AGE CATEGORY BY
MONTH BY PERCENT MARCH 1999 – DECEMBER 2000 (MISSING DECEMBER
1999-MARCH 2000) ............................................................................................................. 44
IT APPEARS THAT THE POPULATION DATA MAY INCLUDE THE HOUSED-IN
INMATES, THOSE FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS, AND SO THE AUTHORS WANT
TO ENSURE THAT THAT DATA IS PRESENTED. .......................................................... 45
CHART 22 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL POPULATION: HOUSING-IN AVERAGE
DAILY POPULATION, 1997 – 2002. ................................................................................. 45
MORE INFORMATION TO MANAGE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: ....................... 46
CHART 23 WASHTENAW COUNTY UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS, OFFENSES
REPORTED, INDEX AND NON-INDEX 1997-2001 ....................................................... 60
CHART 24 WASHTENAW COUNTY ARRESTS, INDEX AND NON-INDEX CRIMES,
1997-2001 ............................................................................................................................... 61
CHART 25 MULTI-COUNTY CROSS COMPARISON OF CRIME RATE, ARREST
RATE AND JAIL CAPACITY............................................................................................ 62
CHART 26 REQUESTS FOR PROSECUTION IN WASHTENAW COUNTY 2000 – 2003
BY FELONY AND MISDEMEANORS ............................................................................. 66
CHART 27 SCREENING BY PROSECUTION IN WASHTENAW COUNTY 2002:
DECLINED AND APPROVED........................................................................................... 67
CHART 28 DISPOSITIONS BY PROSECUTION IN WASHTENAW COUNTY 2002:
MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY. ..................................................................................... 68
CHART 29 WASHTENAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FELONY CASE
DISPOSITIONS BY TYPE OF DISPOSITION 2002 ...................................................... 69
CHART 30 WASHTENAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE MISDEMEANOR
CASE DISPOSITIONS BY TYPE OF DISPOSITION 2002 ........................................... 70
CHART 31 WASHTENAW COUNTY FELONY COURT FILINGS, 1993-2002................. 75
CHART 32 WASHTENAW COUNTY CAPITOL CASE COURT FILINGS, 1993-2002. .. 75
CHART 33 WASHTENAW COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FILINGS, 15, 1997-2002. ....... 76
CHART 34 WASHTENAW COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FILINGS, 14B, 1997-2002. .... 76
CHART 35 WASHTENAW COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FILINGS, 14A, 1997-2002. .... 78
CHART 36 WASHTENAW COUNTY: PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER FILINGS,
1997-2002. .............................................................................................................................. 78
CHART 37 EXAMPLE COUNTY: AVERAGE COURT CASE PROCESSING TIMES
BETWEEN EVENTS, 1997-2001. ....................................................................................... 80
CHART 38 EXAMPLE COUNTY MEDIAN COURT CASE PROCESSING TIME
BETWEEN EVENTS, 1997-2001. ....................................................................................... 81
CHART 39 EXAMPLE COUNTY COURT: CF DISPOSITIONS BY TYPE OF
DISPOSITION 2000-2002 .................................................................................................... 83
CHART 40 EXAMPLE COUNTY COURT: TIME TO DISPOSITION BY PERCENT OF
ALL DISPOSITIONS, ACCUMULATIVE ....................................................................... 84
CHART 41 EXAMPLE COUNTY COURT: NUMBER OF CASES BY TIME TO
DISPOSITION, ACCUMULATIVE ................................................................................... 85
CHART 42 WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, TIME TO RELEASE IN DAYS .................... 89
_______________________________________________________________________
15
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Index of Tables
TABLE 1: EXAMPLE OF MONITORING POPULATION COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
................................................................................................................................................. 47
TABLE 2 EXAMPLE: MONITOR POPULATIONS COLLECTION INSTRUMENT....... 48
TABLE 3 MONITOR POPULATION BY SELECTED CHARGES...................................... 49
TABLE 4 MONITOR POPULATION BY CLASSIFICATION ............................................ 50
TABLE 5: EXAMPLE COUNTY: AVERAGE COURT CASE PROCESSING TIME
BETWEEN EVENTS WITH CHANGES FROM YEAR TO YEAR.............................. 79
TABLE 6: MEDIAN COURT CASE PROCESSING TIME BETWEEN EVENTS ............ 82
TABLE 7 PRETRIAL RELEASE PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTION TABLE ...... 90
_______________________________________________________________________
16
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
III. Background
According to one of the information websites, “Washtenaw County is located in the
southeast section of Michigan’s lower peninsula. It is a major metropolitan area best
known as a major educational center. The University of Michigan, the first state university
in the nation, was moved from Detroit to Ann Arbor, the county seat, in 1837. A few years
later in 1852, Eastern Michigan University was formed in Ypsilanti, becoming the first
teachers’ college outside the 13 colonies. These institutions served as the focal point for
the development of what has become one of the leading medical research and
technology centers in the world, with many corporations and businesses choosing to
make their home here.”1
Washtenaw County is a mature and
sophisticated set of communities
that is growing at a quick pace – 14
234,103 264,748 282,937 322,895 326,627 percent in the last decade. Despite
that growth rate there has not been
a concomitant increase in crime –
%
+13%
+7%
+14%
+1%
which is good news for the whole
Change
community and complimentary to
the criminal justice community. No doubt the economy plays a significant role but
economic expansion does no preclude increases in crime, especially in growing
communities.
Washtenaw County Population Growth 1970-2001
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
During the same period, however, the jail population has been increasing and according
to the wide range of local justice system professionals interviewed by the authors there is
much suppression of jail use by each and every one of them – i.e., they say the jail is too
small and that they would use more space if it were available to them. This means that
the fact of chronic jail crowding influences judges as they make bond and sentencing
decisions, probation officers and community corrections staff as they make violation
decisions, and treatment providers as they try to enforce treatment required by courts. It
is believed that the alternative programs are less effective because clients may believe
that unless they really-really mess-up they will not be violated.
What is really happening in Washtenaw County?
IV.
Request for Assistance
Sheriff Daniel Minzey requested the assistance of the National Institute of Corrections
(NIC), Jails Division, to help Washtenaw County officials and citizens examine their
criminal justice system. Ms. Fran Zandi, NIC Corrections Program Specialist, responded
to Washtenaw County’s request by having them submit an application for a Local System
1
Website: www.ewashtenaw.org
_______________________________________________________________________
17
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Assessment (LSA). This allows the community to select two consultants to conduct an
LSA of Washtenaw County's criminal justice system. In this event, Washtenaw County
officials chose Robert Gibson and Robert Aguirre. Gibson is a private national consultant
specializing in local criminal justice systems, jails, information and management
information systems. Robert Aguirre is also a national corrections consultant in addition
to working as a Community Corrections specialist in Lapeer County, Michigan. Gibson
and Aguirre worked with Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office Commander, Kirk Filsinger,
to coordinate the local systems analysis effort, which included collecting system data,
setting appointments to interview key criminal justice system and county officials, and
arrange for a community meeting. Specifically, the technical assistance providers
worked with Commander Filsinger and County administration analysts Scott Patton and
Amy Klinke to:











Prepare a request for information from Washtenaw County officials,
Review information collected and prepared by county officials,
Collect additional data and prepare it for presentation,
Tour and assess the existing jail facility,
Interview key members of the county and criminal justice system,
Examine local criminal justice system processes, management and management
information systems,
Review system-wide data collection and analysis needs,
Examine criminal justice system-wide management processes,
Assess Washtenaw County's capacity to develop or modify its criminal justice
components in a way that enhances the system,
Conduct a one-day System Assessment Meeting: Present and discuss information
about current jail use. This includes such issues as new or other community
correction programs options, court case processing issues, law enforcement
practices, prosecution and defense case screening and management, non-local
jurisdiction agency issues, pretrial and bond issues, sentencing policies, and state
laws impact,
Prepare a report of findings and recommendations.
Gibson and Aguirre would like to thank Staff members in the sheriff's office, the County
Administrator’s Office, as well as those of the courts and the many other Washtenaw
County offices who were most helpful. Gibson and Aguirre would like to give a special
thanks to Jail Commander Filsinger, and County Administration analysts, Scott Patton
and Amy Klinke, who supported and guided the consultants and ensured the success of
the onsite visit.
Michael Griebel and Henry Pittner of Healy, Snyder, Bender & Associates, Inc.,
Washtenaw County’s jail facility consultants, joined Gibson and Aguirre in most of their
conversations because of their common need to obtain systems information and all
concerned worked very cooperatively to help ensure a most efficient and effective
process for Washtenaw County.
_______________________________________________________________________
18
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
III.
November 2003
Forward
The goal of this effort is to enable Washtenaw County officials involved directly and
indirectly in the criminal justice system to assertively manage their local system. The
process should give these officials and the community an idea of how much information,
knowledge and talent already exists in the local community – all of which can be used to
create a more modern management system that focuses on “net public safety
provided to the public for resources expended.” All policies and actions across the
system must be examined with the “net public safety gains for the overall community”
rather than focus on any one part of the system.
This document consists of a quick survey of the Washtenaw County criminal justice
system. The jail will be examined, but only as a part of the whole local system. While
the sheriff, as a policy maker, can influence the population in a number of ways, he has
less impact than many others actors such as judges, prosecutors, criminal defense
attorneys, law enforcement officers, probation or court services officials. Whether
Washtenaw County citizens decide to maintain, expand, or build a new county facility, if
they do not create a permanent local criminal justice management process that regularly
examines the entire process then they may repeatedly find themselves in similar
crowding situations throughout the years ahead.
This report includes a large amount of data and information collected in a very short
period of time by various Washtenaw County criminal justice system practitioners. It was
then examined and placed in charts by Mr. Gibson, but, this data and information has not
been carefully examined to determine its validity. There might be data collection errors
or any number of other issues. This analysis is not intended to be a substantive study of
the Washtenaw County criminal justice system but to present illustrative or exemplary
information about the local criminal justice system. Much more refinement of this data is
necessary.
This report is designed for both the Washtenaw County criminal justice officials, other
experts called upon in the future, and officials and citizens not familiar with criminal
justice issues. Therefore, some of the information may appear to be simplified. The
consultants would rather be accused of being overly simple rather than not being
understood.
_______________________________________________________________________
19
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
V. The Jail Population
Washtenaw County may collect a lot of jail data, however, it does not have enough
ongoing management information available for analysis of either short term or long term
population trends. Information is the most important tool a jail has available in its arsenal
to ensure that its resources are used for the best results based on local community
standards.
Just as a store does not sell all of its merchandise at the same rate neither do all
elements of a jail population increase or decrease at the same rate – some parts might
be going up while others are going down. There are scores of very important and very
different views of the jail’s population that should be examined regularly.
The population as a whole, as well as each and every part, is controlled by two elements
– how many inmates are coming in and how long they stay. If a population is changing
then one of the two, or both, are changing. If the problem is that more people are coming
into the jail, then officials can take certain kinds of actions. If the length of stay is
increasing then there is a different set of responses that should be considered.
Immediately below is the fundamental formula that should be applied to any significant
subpopulation of the jail.
POPULATION =
INCOMING X
LENGTH OF STAY
_______________________________________________________________________
20
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
If a jail population is changing then one or the other or both of the
above is changing. Either more inmates are being booked into the
jail or they are staying longer.
The jail population is determined by two factors only -- (1) the number of people booked
into the jail (Bookings) and (2) how long they stay (Average Length of Stay or ALOS).
Together these two numbers equal the Total Bed Days (TBD) used. Divide TBD by 365
and it provides the Average Daily Population (ADP) for the year. Criminal justice
managers follow these three basic numbers: the jail's Bookings, the "Average Length of
Stay" (ALOS), and the ADP.
TBD = Bookings X ALOS
Total Bed Days show exactly how jail
bed resources are used.
ADP (for one year) = Bookings X ALOS
365
The analysis should focus on ADP as a result of Bookings and ALOS. If
the population is changing then either bookings are changing or the
ALOS is changing -- or both. Charting these figures on a regular basis
provides the Washtenaw County Criminal Justice Management Group
(CJMG) with intelligence information. If bookings are increasing then
there are certain measures that can be effective. If ALOS is increasing
then managers have other kinds of tools that can be used more
effectively. And if it is both than a combination of measures can be
examined.
If Washtenaw County officials want to guide events rather than just
respond, then they must chart the population in many ways. How would
officials influence bookings? How might they influence ALOS?
_______________________________________________________________________
21
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
Another key to
examining the jail
population is to
identify the many
significant jail
subpopulations that
should be measured.
November 2003
Once these subpopulations are identified then measure
ADP, Bookings, and ALOS for each one of these
subpopulations (see data collection tables below). It is
simply a matter of applying the same three numbers to
each subgroup.
It is important to know which
subpopulations are affecting the jail at any one time –
over time. Know that pretrial inmates are impacted
differently than sentenced inmates.
To begin, the analysts, managers and policy makers
What look
are the
should
at the actual number of bed days used2. Chart 1 shows 6 years of
Washtenaw
County Jail Bed Days.
significant
subpopulations in
Washtenaw County
Jail? For example,
Washtenaw County Jail: Total Bed Days (TBD), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Total Bed Days (TBD), 1997-2002
did Domestic
Violence defendants
140000
and
offenders have
140000
as significant an
120000
impact
120000on the jail in
112055
1960 as they110230
do
113880
112055
110230
110230
113880
110230
110230
100000
110230
now?
100000
Bed Days
Bed Days
Chart 1 Washtenaw County Jail, Total Jail Bed Days per Year, 1997-2002
121910
121910
80000
80000
60000
60000
40000
40000
20000
20000
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2
A critical question is whether the information (and all referred to below) is correct? It may not be
– but if not then the authors hope that is at least reflective of the changing trends over time. And if
it is not correct then it is also clarion call to ensure that the correct information is available and
these charts are examples of some of the information needed and how it might be used.
_______________________________________________________________________
22
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
There was an eleven percent increase in the Total Jail Bed Days used between
1997 and 2002. Is that because of available space or because needs had only
increased eleven percent?
Jail Bed days is the raw data describing how much jail is being used – it is a medium of
comparison. But the most common and relative figure that is used is the ADP. What is
the average daily population and how does it compare to how much jail space is
available? This is the most common question for those concerned about the staff and
inmates in a jail.
Chart 2 Washtenaw County Jail, Average Daily Population, 1981-2001
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Total Beds Available in Jail -- Not including Classificaiton Factor
Total Beds Available in Jail -- Not including Classificaiton Factor
20 %
20 %
350
350
300
300
334
334
302
302
302
302
307
307
302
302
312
312
250
250
Inmates
Inmates
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
This chart should exactly reflect the bar graph in Chart 1 because it is simply Jail
Bed Days divided by the 365. But it puts the numbers in a usable format that
staffs, managers and policy makers find more useful for many reasons. So the
ADP shows the same eleven percent increase over these six years.
_______________________________________________________________________
23
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
If this data is correct, however, (and it may not be, see footnote below) then it shows that
the jail has been generally below capacity. But, this is seriously misleading on two
points.
The first is that a key factor in population management and safety is classification. A jail
requires up to 20 percent more bed space above the maximum population in order to
safely accommodate classification needs. If a jail can hold 100 inmates then it becomes
crowded at 80 because of classification needs. For example, staff cannot mingle certain
inmates such as males and females. There may be plenty of beds in the female housing
area but males cannot be placed there. The same applies for high risk and low risk
inmates, juveniles, and inmates with special medical or behavioral issues, etc.
The second factor in Washtenaw County’s situation (which is referred to throughout the
report) has to do with “suppressed usage” – jail space that is not used because the
primary actors that impact the jail population, judges, police, probation officers, etc., do
not use the jail to the degree they might because of the chronic overcrowding.
Suppressed usage will be discussed at greater length in other parts of this report.
The ADP is important information, which allows policy makers and managers to identify
long term trends. Ten years is the minimum time needed - twenty years is better. It is
very important to breakdown these numbers by inmate population subtype. Charts below
begin the “drill down” process – examining information in greater detail.
_______________________________________________________________________
24
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Total Average
Beds Available
Jail -- Not including
Washtenaw County Jail:
DailyinPopulation
(ADP), Classificaiton
1997-2002 Factor
20 %
350
Compare the graphs – the left is the
Average Daily Population (ADP) and the
other represents Bookings. How much
do they look alike? The more bookings
are responsible for the rise in the jail
population the greater the similarity in
their appearance.
Total Beds Available in Jail -- Not including Classificaiton Factor
20 %
350
334
300
307
302
302
300
250
302
312
302
307
302
302
334
312
Inmates
Inmates
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
1997
0
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
Years
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Years
The two charts above do not correlate with one another. The graphic presentation
shows that one is probably not the engine moving the other.
Chart 3 Washtenaw County Jail, Bookings, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Bookings, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Bookings, 1997-2002
10000
10000
9000
9000
8000
8000
9110
9110
8479
8479
7891
7891
7874
7874
Inmates
Inmates
7000
7000
8312
8312
8127
8127
6000
6000
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
If this data is correct then Bookings actually decreased by about four percent in
2002 as compared to 1997. If bookings were down and the population of the jail
increased during the same time then the ALOS must have increased. See below.
_______________________________________________________________________
25
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The third number that is critical to measure is the Average Length of Stay (ALOS).
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Total Beds
Jail --Population
Not including(ADP),
Classificaiton
Factor
Washtenaw County
Jail: Available
AverageinDaily
1997-2002
20 %
Total Beds Available in Jail -- Not including Classificaiton Factor
Once again, compare Chart 4, ALOS,
to the ADP, Chart No. 1 (left). Are
they similar? It appears that Chart 4,
correlates much more closely to Chart
to ADP.
20 %
350
350
334
300
307
302
300
302
334
312
307
302
302
250
302
312
302
200
Inmates
Inmates
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
What does this mean for Washtenaw
County?
50
0
1997
0
1997
1998
1999
1998
1999
2000
Years
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Years
Chart 4 Washtenaw County Jail, ALOS, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS), 1997-2002
16
16
14
14
12
12
15
15
14.2
14.2
13
13
14
14
13.7
13.7
12.1
12.1
Inmates
Inmates
10
10
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
The Average Length of Stay (ALOS) increased by 15 percent, from an average of
13 to 15 days per inmate over seven years. This is still not extreme and this writer
recommends a careful examination of all of the data.
_______________________________________________________________________
26
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 5 Washtenaw County Jail Population Average Daily Population as a Percent
of Jail Capacity, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) as Percent of Jail Capacity,
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) as Percent of Jail Capacity,
1997-2002
1997-2002
A jail starts to become crowded at about 80%
A capacity
jail startsbecause
to become
crowded at about
80%
of classification
needs.
capacity because of classification needs.
120%
120%
100%
100%
106%
106%
99%
99%
101%
101%
94%
94%
91%
91%
PERCENT
PERCENT
80%
80%
93%
93%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Once again the authors ask always, first, is this information correct?
The red line represents the crowding line (80%) – above which classification
becomes impacted and conditions begin to deteriorate for staff and inmates. It is
important to ask what impact the jail crowding is having on the jail staff and
inmates.
The next question is how much impact is the overcrowding having on the rest of
the system? How much more jail space would be used if all agency and
organizations were able to use the jail not to their maximum but in a reasonable
way – still leaving them wanting more but believing that public safety and
community standards are being met?
_______________________________________________________________________
27
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office staff has “drilled down” to acquire more detailed
information about their population and is in the process of breaking down these numbers
further. The next several charts will provide a more detailed examination that is
necessary to begin to understand what is happening to the jail population in Washtenaw
County.
Chart 6 Washtenaw County Jail Population ADP by Legal Status as a Percent of
the Whole Population, for the 2002.
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Legal Status, 2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Legal Status, 2002
Board In
Board In
2%
2%
Sent Misd.
Sent Misd.
21%
21%
Sent. Felons
Sent. Felons
29%
29%
Other
Other
5%
5%
Unsent Felons
Unsent Felons
28%
28%
Unsent. Misd.
Unsent. Misd.
15%
15%
Chart 6 is a one year “snapshot” of the jail population by legal status and charge
level for 2002. The snapshot clearly shows that the primary use of the jail is to
hold felons – 57 percent. Unsentenced defendants awaiting court account for 43
percent and misdemeanants account for 36 percent.
If this information is true then the local judges don’t use it for sentencing too many
misdemeanants, 21 percent. Who are the 29 percent of sentenced felons in the jail? Are
they there as a condition of probation prior to being released under community
supervision? Are they probation violators? How long are the unsentenced defendants
held in jail awaiting court? Are there alternatives for the misdemeanants that make up
more than one-third of the jail? What kinds of crimes are they in the jail for and is there
an alternative to a maximum security jail? Who are the five percent of “Others”? What
questions does this bring to Washtenaw County managers and policy makers?
_______________________________________________________________________
28
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 7 Washtenaw County Jail Population SNAPSHOT on April 29, 2003 by Legal
Status as a Percent of the Whole Population.
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshot: April 29, 2003
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshot: April 29, 2003
Hold
Hold
1%
1%
Sentenced
Sentenced
40%
40%
Pretrial
Pretrial
59%
59%
This is a very different picture. The authors do not know if the difference is
because of changes over time or whether the other data is not accurate. This
shows a much larger percent of the population is unsentenced inmates. It is
critical to accurately know this kind of information. There are different strategies
for dealing with this population than the one above. It is expected that population
make-up changes over time and will be followed very carefully by a Washtenaw
County Criminal Justice Collaboration Council.
_______________________________________________________________________
29
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 8 Washtenaw County Jail Population: Five SNAPSHOTS – Oct. 2001, Mar.
2002, Sep. 2002, Mar. 2003, Sep. 2003 by Legal Status and Charge Level as a
Percent .
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshots by Legal Status - Percent of Poulation
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshots by Legal Status - Percent of Poulation
Oct. 2001
Oct. 2001
Mar. 2002
Mar. 2002
Sep. 2002
Sep. 2002
Mar. 2003
Mar. 2003
Sep. 2003
Sep. 2003
50%
50%
45%
45%
40%
40%
Jail Population Percentage
Jail Population Percentage
35%
35%
30%
30%
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Pre Fel
Pre Fel
Sent Fel
Sent Fel
Pre Misd
Pre Misd
Category
Category
Sent Misd
Sent Misd
Hold
Hold
The title of Chart 8 should be “60-40”. This chart of five snapshots over three
years shows that there is a surprising constant in pretrial/sentenced division of
the jail, especially the pretrial population. Four of the five snapshots show pretrial
inmates at exactly 59 percent and one snapshot shows 62 percent. Sentenced
inmates fluctuate slightly – trading a couple percentage points back and forth with
the Hold population.
Washtenaw County certainly has its priorities set fairly clearly when looking at this chart.
Felons are the number one target and make up between 65 and 72 percent of the
population and Pretrial Felons are the primary focus. Again, between 19 and 26 percent
are sentence felons – who are the sentenced felons in the jail?
Sentenced
misdemeanors make up an almost constant 16 percent and pretrial defendants charged
with misdemeanors fluctuate between 13 and 18 percent.
_______________________________________________________________________
30
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 9 Washtenaw County Jail Population: Five SNAPSHOTS – Oct. 2001, Mar.
2002, Sep. 2002, Mar. 2003, Sep. 2003 by Legal Status and Charge Level and
Violent as Percent of the Population
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshots by Legal Status & Violent Charge Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshots by Legal Status & Violent Charge Percent of Poulation
Percent of Poulation
Oct. 2001
Oct. 2001
35%
35%
Mar. 2002
Mar. 2002
Sep. 2002
Sep. 2002
Mar. 2003
Mar. 2003
Sep. 2003
Sep. 2003
30%
30%
Jail Population Percentage
Jail Population Percentage
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Pre Fel V
Pre Fel V
Sent Fel V
Sent Fel V
Category
Category
Pre Misd V
Pre Misd V
Sent Misd V
Sent Misd V
The percent of the population that is charged with a violent crime seems fairly
constant – with a few spikes. It is hard to know how good the data is from
snapshots as compared to running averages. If about half of the population is
violent then what are the others in jail for? Are they high risk? What kind of
housing do they require? Are there enough alternatives for the non-violent in jail?
More drill-downs are needed.
Charts 10 through 12 examine the ADP, Bookings and ALOS of Unsentenced
inmates in the jail 1997 – 2002.
Chart 10 shows the ADP information available over several years. It continues drilling
down at the same level as the charts above. Is the data accurate? These are some of
the right data to collect. The goal is to try to identify basic subpopulation changes over
_______________________________________________________________________
31
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
time. The first of two of the fundamental categories is “legal status”– unsentenced,
sentenced. The second is “charge level” – misdemeanor and felony.
Chart 10 Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population Unsentenced
Population by Misdemeanors and Felonies, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED Average Daily Population (ADP)
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED Average Daily Population (ADP)
Felony & Misdemeanor, 1997-2002
Felony & Misdemeanor, 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
100
100
90
90
95
95
80
80
Inmates
Inmates
70
70
60
60
77
77
72
72
65
65
64
64
67
67
50
50
50
50
40
40
30
30
34
34
37
37
35
35
40
40
36
36
20
20
10
10
0
0
Felons
Felons
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Unsentenced ADP
Unsentenced ADP
Years
Years
There was a 32 percent increase in the ADP of unsentenced felons from 1997 to
2002. Interestingly, it remained relatively constant or lower for three of the
subsequent five years and jumped 42 percent in one year. If the data is correct
then what would have caused such a dramatic change in one year?
The same year, 2002, saw a 39 percent increase in the ADP of unsentenced
misdemeanors, and a 47 percent increase over the five years.
One of the questions in both of these cases is whether this is being caused by a change
in ALOS or Bookings. Charts above would indicate that it is ALOS, but, it is important to
drill down even further. Other questions that are not to be answered in this report are
whether the increases are fueled by one particular kind of charge, policy changes, law
changes, general growth, etc? These questions can be answered even if the information
is not immediately available.
_______________________________________________________________________
32
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 10-A Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshot April 29, 2003, by Kind of
Charge by Percent.
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshot: April 29, 2003
Washtenaw County Jail Population Snapshot: April 29, 2003
Safety
Safety
6%
6%
Weapons
Weapons
2% Arson
Traffic 2%
Traffic
Arson
1%
Sex 2%
1%
Sex 2%
5%
5%
Assault
Assault
11%
11%
Burglary
Burglary
11%
11%
Robbery
Robbery
7%
7%
Property
Property
10%
10%
DV
DV
15%
15%
OUIL/OWI
OUIL/OWI
7%
7%
Order
Order
4%
4%
HomicideHold
Fraud
HomicideHold
2% 1% Fraud
4%
2% 1%
4%
Drug
Drug
12%
12%
Once again, this is just a snapshot but it is useful as far as it goes. Interestingly,
Domestic Violence is the largest category followed by Drug, Burglary, and Assault.
_______________________________________________________________________
33
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 11 Washtenaw County Jail: Bookings - Unsentenced Population by
Misdemeanors and Felonies, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED BOOKINGS (Felony & Misdemeanor), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED BOOKINGS (Felony & Misdemeanor), 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
6000
6000
5329
5329
5000
5000
4569
4569
4000
4000
4544
4544
Inmates
Inmates
4140
4140
3915
3915
3000
3000
2000
2000
1904
1904
1952
1952
2162
2162
1658
1658
3581
3581
2210
22102169
2169
1000
1000
0
0
Felons
Felons
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Unsentenced Bookings
Unsentenced Bookings
Years
Years
Chart 11 shows six years of Bookings. While felony bookings increased by 14
percent, it is not responsible for the 32 percent increase in felony ADP shown on
Chart 10 over the five years. Felony Bookings actually show a decrease between
2001 and 2002 when the ADP increased 42 percent.
The unsentenced misdemeanors actually decreased over the five years with a
somewhat dramatic increase in the last year, 27 percent, which could be
responsible for a large part of the 39 percent increase in the unsentenced
misdemeanors’ ADP between 2001 and 2002. In general, misdemeanant bookings
are a bit erratic and may be more influenced by changes in policy, crowding, etc.,
certainly less so than felony bookings.
_______________________________________________________________________
34
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 12 Washtenaw County Jail: ALOS - Unsentenced Population by
Misdemeanors and Felonies, 1997-2002.
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED Average Length of Stay, ALOS,
Washtenaw County Jail: UNSENTENCED Average Length of Stay, ALOS,
Felony & Misdemeanor, 1997-2002
Felony & Misdemeanor, 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
16
16
Inmates
Inmates
6
4
2
0
2002
2002
14
14
13.8
13.8
12.1
12.1
13
13
11
11
10
10
8
2001
2001
15.9
15.9
14
14
12
12
2000
2000
8
6
4
2
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.7
4
4
0
Felons
Felons
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Unsentenced ALOS
Unsentenced ALOS
Years
Years
If this information is accurate then it shows a 15 percent increase between 1997 and
2002. But the real headline is the large drop in ALOS between 2000 and 2001 followed
by a whopping 54 percent increase, from 11 days to 16.9 days, between 2001 and 2002.
The 16.9 days looks more like an accurate number than the 11 days. When there is
such a large change, an analyst’s first thought is to ensure that there is not a data entry
error and this is followed by an examination of the original data – the latter has not been
done sufficiently.
Charts 13 through 15 examine the ADP, Bookings and ALOS of Sentenced inmates
in the jail 1997 – 2002.
_______________________________________________________________________
35
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 13 Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population Sentenced Population
by Misdemeanors and Felonies, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
120
120
100
100
118
114
112
118
114 111
112
112
111
112
97
97
Inmates
Inmates
80
80
72
72
60
60
79
79
70
70
72
72
71
71
62
62
40
40
20
20
0
0
Felons
Felons
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Sentenced ADP
Sentenced ADP
Years
Years
Chart 13 is very different than the Unsentenced charts, especially for felons, which
dropped by 18 percent during the six years. Misdemeanants increased by about
15 percent during the same period. Notice that 2002 was a large increase for
unsentenced inmates and it drops for the sentenced inmates. Did officials have to
make room at the jail by curtailing the time of the sentenced inmates?
_______________________________________________________________________
36
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 14 Washtenaw County Jail: Bookings - Sentenced Population by
Misdemeanors and Felonies, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED BOOKINGS, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED BOOKINGS, 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
1600
1600
1533
1533
1400
1400
1304
1304
1200
1200
1354
1285 1300 1354
1285 1300
Inmates
Inmates
1000
1000
1074
1074
800
800
600
600
400
400
542
542
455
490
440
411 440
490
437 455
411
437
200
200
0
0
Felons
Felons
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Sentenced Bookings
Sentenced Bookings
Years
Years
Bookings were up for sentenced felons and down (overall) for sentenced
misdemeanors, which are the opposite of the ADP – down for sentenced felons
and slightly up for misdemeanors. It does not appear that bookings are driving the
numbers. This should show in Chart 15, below.
_______________________________________________________________________
37
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 15 Washtenaw County Jail: ALOS - Sentenced Population by Misdemeanors
and Felonies, 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: SENTENCED AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS), 1997-2002
1997
1997
100
100
90
90
98.2
98.2 91.8
91.8
1998
1998
98.7
98.7
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
92.7
92.7
80
80
75.1
75.1 72.4
72.4
Inmates
Inmates
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
21.3
20
20.3
17.1
21.3
17.3
20
20.3
17.1
17.3
10
10
0
0
Felons
Felons
24.1
24.1
Misdemeanors
Misdemeanors
Sentenced ALOS
Sentenced ALOS
Years
Years
Chart 15 shows ALOS as being the driving force behind the ADP. ALOS more
than makes up for the opposite swings in the sentenced bookings categories, see
Chart 14, above. If accurate, the ALOS differences are both fairly dramatic.
Twenty-six percent decrease in the felon ALOS and a 39 percent increase in the
Sentenced Misdemeanors.
This is particularly interesting because by drilling down even to this limited extent it is
possible to see a little of the complexity involved with understanding what is happening to
the jail population. Sentenced felons are going down and sentenced misdemeanants are
going up and both appear to be driven by the ALOS and not bookings. Both felony and
misdemeanant unsentenced populations are increasing, however erratically, over the
past several years – these changes are being more driven by ALOS as well.
The fact that ALOS is generally the driving factor, as opposed to bookings, is not a given
nor is it surprising. It is important to remember that there are severe limitations on the
growth of the population because of limited jail space so it is a matter of pushing on one
_______________________________________________________________________
38
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
side and having to react on another. If one side goes then something has to give on
another.
Charts 16 through 22, below, use very limited but intensively mined data and it is an
ongoing process. It is all from Washtenaw County but only covers a limited period and
has gaps within it.
These charts are examples of some different slices of the jail
population that data might be collected on, regularly, over time.
Chart 16 Washtenaw County Jail Population by Month: March 1999- December
2000
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Month, Mar 1999-Dec 2000
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Month, Mar 1999-Dec 2000
350
350
300
300
Inmates
Inmates
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
A
M
aMr
-a9r
9-9
PAR 9
PILR
-I
M LAM
YA
JU -YJNU
ENJU EJ
LUY
A
SE UAGU L-YU
SPE GS
TPE UTS
TME - T
BM O
CO EBRE
TCO
-R
T
N
ON BOEB VOE
RE
V
D MEBM REDC
EBR
EEC
E
ME -R
Ja BMEB Jnau RER
FE naurya FBE -r0y
0
RB
UR -00
AU
R
M AYRYAM
RA
CR
HC
-H
A
PAR PILR
-IL
M AM
Y
JU AY
JNU
ENJU EA JLUY
SE UAGU L-YSPE UGS
TPE UTS
TME - T
BM O
CO EBRE
TCO
-R
T
N
ON BOEB VOE
RE
V
D MEBM REDC
EBR
EEC
E
ME -RBM
EBR
E-R
-
0
Month
Month
Chart 16 is a good example (as far as it goes in time) of what Washtenaw County
Criminal Justice Collaboration Council might look at each month – looking back at
least 12 months. In addition they would have a similar chart looking back ten
years showing annual averages. The basic design of ten years and a rolling 12
months should be repeated over and over for many different data sets.
This chart shows a very stable population over this time period – stability that is provided
by the fact of a very limited facility in terms of size so it bounces constantly between just
below greatly overcrowded and declaring overcrowded emergencies. Therefore it
appears stable. The authors continue to ask–what is the suppressed usage?
_______________________________________________________________________
39
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 17 Washtenaw County Male and Female Jail Populations by Month: March
1999- December 2000
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Sex by Month,
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Sex by Month,
March 1999-December 2000
March 1999-December 2000
350
350
300
300
250
250
Inmates
Inmates
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
M
M ar
ar -9
- 9
A 99
A PR
PR IL
MIL
M AY
A
JY JU UNN EJUEAJU LY
SEAU UGLY- SE P G US
PT TEUS TE MT
OM BO CTBE ER
C
N T O RN OVOB BE
O EE R
V
D E M RD ECMB BE
EC E E R
EM MBR- B ER
E F JaRFE EBJan n-0
B RU-0 0
R A0
U R
A Y
R
MY M arar ch
A ch
A PR
PR IL
MIL
M AY
A
JY JU UNN EJUEAJU LY
SEAU UGLY- SE P G US
PT TEUS TE MT
OM BO CTBE ER
C
N T O RN OVOB BE
O EE R
V
D E M RD ECMB BE
EC E E R
EM MBR- B ER
ER -
0
Month
Month
Chart 17 shows the male population very well and it clearly hovers within a 50
inmate count between 250 and 300. This chart does misrepresents the volatility in
the female population because of the scale of the chart used to show the male
population.
_______________________________________________________________________
40
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 18 Washtenaw County Female Jail Population by Month: March 1999December 2000
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Sex by Month,
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Sex by Month,
March 1999-December 2000
March 1999-December 2000
45
45
40
40
35
35
Inmates
Inmates
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
0
M
aMr
-a9r
9-9
A
PAR 9
PILR
M IL
AM
YA
JU -YJNU
ENJU EA JLUY
SE UAGU L-YSPE UGS
TPE UTS
TME - T
BM O
CO EBRE
TCO
-R
T
N
ON BOEB VOE
RE
V
D MEBM REDC
E
B
EEC RER
ME
BM EBR
E-R
FE JaJn
FBE a-0n
0-0
RB
UR
AU 0
RA
YR
M -YaMr
cahr
c
A
PAR h
PILR
M IL
AM
YA
JU -YJNU
ENJU EA JLUY
SE UAGU L-YSPE UGS
TPE UTS
TME - T
BM O
CO EBRE
TCO
-R
T
N
ON BOEB VOE
RE
V
D MEBM REDC
E
B
EEC RER
ME
BM EBR
E-R
-
0
5
Month
Month
Chart 18 shows a much better view of the volatility of the female population in the
jail during this 22 month period. Notice the high of 41 in November of 1999 and the
low of 21 just five months later in April of 2000. Twenty inmates may not appear to
be such a large difference but it is a 50% (or 100%) fluctuation and can cause
major space dislocations within a jail because of the absolute nature of their
classification requirements, i.e., the need to have all classification levels and
needs in such a small population that can not be mixed at all with the larger
population.
_______________________________________________________________________
41
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 19 Washtenaw County Jail Population by Classification Category by Percent
1996 – 2003.
Washtenaw County Jail Population by Classification Category by Percent: 1996-2002
Washtenaw County Jail Population by Classification Category by Percent: 1996-2002
1996
1996
35%
35%
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
30%
30%
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
Chart 19 shows each category separately so that readers can more easily see the
changes in each from year to year. Clearly there have been some major changes –
only jail managers can say why. Three is the most dramatic change, moving from
17 percent to 31. This change shows an increase in violent offenders housed in
the facility. Level 1 denotes very high risk assaultive/violent offender. As the
classification number increases the offenders risk to public safety decreases with
level 8 denoting non-assaultive low risk. Generally, the trend is toward the middle
with the extremes on either side moving downward. Is this a matter of what space
is available or of actual changes in classification?
This kind of information with much additional drill downs will be very important when
examining the specific jail space needs for any future changes to the jail. The key is not
just how much space but in what configurations.
_______________________________________________________________________
42
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 20 Washtenaw County Jail Population by Age Category by Month: March
1999 – December 2000 (missing December 1999-March 2000)
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Month by Selected Age Ranges
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Month by Selected Age Ranges
250
250
Mar. 99
May99
Mar.
May
Apr
Jun
Apr
Jun
May
Jul
May
Jul
Jun
Aug
Jun
Aug
Jul
Sep
Jul
Sep
Aug
Oct
Aug
Oct
Sep
Nov.
Sep
Nov.
Oct
Dec.
Oct
Dec.
Nov.
Nov.
Apr. 00
Apr. 00
There is no data for December
There
no data
for December
1999 is
through
March
2000
1999 through March 2000
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
17-21
22-40
41-60
61-80
17-21
22-40
41-60
61-80
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population by Month by Selected Age Group
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population by Month by Selected Age Group
The information in Charts 17 and 18 are limited in their time period but are good
examples of the kind of information needed over a ten or twenty-year period. If analysts
compare this kind of data with the general population information then it is possible to
determine if community demographics impact the jail and to what degree they might be
used as a predictor.
_______________________________________________________________________
43
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 21 Washtenaw County Jail Population by Age Category by Month by Percent
March 1999 – December 2000 (missing December 1999-March 2000)
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population (ADP) by Percent of Total Population
Washtenaw County Jail: Average
Dailyby
Population
(ADP)
by Percent of Total Population
by Month
Selected Age
Ranges
by Month by Selected Age Ranges
Mar. 99
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov.
Mar. 99
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov.
70%
70%
60%
60%
Apr. 00
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Apr. 00
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
There is no data for December
There
no data
for December
1999 is
through
March
2000.
1999 through March 2000.
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
17-21
22-40
41-60
61-80
17-21
22-40
41-60
61-80
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population by Month by Selected Age Group
Washtenaw County Jail: Average Daily Population by Month by Selected Age Group
_______________________________________________________________________
44
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
It appears that the population data may include the Housed-In inmates, those from other
jurisdictions, and so the authors want to ensure that that data is presented.
Chart 22 Washtenaw County Jail Population: Housing-In Average Daily
Population, 1997 – 2002.
Washtenaw County Jail: Housed-IN Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Jail: Housed-IN Average Daily Population (ADP), 1997-2002
9
8
7
6
Inmates
Inmates
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
8
8
8.2
8.2
7.9
7.9
7
6
6
6.2
6.2
6
5
4
3.3
3.3
3
2
1
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Years
Years
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
_______________________________________________________________________
45
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
More Information to Manage the Criminal Justice System:
How can knowing the Bookings and ALOS for each law enforcement agency assist policy
makers and managers, preferably organized in the form of a Criminal Justice
Collaboration Council (CJCC)3? If this is monitored monthly then changes in policies and
even criminal activity should be noticeable and its subsequent impact easily measured.
Measurements should be divided into felony and misdemeanor and traffic for both pretrial
and sentenced persons. It is not hard to obtain this data if planned for in advance. It is
simply a matter of setting up a query in the software to run the data request once a
month. The same applies to all of the jail data. For other data, see below.
For every chart that is completed for ADP the same chart
should be completed for Bookings and the "Average Length
of Stay - ALOS".
This formula can be applied to the whole population or any significant subpopulation defined by Washtenaw County.
Bookings
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Etc.
3
X
X
X
X
ALOS
______
______
______
______
/
/
/
/
/
365
______
______
______
______
=
=
=
=
ADP
______
______
______
______
Please see page 85 for a detailed explanation of a Criminal Justice Collaboration Council, or CJCC.
_______________________________________________________________________
46
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Table 1: Example of Monitoring Population Collection Instrument
Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Pretrial Felons
2002
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Pretrial Misdemeanors
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Pretrial Traffic
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Awaiting VOP Hearing
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Pretrial Other
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Sentenced Felons
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Sentenced Misdemeanors
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Sentenced DWI
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Sentenced Traffic -- Non-DWI
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Sentenced Domestic Violence
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
_______________________________________________________________________
47
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
This same information can be provided for other categories of "sub-populations." The
same basic data collection form can be used for most sub-populations -- just modify it
with different names. Collecting "law enforcement" data on sentenced persons can be
difficult because they are not normally booked and listed by law enforcement agency, as
are pretrial bookings.
Table 2 Example: Monitor Populations Collection Instrument
Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Violence
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Drug
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Domestic Violence
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Property
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Traffic
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
DOC - awaiting transport
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
VOP
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Convicted Await sentence
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Traffic Non-DWI
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
Pick More Categories that the CJCC members think are significant.
_______________________________________________________________________
48
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
What information does this provide to the Criminal Justice Collaboration Council (CJCC)?
These figures are neither good nor bad. It depends on how Washtenaw County wants to
use its valuable jail space. Washtenaw County criminal justice managers need more
information and it is available.
The Criminal Justice Collaboration Council must first learn what is happening and then
determine why it is happening. Then they know what drives the jail population. Just as
with bookings, ADP, and ALOS for the general population, it is important to know specific
details such as ongoing inmate makeup and changes to the population by charge type.
Table 3 Monitor Population by Selected Charges
By Selected Charges - which charges does the CJCC think most important?
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
One of the next questions is who of all of these people needs to be in a maximumsecurity jail and who might be eligible for a minimum-security work release and/or other
forms of community control and punishment?
Considering the time it takes to build or expand a jail, create community programs, the
County is right to take immediate action and institute effective business planning
processes to manage the criminal justice system.
Information is the key to
understanding the needs and finding the right mix of answers. On-going information is
one of the primary keys to good management.
_______________________________________________________________________
49
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Table 4 Monitor Population by Classification
By housing classification categories. Example: Maximum
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
By housing classification categories. Example: Medium
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
By housing classification categories. Example: Minimum
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
By housing classification categories. Example: Male
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
By housing classification categories. Example: Minimum
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
By housing classification categories. ETC…
Bookings
ALOS
ADP
A jail is considered "crowded" when it has less than 20 percent of the jail beds available
because of the classification needs. It is a necessity to separate one type of inmate from
another type. The information in Table 4 would show jail population averages.
_______________________________________________________________________
50
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
VI. The Washtenaw County Jail Facility
JAIL REVIEW:
The Washtenaw County Jail is located on Hogback Road in Ann Arbor and became
operational in 1977. Prior to 1977 the jail was located in downtown Ann Arbor with easy
access to the Court. However, the county owned a large parcel of land at the current
Hogback location which is at the corner of Washtenaw Ave. and Hogback Rd., very close
to the entrance/exit points for U.S. 23 expressway. The jail was built on a large piece of
property at the location, and it has become the site of numerous county functions. The
site is also close to Ann Arbor’s downtown center where the 14 th and 15th District, 22nd
Circuit Court and County administrative buildings are located. Inmates are transported
by both the Sheriff’s Department and the Ann Arbor Police Department for the various
court actions of inmates still in custody.
The jail’s footprint is a triangular shape that is two levels high to accommodate
mezzanine levels in the housing units. The land sharply slopes from the front entrance of
the Sheriff’s Department, which is a rectangle with two bridges that connect to the jail.
The two bridges contain administrative offices, training rooms, inmate visitation and a
court room for arraignment purposes. Arraignments take place every day, seven days a
week.
The two sides of the triangle are established with housing units arranged in two-16 bed
pods per housing unit (32 beds per housing unit). The foot of the triangle has two
separate and distinct housing units at each end of the line. On the east end are
dormitory style cells and at the other end is what is operationally considered to be an
intake housing unit. In the middle is booking for males and females and isolation-style
cells for booking. As indicated earlier, the jail was built in 1977. I-block was added in
1982, and in 1986 double bunking was permitted in many of the cells. J block (male) and
G2 (female) block were created in 1997, bringing the rated design capacity (rdc) to 332.
This total includes 20 portable beds being placed in the gymnasium.
The County, subsequent to requesting a technical Assistance Local Assessment
program of the National Institute of Corrections, also hired an architectural firm to provide
a complete facility review of the jail. This includes an engineering assessment of the
infrastructure, a structural analysis, and security review. Normally, while not as extensive
as mentioned above, a facility assessment is included by the consultants. The relative
newness of the building makes the decision process very difficult for everyone.
Physically the building appears to be sound and some of the infrastructure equipment is
in excellent condition, making the analysis that much more difficult. However, the
significant question is: what, if any, is the value of the current facility continuing as a
usable jail facility? Following is a brief analysis of our conclusions.
_______________________________________________________________________
51
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Booking/Receiving:
Upon entering the jail property from Hogback Rd., there is a chain link fence with
concertina wire encompassing the jail property area on the lower level. Once inside the
jail property area there is a large open space. As one proceeds to the jail, there are two
garage doors of differing size. Proceeding beyond the larger door, there is large
courtyard and turnaround for trucks, transport vans and police cruisers which can then
enter a separate area referred to as the prisoner vehicle sally port. The prisoner vehicle
sally port is large and spacious enough for 5-6 vehicles at the most, as both entrance
and exit doors are not in an interlock mode.
Once exiting the vehicle there are two entrances into the jail--one for females and one for
males. These doors are sliders that are lightweight, only a small step up from home-style
doors and are dysfunctional. As security doors they do not meet standards; even when
shut they can be physically opened by pulling on the handle. These doors are controlled
by the booking control room. Once inside (regardless of which side, male or female) a
secured control room operates the booking area and adjacent temporary holding cells.
The arresting agency remains in the area with their arrest, and the booking officer is
required to do everything from inside the control room. The booking area is a manpower
intensive operation because of it’s closed off design.
In addition to booking
responsibilities, the officer also has to operate the electronic doors and is required to
move inmates from the booking room holding cells to the temporary holding cells.
Temporary holding:
Entrance to the temporary holding cells, while having key override capacity, is accessed
by operating a panel in the main hallway. The following picture illustrates that the panel
is jury rigged. It is operated by lifting the board and operating a series of toggle switches
because it cannot be repaired.
_______________________________________________________________________
52
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Once in the temporary holding cells (they were being painted on the day of our visit), one
notices the narrow door openings. In fact, these doors are throughout the jail facility and
are only 22½ inches wide when the door is fully opened. If the door is only three
quarters ajar, the opening is about 4 inches smaller.
These door openings are standard throughout the facility and obviously do not
meet the standards for ADA compliance.
_______________________________________________________________________
53
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Inmate Property Storage:
The following photograph clearly illustrates that storage is being overwhelmed.
_______________________________________________________________________
54
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Housing units:
As described earlier, the majority of the housing units are broken into 16 x 16 cell areas
divided by glass walls and sharing a larger day room area. The space inside each of the
units is poorly designed--the design incorporates a bi-level concept with eight cells up a
half flight of stairs and eight cells down a half flight of stairs. There is a small flat area
that serves as a small day space but is not large enough for 16 inmates at one time.
This requires the sharing of out-of-cell time between those housed on the upper level and
those on the lower level. See the photo below.
Quite obviously, these cells are not ADA compliant. Acoustics are very poor; the ambient
noise level is quite high and may exceed appropriate levels. The square footage creates
significant difficulty in attempting to double bunk, thereby increasing population. Even if
this were more readily accomplished, the day room arrangement that is cut up by the bilevel design significant impacts the total square footage of usable space.
There are some other housing units with different types of arrangements, but the bi-level
concept is prominent throughout the building with the exception of the medical area,
temporary cells in and attached to the booking area, and the dormitories and gymnasium
(which would now be considered a dormitory style cell block).
_______________________________________________________________________
55
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Interview Space:
There are five rooms available off the hallway that connects the booking and temporary
holding areas. While there is an assortment of exam rooms in the medical area (which is
in fact a small infirmary, providing many amenities that most jails do not have), the
available interview space for attorneys and counselors is very limited. Since it appears
the jail is largely pre-trial, this can have an important impact on attorneys having an
appropriate amount of time to prepare for trials. This can translate into delays, and
delays translate into increasing length of stay--length of stay impacts crowding.
Increasing Space:
Over the past few years a number of physical changes have been made to
accommodate the increasing need for additional space.
This photo shows one change that involves housing inmates in the gymnasium on
a temporary basis. A $35,000 toilet/sink and shower facility was created to comply
with Department of Corrections Administrative Rules and regulations. Policy
permits medium and minimum security inmates to be housed in this location.
Once the inmate population in this location reaches 25 it must be staffed 24 hours
a day for safety and security
_______________________________________________________________________
56
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The current facility has used every available space under its roof to meet the need for
additional secured space jail space. The adjacencies have reached their maximum
capacity. The kitchen and the adjacent cold and dry storage areas have reached their
limitation.
Final Comments:
The jail itself is only one portion of the justice system facility issues, but it is a crucial one.
In the opinion of the consultants, the future use of this jail turns on a cost-benefit analysis
of the cost of renovation, cost of operations (staffing), the number of beds needed including type (maximum vs. medium vs. minimum) and style (dormitories, single
occupancy cells, multiple occupancy cells, dry and wet cells), in comparison to a new
footprint. If renovation is chosen, then the costs of transportation and bed rental will
need to be considered.
Operational (staffing) costs overwhelmingly outstrip all other costs in the building of a
facility. The cost ratio of a new building breaks out in the following fashion: 1% of the
total cost is planning and design, 10% is building cost, and the remainder is operational
(staffing) for the duration of the life cycle of the building. A staffing analysis of the current
facility was not fully examined because it was not part of our charge. The other axiom in
jail facilities is the relationship of design to staffing. In many ways the current
Washtenaw facility is a staffing-intensive building, so renovation and what may be
yielded in additional space in terms of the above discussion is a crucial part of the cost
benefit analysis, especially when compared to a new facility with a vastly improved
design.
Other Considerations:
The current facility is 30 years old, and while some of the infrastructure is in good to
excellent condition because of an aggressive maintenance plan and built-in
redundancies, its ability to meet existing requirements and future demands not just in bed
and programming space, but also future mandates, is questionable. The building has
reached its limits of flexibility, and the design concepts while perhaps innovative at the
time are now creating much of the limitations. The podular jail design was relatively new
at the time of this building’s construction; however, the extensive use of the bi-level
concept has forever minimized its floor space and thus its flexibility.
During our visit, moving from location to location and from the jail to downtown and back
again, we were struck by the tremendous inefficiency of transportation of inmates for all
of the variety of hearings required for pretrial status inmates. The transportation costs,
while borne by other agencies--primarily Ann Arbor, remain primarily the responsibility of
the Sheriff’s Department. Even though a magistrate/judicial officer comes to the jail for
arraignments, so many other things could be handled through video communications. In
such a high tech area as Ann Arbor, there should be sufficient expertise to review this
issue.
_______________________________________________________________________
57
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The lack of centralization, however, grew out of a more specific discussion concerning
the lack of centralization of warrants and how this exacerbates efficiency. Law
enforcement and jails are 24 hour, seven day a week, 365 days per year operations,
while the administration of justice is typically a Monday-Friday, 8am to 5pm operation.
Sometimes the obvious has to be stated—we can still fall into the trap of not thinking
“outside the box”, and a simple, well thought out change can dramatically impact
efficiency and may even reduce length of stay.
Another concern was the absence of security for transportation to and from the courts.
This is relevant only to Ann Arbor (District Court and Circuit Court building), because we
did not observe the activity at the other courts. This was not an intended part of this
analysis, but we were struck by how absolutely vulnerable the exchange of prisoners
from the transport vehicle to the court building in the open, completely accessible parking
lot could be. Since the county is in the very early study stages, it would be prudent and
advisable that the longer view of the criminal justice system and its operation and its
facilities be strategically planned when considering replacement or renovation.
In all likelihood a thorough review will find that the jail facility needs to be replaced-therefore, the downtown courts’ external and internal security requirements must be
extensively and carefully reviewed, as well.
Final Observations:
Over the years as consultants we have encountered many situations and observed
numerous environments. Rarely have we come across a situation where there is the
appearance of tremendous energy to collaborate to achieve new levels of growth and
efficiency, despite momentary estrangements. The jail staff, administration, and the
Sheriff were consummate professionals, dedicated to providing the best service possible.
No less can be said of everyone we came in contact with throughout the course of our
visit.
_______________________________________________________________________
58
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
VII.
November 2003
Crime and Criminal Justice in Washtenaw County
An entry ticket to the jail must come from either law enforcement or the courts. Law
enforcement is the most common way for a person to get to jail. If the law enforcement
agencies have similar arrest standards that are agreed upon by each of the agency
leaders then the jail population will more closely consist of those who meet criteria set by
the criminal justice community.
Arrest standards combined with good jail
defendant/offender screening can ensure that people in jail are the right ones -- by
Washtenaw County standards -- and not people jailed simply for lack of resources or to
see dangerous persons with financial resources released for lack of information.
Reported Crimes
Citizens often mix the issue of reported crime or crime rate, with jail overcrowding. This
leads to the belief that if the jail is growing then so is crime. Professionals within the
criminal justice system understand that it is often not necessarily the case. What is the
crime picture in Washtenaw County? Below are five years of crimes as reported by the
Michigan State Police as a part of the Michigan Uniform Crime Reports program -UCR.
Chart 23 (below) shows the crime index. Below is a quote regarding the UCR
information.
_______________________________________________________________________
59
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 23 Washtenaw County Uniform Crime Reports, Offenses Reported, Index
and Non-Index 1997-2001
Washtenaw County Uniform Crime Reports: Offenses 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Uniform Crime Reports: Offenses 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
25000
25000
20000
20000
Offenses
Offenses
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
Index
Index
Category
Category
Non-Index
Non-Index
If this information is correct then something is going right in Washtenaw County.
Above is the reported crimes based in Washtenaw County.
Despite a rising
population the level of crime is steady or dropping through 2001. What is
happening lately?
But if this is happening then why is the jail population rising? Are there that many
more arrests and crime is going down? More information about other crimes not
included in the Index is needed as well as more details about these crimes.
This information and more should be collected and examined by a Criminal Justice
Collaboration Council on a monthly basis – reviewing the last 12 months and on a
long term basis once or even twice a year. It should be broken down by many
other sub-elements such as by crime, type of crime, etc. Some examples are
below.
_______________________________________________________________________
60
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 24 Washtenaw County Arrests, Index and Non-Index Crimes, 1997-2001
Washtenaw County Uniform Crime Reports: Arrests 1997-2002
Washtenaw County Uniform Crime Reports: Arrests 1997-2002
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
12000
12000
10000
10000
Offenses
Offenses
8000
8000
6000
6000
4000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
Index
Index
Category
Category
Non-Index
Non-Index
Chart 24 presents generally good news for Washtenaw County. If the county
population is increasing then it is not showing in either the reported crimes (Chart
23) or the arrests shown here.
_______________________________________________________________________
61
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 25 Multi-County Cross Comparison of Crime Rate, Arrest Rate and Jail
Capacity.
Cross County Comparison of Crime Rate, Arrest Rate, and Jail Capacity
Cross County Comparison of Crime Rate, Arrest Rate, and Jail Capacity
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
Ingham
Ingham
Washtenaw
Washtenaw
1,600
1,600
1,400
1,400
Jail Population Percentage
Jail Population Percentage
1,200
1,200
1,000
1,000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
Crime Rate
Crime Rate
Arrest Rate
Arrest Rate
Jail Capacity
Jail Capacity
Category
Category
It is important to note the first two numbers are “rates” per 10,000 inhabitants. It is
also important to understand that different jurisdictions, even within the same
state, may define crimes differently. These data should only be compared in a
gross comparison. Once again, Washtenaw has much to be pleased about.
The respective populations are:
County
Washtenaw
Kalamazoo
Ingham
Population
322,892
238,603
279,320
Washtenaw has low crime and arrest rates and a larger population. They have a
smaller jail then Ingham and about the same size as Kalamazoo which has 26
percent less population.
_______________________________________________________________________
62
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Gibson and Aguirre met with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s officials and a great
number of representatives of the local law enforcement agencies from throughout the
county. There are considerable differences in sizes but there were many issues that
they, as a group, were able to identify and agree upon.
Most of the law enforcement officers attending first said that they believed crime was
rising in the time period following that which is recorded in the information provided
above. Specifically, they stated that the multi-million dollar domestic violence grant had
created a much higher arrest rate for that group of defendants and offenders. It is
thought that violent crime, in general, is growing, as is white collar crime and computer
crime in particular.
The group sees the population growing tremendously because of an increase in both
residential and commercial sectors.
There is no local central depository for up-to-date crime information right now, so no one
can say what the actual situation is in terms of the Washtenaw County’s crime rate.
Beyond agreement that crime is going up lately, the first and foremost item that they all
agreed upon is that the jail is too small. When they heard the concept of “suppressed
usage” they all immediately responded to say that they suppress their usage of the jail
constantly and have for many years. The group said that the jail issue actually interferes
with operations, i.e., they have cancelled planned activities because there was not space
at the jail. One participant said that their agency could not conduct a special DUI
program one night and thus the roads were more dangerous because of the jail.
The Sheriff and his staff were in complete agreement that the jail is now the tail wagging
the dog. Almost all attendees agreed that while they will always want more than is
available there was no question that the situation had gone too far and that more room
was needed.
They expressed great frustration about the lack of room for defendants and offenders
and said that they believe that it has reached a point of undermining the entire local
justice system.
They believe that the fact that there is little room for violators of
probation or in other alternative programs truly undermines the alternative programs as
well.
Another major concern of the law enforcement community was the elimination of the
general fund law enforcement patrol in the non-incorporated portions of the county. All of
the agencies agreed that this had created a major problem in the way they do business.
Some of the issues included the question of who is responsible for general law
enforcement and warrants in the non-contracted areas of the county. Amongst other
concerns is that there is no 24-hour transport unit.
_______________________________________________________________________
63
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Another area of concern is the transport of inmates to and from court. The current
design if not very efficient for any of them. The individual law enforcement agencies
have to send staff in to handle the transports and in the case of misdemeanants they
must provide all transport through the life of the case.
Mental health issues were also discussed and while many participants did say that they
believed their officers could use more training and that they would like implement best
practices in this area. There was, however, also a consensus that even if their officers
did have training, there were not enough alternative programs to which they could divert
the people.
The representatives brought up other issues such as obtaining blood work is a major
problem and that there is a block for jail medical units in obtaining accreditation if they
take blood for forensic purposes.
Regarding the jail issues, the consultants note that all indicators are that Washtenaw
County’s standards are different than many communities in that they want to use their jail
less than others – and that is what is happening. The County has a low crime rate, low
arrest rate and a very low incarceration rate. And all indicators point to the fact that jail is
not big enough and that the law enforcement agencies and all other justice agencies
agreed that there is a lot of suppressed usage by each and every one of them.
_______________________________________________________________________
64
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Prosecution
This section includes some comments of the Public Defender’s Office who met with the
consultants together with the prosecutor’s office.
The Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney, Brian Mackie, responded to all written
requests and rarely have the consultants received such a comprehensive response. Mr.
Mackie also attended a prolonged session with representatives of the Public Defender’s
Office and the consultants. It was another excellent session.
Next to the court, the prosecutor probably has one of the greatest influences on the
whole system. Only the prosecutor decides whether to file a case or not. If the
prosecutor has very good case screening and case management processes then it will
positively affect the jail at no risk to public safety. If the prosecutor has explicit filing
standards that require a higher standard of evidence then there will be fewer cases that
are dismissed after being filed. If the filing standards are understood by the various law
enforcement agencies then there will be less defendants arrested only to have their
charges not filed or dismissed. If the prosecutor allows for early discovery and has a well
established negotiation policy then the same results can be obtained in less time at no
loss to public safety and saving public safety dollars.
The Washtenaw County Prosecutors Office appears to keep excellent management
information regarding the operations of the office, which can greatly impact the efficiency
of the entire system.
_______________________________________________________________________
65
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 26 Requests for Prosecution in Washtenaw County 2000 – 2003 by Felony
and Misdemeanors
Washtenaw County, MI: Prosecution Requests
Washtenaw County, MI: Prosecution Requests
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
10000
10000
9000
9000
8000
8000
7000
7000
Cases
Cases
6000
6000
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0
Felony requests
Felony requests
Misdemeanor requests
Misdemeanor requests
Total requests
Total requests
Charge Level
Charge Level
There has been a total increase of ten percent over the past three years, 13 percent in
misdemeanants and four percent in felony requests. This includes 2002 so that indicates
the law enforcement officers were correct that reported crime had increased – not a huge
increase – but the consultants do not have the 2003 data.
An increase in misdemeanors can indicate a possible future increase in sentenced
inmates and both will increase initial pretrial incarcerations. There might be some
concern as well with the number of sentenced felony offenders that are in the jail as well.
The office has a preliminary screening unit that reviews all cases and assigns them as
appropriate. According to the written response and the discussions it is clear that there
is a policy and procedure for handling charging decisions. The policy for level of
sufficiency is that there is “a reasonable probability of proving guilt to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt and that proceeding with prosecution is in the interests of justice.”
_______________________________________________________________________
66
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 27 Screening by Prosecution in Washtenaw County 2002: Declined and
Approved
Washtenaw County, MI: Prosecution Requests
DA Screening 2002
80%
70%
72%
60%
50%
Cases
40%
30%
28%
20%
10%
9%
0%
Declined
Ret/More Info.
Approved
Charge Level
Twenty-eight percent of cases screened in 2002 were declined or returned for
more information by the prosecutor’s office.
This data supports the statement that there is a strong screening policy. This indicates
that the office takes its screening responsibilities very seriously to the great advantage of
the Washtenaw County justice system. If all cases were simply allowed to pass then it
trashes the system and everybody has more work to do with less results. Good up-front
screening is more effective and efficient for all and allows everybody to focus on the
appropriate cases.
Washtenaw is one of the few offices who can provide this data and even provide
screening information on each law enforcement agency. This is particularly good in that
the prosecutor’s office can work with an individual agency and identify issues when their
declination rates starts going up. This is beneficial for all and helps keep law
enforcement on the street more effective.
_______________________________________________________________________
67
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The office screens almost all warrants prior to their being issued. In probable-cause
arrests there is one small but very helpful efficiency design in that law enforcement
agencies provide two copies of the original police report – one for the defense attorney.
The screening unit assigns cases based on the judicial assignment. The most serious
cases, including sex offenses, homicide and domestic violence charges are prosecuted
vertically. Misdemeanor cases are handled differently for reasons of volume. Case
assignments are weighted by formula.
There is very limited diversion of cases – only some that have to do with non-sufficient
funds and closed accounts cases.
There are a total of 30 attorneys in the office (including the elected prosecutor and eight
supervising attorneys) and 21 support staff.
Chart 28 Dispositions by Prosecution in Washtenaw County 2002: Misdemeanor
and Felony.
Washtenaw County: Misdemeanor Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
Washtenaw County: Misdemeanor Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
4500
4500
4000
4000
3500
3500
3848
3848
3000
3000
Cases
Cases
2500
2500
2000
2000
2065
2065
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
Total Misd. Disposed
Total Misd. Disposed
Total Fel. Disposed
Total Fel. Disposed
Disposition Type
Disposition Type
_______________________________________________________________________
68
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Approximately 9,000 cases are submitted, about one third are declined or returned and
about 6,000 are disposed. It is important to keep track of whether or not the office is
getting back-up. The data is available and is tracked in these cases.
Chart 29 Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office Felony Case Dispositions by
Type of Disposition 2002
Washtenaw County: Felony Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
Washtenaw County: Felony Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
2500
2500
2000
2000
2065
2065
1668
1668
Cases
Cases
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
338
338
0
0
7
7
7
7
0
0
35
35
10
10
Dismissal Not Guilty- Not Guilty- Diversions Guilty-Jury Guilty-Non- Guilty-Plea
Total
Dismissal Not Guilty- Not Guilty- Diversions Guilty-Jury Guilty-Non- Guilty-Plea
Total
Jury
Non Jury
Jury
Felonies
Jury
Non Jury
Jury
Felonies
Disposed of
Disposed of
in 2002
in 2002
Disposition Type
Disposition Type
Eighty-one percent of all cases are disposed of by guilty plea and about 16 percent
are dismissed. It is important to note that out of 2,065 cases only 17 went to jury
(less than one percent) and there were zero diversions. This underscores the
importance of having excellent case processing and negotiating policies and
procedures to enhance all aspects of the system.
These statistics highlight the likelihood of realizing some gains by using various kinds of
diversion – there is probably some low-hanging fruit in this area. More investigation is
needed.
_______________________________________________________________________
69
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 30 Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office Misdemeanor Case Dispositions
by Type of Disposition 2002
Washtenaw County: Misdemeanor Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
Washtenaw County: Misdemeanor Case Dispositions by Type of Disposition, 2002
3000
3000
2846
2846
2500
2500
Cases
Cases
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
783
783
500
500
0
24
24
0
Dismissal
Dismissal
Not GuiltyNot GuiltyJury
Jury
65
65
0
0
30
30
Not GuiltyDiversions
Guilty-Jury
Not GuiltyDiversions
Guilty-Jury
Non Jury
Non Jury
Disposition Type
Disposition Type
100
100
Guilty-NonGuilty-NonJury
Jury
Guilty-Plea
Guilty-Plea
Seventy-four percent of all misdemeanor cases plead guilty and three percent
(124) went to jury trial. Once again, it underscores the importance of good
caseflow management.
The consultants held case processing discussions with the prosecutor and the public
defender and staffs. These were detailed and lengthy. There are many recent changes
based on the courts taking a very active role in implementing case processing reforms
with a focus on expediting cases of defendants in jail. The Supreme Court has made this
one of its foci to help local justice systems across the state.
While these new changes appear that they should have some impact on the jail
population there are still a number of issues that remain to be worked on.
First, they all agreed that the jail needs to be increased in size. Even the Public
Defender and staff said that there are people being released from the jail that probably
should remain there. They do not know how much bigger it ought to be but bigger than it
is now. They said that there is no room for lower risk offenders (DUI’s and other
_______________________________________________________________________
70
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
misdemeanants and lower level felons), which they believe causes a higher recidivism
rate – and offenders return for more serious crimes because of a lack of an earlier
credible sanction.
Bonds are not nearly consistent enough. There are no bond standards and little pretrial
information available. It is all based on individuals who have varying degrees of
information from one defendant to the next.
Failure-to-Appear rates are not well known and are probably very high. There is just a
thought and a feeling but not any real data available to the participants in this session,
but they believe it should be examined.
There is no expedited process for misdemeanants in jail as there is for those charged
with felonies. They do not believe that there are so many in the jail but those that are
probably take up a number of jail bed days.
Both the Public Defender and the Prosecuting Attorney said that there are issues with
getting the public defender noticed on appointment. They are appointed in a timely
manner but the office is notified via regular mail.
Obtaining transcripts is improving but it is still a problem that can impact caseflow.
Sentencing agreements between judges and defendants are allowed and because it is
possible at times to strike a better deal on the day of trial it undermines the efforts to
appropriately expedite court caseflow.
There has been a very recent increase in the number of trials. It was reported that as
many as 18 were held in the prior week. If this becomes the norm then case processing
could come to a grinding slowdown. In 2002 the prosecutor tried a total 141 cases (124
misdemeanors and 17 felonies). If there were 18 trials every week that would equal 936
cases – seven and a half times (755%) the number in 2002.
The jail can be impacted by different judicial policies in handling child support and
personal protection orders (PPO’s).
_______________________________________________________________________
71
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Judiciary and the Courts
How do the courts affect the jail? Courts have a tremendous impact on the jail through
judges’ pretrial decisions, sentencing decisions and also through the court’s efficient
handling of the court case flow and general court management. Judges’ higher status
can be truly effective when they exercise leadership in managing the whole system –
their impact is greatly magnified as is everybody’s when they work as part of a well
managed local criminal justice team.
Gibson and Aguirre met with many of the judges and court administrators from
Washtenaw County who took time from their schedules to meet with the consultants as a
group of three. It is clear that they are very involved in helping to manage the overall
criminal justice system.
In regards to the jail, the judiciary was very straight forward to say that the jail is too small
and that the chronically overcrowded jail does have an impact on their decisions. This
impacts the borderline cases which might go either way but will not end up in jail because
of crowding. The most serious offenders go to prison and those who clearly should be in
jail go to jail but there is still is serious suppressed usage of the jail. If the judiciary had
access to a non-crowded jail then they would probably use it much more than they do
now. This should be taken into account when planning any new facilities.
There is a belief that more serious crimes have increased along with the population
increases. They too believe that crime is going up and that there are more assaultive
cases are coming into the courts. There have been changes in the DWI law that has
added to the jail population. Other legislative changes in the OUIL and DL cases result
in a higher trial rate because the risks are so much higher for the defendant. Another
contributing factor is the large domestic violence grant (see above) that added additional
prosecution and other staff to focus on only domestic violence cases.
The judges believe that the future holds an increase in child support cases because
additional staff members have been added to focus criminalizing child support, which will
increase those numbers in jail or pushing on its doors.
The judges might lead the management group to look at the crime and other criminal
justice system data on a regular basis.
Good caseflow processing is inherently valuable for the system and the community,
especially in Washtenaw County’s situation where such a high percent of the jail is
populated by pretrial defendants. In terms of the jail, effective case processing mainly
impacts the pretrial population.
Initial appearances are held in a timely manner in front of a magistrate. Release on
recognizance is provided many times and when appropriate, defense counsel is
appointed in a timely manner, but many officials say that bonding decisions are not
_______________________________________________________________________
72
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
standardized at all and that it varies too much from judicial officer to the next. The judges
said that the bond decisions are also influenced by the chronically overcrowded jail.
Several officials and even the pubic defender (see above) noted that some defendants
were being released who may be too high of a risk. Several judges and other officials
also said that there is not enough pretrial information available at the time of the bond
decision. In terms of arrests, bonds and weekends, the court will soon be scheduling
magistrates to work on the weekends to assist the jail population.
Warrants are returned to the original judge but at the next circuit court docket.
Misdemeanor warrants can be seen by any judge at any time.
Caseflow management was greatly improved when the when the courts were unified,
and also later when the Supreme Court took an interest in expediting the court caseflow
of incarcerated defendants. The courts are now moving away from the unified court
design.
One of the main benefits to unified court was a change in the preliminary exams that
allowed all courts hear all cases. While there are still problems remaining regarding the
functioning of preliminary exams the concurrent jurisdiction agreement will remain in
place. (It was said that it cut 42 days in incarceration time but this would need to be
verified.) The judges believe that the quick felony arraignment is good and plan on
retaining it regardless of planned changes in the unified court formation.
Pretrial
hearings are being expedited and District Court can take pleas, a major benefit to the
system.
The judges said that there is still a problem concerning judge shopping especially for
preliminary hearings and this can slow caseflow unnecessarily.
Another major assist is that offenders with a violation of probation charge (VOP) can be
heard in one business day. It is, however, one of the areas that some judges feel are
greatly influenced by the chronic jail crowding and therefore do not use the jail for
sanctioning violators nearly as much as they believe to be appropriate. The judges also
thought they could expedite sentencing agreements if they had more information
available to them immediately – such as pretrial screening reports.
The courts believe that their facilities are spread all over the place and they have been
struggling with the issues of security and safety and centralization vs. issues of access.
There was discussion of the need to add a security court room attached the jail.
In terms of alternatives the CMH screening is good but court has been delayed as many
as eight times in one case while looking for a placement. Diversion is currently used only
for overcrowding and while the court could use more services they also have to have the
ability to sanction those in alternative programs to ensure the integrity of the alternative
programs themselves. The courts say that inmates services in the jail works hard to keep
up the Overcrowding Lists and do other work to find alternatives for inmates.
_______________________________________________________________________
73
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
The judges believe there has been a tremendous increase in probate cases – and
increase in mental health cases, including the number that are going into the criminal
courts and they really want to work with the Sheriff’s Office and CMH to divert as many
cases as possible. They reported on a new volunteer group that is planning on working
with police agencies regarding mental health cases.
The courts do receive information about individuals when they sentence but they do not
know the results of the sentences. For example, what is the success and failure rates of
probationers in Washtenaw County for both felons and misdemeanors? All community
corrections programs should be measured to improve their effectiveness and that of the
entire local system. It appears that the information is available in the state and the
county but it is not provided to local jurisdictions in a way that is useful for evaluation and
management.
Washtenaw County Court Case Filings
While Court case filings are not the same as reported crimes they are one of the better
indicators as to whether crime is generally increasing for decreasing and in any event
they can greatly impact the speed with which the system can move cases to disposition –
thus impacting all other parts of the local criminal justice system.
It is important to note again that the actual information presented is not intended to
provide a comprehensive analysis of the population but to illustrate the kind of
information Washtenaw criminal justice managers have available, or can and should
have available, to make decisions about how to manage their criminal system, its
population and the jail.
_______________________________________________________________________
74
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 31 Washtenaw County Felony Court Filings, 1993-2002.
Washtenaw County Cases Filed FH Felony - 1993-2002
Washtenaw County Cases Filed FH Felony - 1993-2002
2500
2500
2000
2000
Cases
Cases
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997 Year
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Year
Felony case filings above have increased by 28 percent over this ten year period.
Chart 32 Washtenaw County Capitol Case Court Filings, 1993-2002.
Washtenaw County Cases Filed FC 'Capitol' - 1993-2002
Washtenaw County Cases Filed FC 'Capitol' - 1993-2002
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
Cases
Cases
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997 Year
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Year
_______________________________________________________________________
75
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Capital Case filings have increased by ten percent over ten years. It actually
decreased during at least four of the intervening years – that is good news for
denizens.
Chart 33 Washtenaw County District Court Filings, 15, 1997-2002.
Washtenaw County District Court Filings 15 - 1997-2002
Washtenaw County District Court Filings 15 - 1997-2002
40000
40000
35000
35000
30000
30000
Cases
Cases
25000
25000
20000
20000
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Year
Year
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
If this data is correct then there has been a 4.5 percent increase in filings between
1997 and 2002.
Chart 34 Washtenaw County District Court Filings, 14B, 1997-2002.
_______________________________________________________________________
76
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Washtenaw County District Court Filings 14B - 1997-2002
Washtenaw County District Court Filings 14B - 1997-2002
16000
16000
14000
14000
12000
12000
Cases
Cases
10000
10000
8000
8000
6000
6000
4000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Year
Year
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Court 14B flings are down 17.5 percent over the same six year period.
_______________________________________________________________________
77
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 35 Washtenaw County District Court Filings, 14A, 1997-2002.
As with the
other courts,
Court 14A
flings are
down
about 10
percent
between
1997 and
2002.
Washtenaw County District Court 14A Filings - 1997-2002
Washtenaw County District Court 14A Filings - 1997-2002
40000
40000
35000
35000
30000
30000
Cases
Cases
25000
25000
20000
20000
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Year
Year
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
Chart 36 Washtenaw County: Personal Protection Order Filings, 1997-2002.
Washtenaw County Cases Personal Protection Orders: 1998-2002
Washtenaw County Cases Personal Protection Orders: 1998-2002
800
800
700
700
600
600
No data
No data
immediately
immediately
available.
available.
Cases
Cases
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
Year
2001
2001
2002
2002
Year
Another piece of good news for 2000 and 2002 – there was a 22 percent decrease
in filings between the years 1998 and 2002.
_______________________________________________________________________
78
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Other Court Information
Washtenaw County and the Michigan Courts have good records and they are organized
to track the performance of the system, even in support of court management. It is not
just the courts that determine how well the courts function. But all of the actors such as
the prosecutor, defender, probation officer, court clerk and many others are involved.
The Washtenaw criminal justice management team should track the average length of
time it takes cases of incarcerated defendants to get to disposition. 4 Special attention
needs to be provided now to conduct an examination of the process of real cases that
can help identify previously unknown bottlenecks.
Is case processing time going up or down? The same format should be used to
determine the Time to Disposition for the each year over the past several years for the
state and county courts. Washtenaw should collect the Age of Caseload at Disposition
for many years in order to find out. Another method of measuring court caseflow is to
either count all or sample a percent of the caseload to determine the kind of data shown
in Table Five, below.
Table 5: EXAMPLE COUNTY: Average Court Case Processing Time between
Events with Changes from Year to Year
OTHER EXAMPLE County Court Mean Case Processing Times
Arrest >
DCPH
1997
1998
Change
1999
Change
2000
Change
2001
Change
Avg. Mean
Filing >
Adjud’ > Total
Adjud’
Sentence Mean
5
167
7
272
18
188
5
287
DCPH >
Filing
92
76
-16
95
13
7
21
196
-2
3
15
301
19
89
-11
21
8
186
-2
2
14
298
-6
72
14
21
-10
199
-1
3
-3
295
-17
80
0
17
13
189
1
4
-3
290
Table 5 breaks down the time frames between events so that a jurisdiction can
examine its processes very specifically over time and identify where there are
pinch-points in the system. Table 6 (below) does the same with the median time
4
This can be done by periodic sampling or by using automated systems to prepare a report on
incarcerated defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________
79
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
between specific events. Very few courts have this information available and even
fewer examine this kind of data.
Chart 37 EXAMPLE COUNTY: Average Court Case Processing Times between
Events, 1997-2001.
Stafford County Court Mean Case Processing Times, 1997-2001
Stafford County Court Mean Case Processing Times, 1997-2001
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
Avg. Median
Avg. Median
250
250
200
200
Days
Days
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
Arr>DCPH
Arr>DCPH
DCPH>Fil
DCPH>Fil
Fil>Adjud
Fil>Adjud
Events
Events
Adj>Sent
Adj>Sent
Total Mean
Total Mean
Chart 37 is the chart version of Table 5 and provides the times between events in a
graphic format. What does this say? The total mean has increased for several
years, reaching a high in 2000 and dropped dramatically in 2001. What happened
that year? Most of that gain was made between the arrest and lower court
preliminary hearing. Why?
_______________________________________________________________________
80
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Using these kinds of charts allows a jurisdiction to begin to first track and then
better manage the criminal justice system and save resources.
Chart 38 EXAMPLE County Median Court Case Processing Time Between Events,
1997-2001.
Stafford County Court Median Case Processing Times, 1997-2001
Stafford County Court Median Case Processing Times, 1997-2001
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
Avg. Median
Avg. Median
250
250
200
200
Days
Days
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
Arr>DCPH
Arr>DCPH
DCPH>Fil
DCPH>Fil
Fil>Adjud
Fil>Adjud
Events
Events
Adj>Sent
Adj>Sent
Total Mean
Total Mean
Chart 38 shows the same information by Median times. It is very important to
show both median and mean times to ensure that the numbers are not being
skewed by exceptional cases. One is not better than the other – it is necessary to
look at them both. They should tell a similar story.
_______________________________________________________________________
81
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Table 6: Median Court Case Processing Time Between Events
Washtenaw County Court Median Case Processing
Times
Arrest >
DCPH
DCPH >
Filing
Adjud’ > Total
Sentence Mean
Filing >
Adjud’
1997
64
0
136
0
200
1998
52
3
143
0
198
-12
3
7
0
-2
58
3
162
0
223
6
0
19
0
25
2000
80
2
157
0
239
Change
23
-1
-5
0
17
2001
51
3
150
0
204
-29
1
-7
0
-35
53
3
150
0
206
Change
1999
Change
Change
Avg.
Median
Table 6 provides the data in Chart 38. Look at the median difference between
Arrest and the Preliminary Hearing – a decrease in 29 days. Who is this good for?
Then add an additional seven days for a total of 35 days decrease. What impact
can this kind of change have on the rest of the system?
_______________________________________________________________________
82
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 39 EXAMPLE County Court: CF Dispositions by Type of Disposition 20002002
Kane County Court: CF Cases' Disposition by Type 2000-2002
Kane County Court: CF Cases' Disposition by Type 2000-2002
35%
35%
30%
30%
25%
25%
Cases
Cases
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Guilty
Guilty
Nolle Pros
Nolle Pros
Dismiss
Dismiss
Reduced
Reduced
Dispostion Type
Dispostion Type
Prob Term
Prob Term
Withhold
Withhold
Warrant
Warrant
Chart 39 shows the different percents of dispositions. Not all are included but
note that Dismissals seem fairly low, reductions are low and Guilty and Nolle Pros
are high. Only Washtenaw County officials know for sure but it is possible that the
Nolle Pros are cases associated with guilty pleas.
_______________________________________________________________________
83
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 40 Example County Court: Time to Disposition by Percent of All
Dispositions, Accumulative
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1997
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1997
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1998
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1998
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1999
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1999
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2000
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2000
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2001
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2001
0.0%
0.0%
61 - 90
61 - 90
91 -120
91 -120
121 - 150
121 - 150
54.0%
54.0%
56.7%
56.7%
50.6%
40.7% 50.6%
40.7%
41.5%
41.5%
0 - 60
0 - 60
46.0%
46.0%
50.0%
50.0%
46.8%
35.8% 46.8%
35.8%
38.7%
38.7%
20.0%
20.0%
24.0%
24.0%
8.3%
8.3%
19.0%
19.0%
27.2%
27.2%
26.4%
26.4%
40.0%
40.0%
18.0%
8.3% 18.0%
8.3%
13.9%
13.9%
24.7%
24.7%
19.8%
19.8%
60.0%
60.0%
32.0%
32.0%48.3%
48.3%
30.4%
30.4%
30.9%
30.9%
35.8%
35.8%
80.0%
80.0%
151 - 180
151 - 180
181 - 270
181 - 270
94.0%
94.0%
90.0%
90.0%
91.1%
80.2% 91.1%
80.2%
84.9%
84.9%
100.0%
100.0%
88.0%
76.7% 88.0%
76.7%
79.7%
67.9% 79.7%
67.9%
68.9%
68.9%
120.0%
120.0%
271 - 365
271 - 365
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Stafford County Circuit Court: Felony
Stafford County Circuit Court: Felony
Time to Disposition - Accumulative
Time to Disposition - Accumulative
1997-2001
1997-2001
365 +
365 +
Chart 40 makes it much easier to compare one year to the next. For example, a
reader can immediately see that in 1998 a total of 48 percent of all cases disposed
of that year were disposed of by 120 days – if the information is correct. That year
is the highest by far. Now, this information does not say how many cases were
disposed of that year. Maybe they disposed of less total cases. That data is
available and should also be examined, see below in Chart 30.
_______________________________________________________________________
84
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 41 Example County Court: Number of Cases by Time to Disposition,
Accumulative
Stafford County Circuit Court: Felony
Stafford County Circuit Court: Felony
Time to Disposition - Accumulative
Time to Disposition - Accumulative
1997-2001
1997-2001
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1997
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1997
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1998
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1998
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1999
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 1999
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2000
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2000
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2001
Stafford County Circuit Court: Time to Disposition - Felony 2001
106
106
120
120
5
59
9
0
0
0 - 60
0 - 60
61 - 90
61 - 90
91 -120
91 -120
121 - 150
121 - 150
151 - 180
151 - 180
181 - 270
181 - 270
271 - 365
271 - 365
79
79 81
81
50
50
60
60
47
47 54
54
27
27 34
34 40
3340
33
44
44
23
23 30
30 37
2937
29
41
41
29
29
24
2425
25
38
38
16
16
20
20
11
11
20
2021
21
40
40
12
5 12
5
15
15 22
22 28
28
60
60
44
44 46
46
63
5563
55
73
73
80
80
72
6572
65
90
90
100
100
365 +
365 +
Chart 41 does show just the numbers – accumulative. This chart has the same
information as in chart 29 but it provides the actual numbers. Look at 1998 in the
“91-120 Day” Category – it does not appear nearly so impressive as when it is
viewed by percentage. This chart shows that 2001 appears to be the best year for
processing the most cases.
Again, looking at Chart 30 it appears that except for 1997/1998 the court has
processed more cases. Court personnel can determine when new resources were
added and the impact of those resources. Was there a judge added or additional
staff? When?
This kind of information should be followed on a regular basis. It appears to be available
to the courts.
_______________________________________________________________________
85
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Criminal Defense
The Public Defender’s Office, like its counterpart the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office,
provided a timely and thorough response to the consultants’ written questions prior to
arriving onsite.
The defender and appointed attorneys can have a serious impact on court caseflow and
therefore the jail population when pretrial defendants make up a large proportion of the
population as they do in Washtenaw County. How quickly they become involved in a
case and how long it takes to qualify a defendant and appoint counsel is important. Are
there court rules that set how quickly an appointed attorney must visit a client if they are
incarcerated? Does the defender work with the court and the prosecutor to establish
process guidelines for average cases? Since more than 90 percent of all cases reach
disposition via negotiation, are there agreed-upon negotiation time frames between the
defense and prosecutor? The defense bar as a group represent the interests of the
defendants in system-wide discussions and can influence the bond setting processes
and the development of pretrial services and sentencing alternative programs available
to the courts.
Gibson and Aguirre met with the public defender and private defense attorneys and
found them to be very engaged the defense is involved in most aspects of the criminal
justice system.
The Public Defender’s Office has 11 attorneys who handle felony cases, 2.5 attorneys
who work with defendants charged with misdemeanors and 2.5 work with juveniles. The
office has six support staff members. This office handles 13 county courts, Personal
Protection Orders, Friend of the Court Matters, Extraditions, Contempt Hearings and
Line-ups.
The office usually has from 14 to 26 volunteer student lawyers and
undergraduate investigators.
Public Defender services are provided by the county and they are relatively quickly
assigned by the court but they are notified via regular mail and it can take up to three or
four days to get through court and interoffice mail processes and in the defenders’ office.
Regarding the jail there was agreement by everybody that it is too small and that there is
severe suppressed usage. It is also very difficult to get into the one of the professional
visiting rooms.
They said that the courts should focus on increasing their use of pretrial services and
other pretrial alternatives, including more tether. There should be more community
corrections options, and not be limited by PA 511 criteria. Even Lansing is saying that it
is time to widen the net for community corrections, the attorneys said.
The attorneys say that the “arraignment on the information” is a waste of a court day.
They said that major assistance would be provided by the ability to get the sentencing
option from the judge – that would really help expedite the cases.
_______________________________________________________________________
86
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
They believe that there are too many people with mental health problems in the jail and
that too many defendants have very low bonds ($50 to $1,000) and should have the ten
percent option. Court clerks do not notify defendants of felony warrants issued.
There is less leeway for police to influence the Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys (APA)
and the defense lawyers could always talk with the law enforcement officers.
The attorneys said that the sentencing guidelines with indeterminate sentencing inhibited
negotiated agreements because it can be so vague and their clients might receive a
large spread, such as three to 15 years.
They think there are too many people sitting in jail on VOP, the District Court puts too
many people on probation and that there should be more probation officers for both
offices.
_______________________________________________________________________
87
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Community Corrections, Probation and Pretrial Alternatives
Pretrial Processes and Alternatives
Gibson and Aguirre met with Joe Degraff and long before that saw the information that
he works so hard to produce for all of Washtenaw County – not to mention his regular
work.
Washtenaw County does not currently have a regular pretrial screening unit that provides
information regarding bond decisions. Pretrial services do exist within the Michigan
Department of Corrections Office of Community Corrections funded local Community
Corrections unit.
The Pretrial Release Enhancement Program (PREP) is a supervised release option for
offenders who pose a higher risk on bond because of issues of substance abuse or
failure to appear (FTA). Bail magistrates often make referrals to the program – a process
which may take several days to complete. There are degrees of supervision based on a
risk-needs assessment. Supervision can include once-a-week office visits and bi-weekly
drug tests. It can also include tether and alcohol monitoring as well. Other programs
and treatment are brokered as needed.
The average daily program caseload is about 57 and it has a successful completion rate
of about 73 percent.
_______________________________________________________________________
88
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Chart 42 Washtenaw County Jail, Time to Release In Days 5
Washtenaw County Time to Release Accumulative (Sample data 210 inmates 2003)
Washtenaw County Time to Release Accumulative (Sample data 210 inmates 2003)
Time to Release
Time to Release
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
Offenses
Offenses
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
0-12 hrs 13-24 1-3 days 4-7 days 8-14
0-12 hrs 13-24 1-3 days 4-7 days 8-14
hrs
days
hrs
days
15-30
15-30
Days
Days
Category
Category
31-60
31-60
Days
Days
61-90
91-180 181-365
61-90
91-180 181-365
Days
Days
Days
Days
Days
Days
The fact that a high percentage of the people are taken to jail and released fairly quickly
is both good and bad. The good part is that law enforcement, jail staff and the courts
have made arrangements to ensure that people have appropriate ways of getting out of
jail. The bad part is that if defendants are being released in hours then it begs the
question of whether they needed to be brought into the secure envelope of the jail in the
first place.
This is a major issue now and it will be in the future. The criminal justice leaders want to
ensure that it is Washtenaw criminal justice professionals that make a conscious
determination based on information. Since pretrial inmates take more resources than
other inmates it is important to examine the method of release by time to release. No
data was immediately available to the consultants but the Washtenaw staff should
combine the method of release with time of release.
Washtenaw County staffs have determined the success/failure rate of many of the
different kinds of release. Using either a sampling process or gross figures for a time
period, staff can calculate the Failure-to-Appear rates and the Rearrest (while awaiting
court) rates.
5
This is derived from a sample of 210 inmates randomly selected by WCSO staff.
_______________________________________________________________________
89
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
These three figures, the Failure-to-Appear Rate, Rearrest Rate and Time-to-Release are
the baselines to which staff can compare the impact of changes to the system.
Washtenaw County criminal justice officials can determine which methods are most
effective in releasing defendants that are going to be released in any event, i.e., there is
no increase in public danger. And if the criminal justice authorities examine these rates
associated with each method of release, along with the average time to release for each
kind of release, then the community can maximize results for the least costs.
Table 7, below, is an example of the type of data collection instrument that can help
determine a baseline for comparison purposes as well as allow a jurisdiction to collect
on-going system-wide pretrial management information. Misdemeanor summonses
could be added to the form -- in which case the time to release category has no meaning.
How can it help the community if the CJCC examines the “Time to
Release” and the “Method of Release” when considering what kind of
jail building should be built if the community decides that a new one
is needed. Should it impact their planning? If so, how?
Table 7 Pretrial Release Performance Data Collection Table
Criteria
PR Bond
Cash Bond
Surety Bond
FTA Arrest Time FTA Arrest Time FTA Arrest Time
Felony
Misd.
Traffic
SR Bond
FTA Arr Ti
Ordinance
This list can be as detailed as managers choose. List as many criteria as needed. For
example, this data can be collected on a selection of charges or kinds of charges or a
mix of other selected criteria.
FTA - Failure to Appear Rate -- it may require sampling of cases or the information may already
be retrievable from court records.
Arrest - Rearrest while on release -- this will probably require a sampling of cases.
Time - Time from booking to release -- this is probably available in the automated system but it
will have to match any sample data collected above.
SR - Supervised Release bond.
_______________________________________________________________________
90
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Since the vast majority of defendants released are not public safety issues, the earlier
they are released the more jail beds will be made available for those who do pose a risk
to the community.
Probation Residential Programs
Certain sentenced felons that are eligible for residential treatment for substance abuse or
cognitive restructuring can spend up to 90 days in treatment. It has about a 60 percent
successful completion rate. The availability of local beds was identified as a gap in the
system during several interviews.
Jail Earned Release Programs
These are Jail-based programs providing substance abuse treatment readiness and
education, or a Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) program. Inmates may reduce their jail
time by completing one of these programs. According to the manager, these programs
have been compromised by the required early release of less risky/needy inmates who
are better candidates for emergency jail crowding releases.
Day Reporting
This program mirrors the PREP program (above) except that it is designed to work with
sentenced offenders.
Electronic Monitoring (Tether)
This program has about 37 as an average daily caseload and has a successful
completion rate of about 85 percent.
_______________________________________________________________________
91
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Probation
Probation is another alternative in Washtenaw County. It is operated by the MDOC and
has approximately 1,200 cases at any one time. They offer a wide range of supervision
options to include electronic monitoring, aftercare programs, residential programs and
they also have special supervision units for high risk offenders.
Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff’s Office made the official request for technical assistance and has been
intimately involved in the process since before the consultants were chosen. They have
a clear position working with all system actors to be able to provide the most public
safety for dollar spent to the justice system actors and the community at large.
The Sheriff's Office provides local contract law enforcement and operates the jail in
Washtenaw County. Gibson and Aguirre met with the Sheriff Dan Minzey, Undersheriff
Herb Mahony, and other command staff members several times during the visit. Jail
Commander Filsinger organized and shepherded the process and was with the
consultants throughout the process. The sheriff’s position as chief law enforcement
officer in the county and the jail commander’s positions are well depicted under the law
enforcement section.
County Administration
The County Government, administration and commissioners are critical members of the
local criminal justice system since they are responsible to the citizens for most of the
county’s expenditures. Their oversight and how they go about it can make a critical
difference in the effectiveness and efficiency of the local criminal justice system. If a
Criminal Justice Collaboration Council is successful then it is the citizens and therefore
the County government who will see and feel the impact -- along with the other criminal
justice system policy makers.
The Washtenaw County Administration and Board of Commissioners are very engaged
in criminal justice system issues. Gibson and Aguirre met with Commissioners Leah
Gunn, Barbara Bergman and Wesley Prater. They also met with Jean Carlberg of the
City of Ann Arbor Council.
Gibson and Aguirre also met with County Administrator Bob Guenzel and Deputy
Administrator Frank Cambria. Administration staff members Scott Patton and Amy
Klinke worked closely and intensively with Commander Filsinger and the consultants to
prepare for and be participants in this technical assistance project. They were
indispensable and were there at the request of the Administrator. Gibson and Aguirre
met with some of the members and discussed the fact that jail populations are policy
driven as opposed to crime driven. Gibson and Aguirre explained that they would only
_______________________________________________________________________
92
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
advise Washtenaw on their observations and how Washtenaw can develop a process to
make those decisions based on their own standards. The County is poised to help make
necessary changes in the justice system, which is not as much of a system as they
would like. They have already hired a consulting firm to review the jail structures and
begin planning bed additions in one manner or another. The administration and county
legislature seem ready to join in a collaborative effort to try to develop more permanent
methods to both create a more defined criminal justice system and manage it.
There already is already a long history of collaborative work in Washtenaw County.
Many of the ideas and suggestions made or that might have been made by the
consultants are partially in operation or have been tried. This is not bad – quite the
opposite, it is the consultants’ view that because of the history of sophisticated
collaborative work there is much higher chance of success by just slightly reorganizing
various aspects of current or recent system-wide improvement efforts.
Treatment Resources: Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Gibson and Aguirre met with a group of treatment and services providers including Glynis
Anderson, Jim Balmer, Ellen Schulmiester, Carole McCabe and Lore Rogers.
One of the main issues this group brought forward is that the county and judicial system
does not provide many funds for treatment of local defendants and offenders. They
believe that they have the services and would work with the county but that some
additional funding is needed unless jail is to be the AODA primary care choice for the
Washtenaw County. Some said the same applies to people with other issues such as
dual diagnosis concerns. There is also a belief in this group that there is not enough
residential treatment options in Washtenaw County. They are very concerned that
managed care practices result in the less care and sometimes inappropriate care
because it is less expensive in the short run, albeit, maybe ineffective
They are more than willing to work with judicial and county officials to design a more
effective overall system and set up tools by which the system can more accurately
determine what will be most effective and least expensive for the community in the long
run.
Separately, the consultants also met with Susan Cares and Kathy Reynolds to get
perspectives from the public health and mental health communities.
There have been several programs that attempted to bridge corrections, courts and the
treatment community but they have not always been executed successfully for many
reasons.
These two resource providers said that there are complaints that they do not use
residential centers more because it is their goal to do more within the community. Also,
others do not understand the criteria that they are required to meet.
_______________________________________________________________________
93
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
They fund a number of programs that attempt to reach out to the homeless and mental
health consumers and are more than willing to be involved in any system wide effort to
manage the justice system.
Criminal Justice System Management
There is a very modern, sophisticated and cooperative group of criminal justice,
treatment and law enforcement personnel and agencies in Washtenaw County.
The Washtenaw County criminal justice system, and the community, is growing and they
have a very extensive history of collaborative activities and processes under their belt.
They have already given up the use of bilateral interactions for each problem that needs
to be resolved. Washtenaw can enhance their current system even more by adding
formality and more information processing designed to anticipate and resolve issues
before they occur and practically manage the system to the greater degree.
Washtenaw County’s criminal justice community is ready to create a successful Criminal
Justice Collaborating Council, or CJCC. Several of the primary participants in this
systems review were more than willing to move more assertively and bring their
information to the table.
The first objective of the Criminal Justice Collaborating Council (CCJC) may be
to determine the needs of the jail but the overall Mission is to ensure more
effective and efficient management of the system as a whole.
Currently, the primary objective of the CJCC may be to determine jail needs but the
overall mission is to ensure more effective and efficient management of the system as a
whole. Regularly learning about and monitoring the entire system can result in significant
jail-bed savings and assist the jail more than any other single action. In a Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) funded review of five jurisdictions that had been deemed to
have successfully addressed jail crowding, participants claimed it was the creation or
rejuvenation of a CJCC that was the single most effective tool.
Washtenaw County should first determine who should be on their Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee. Below is a suggested list of participants that are commonly
included:






Court Judge(s)
County Commission Member(s)
County Judge
Prosecutor
Public defender
Private defender
_______________________________________________________________________
94
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment








November 2003
Sheriff
Court Administrator / Clerk
Court Services Supervisor
State Probation and Parole Supervisor
Police chief(s)
Jail administrator
Juvenile Authorities
Other persons as needed
The CJCC should have a titular leader(s). The committee should decide on its own
membership and leadership, albeit, judicial leadership is recommended. The court is
often considered to be one of the highest status players and active judicial leadership
can help create the sense of importance that can prevent erosion of the committee’s
effectiveness by principals’ assigning other staff to attend or simply quitting.
One agency should provide support services to the committee to conduct all of the
housekeeping chores (see recommendation above). The CJCC should ensure dedicated
time of someone to be staff to the CJCC. This person is responsible for overseeing the
collection of interagency information, research, prepare jail population reports, coordinate
the creation and presentation of permanent system-wide monitoring reports, investigate
and prepare follow-up reports about the needs for a new jail as well as alternative
programs and initiatives and their probable impact. This person should be a staff person
to the CJCC and respond to their requests beyond just the jail's needs.
System Information
Gibson and Aguirre found that there is a great deal of data available in Washtenaw
County. The Sheriff’s Office produces some limited information and the Courts, also,
have some information. In each case there is a lot more data collected than is available
for analysis. There is a need for more system information. The result is that the CJCC
should develop a management information plan and begin collecting the information now.
This is not meant to be a highly complex process, at least not in the beginning. The
immediate plan can involve using available sources and technology to collect data about
current operations. Later the plan should evolve into a long-range review of the system’s
needs.
There is much more data available in the jail's and the state records system than is used
by the criminal justice community. Upon Mr. Gibson's request the jail administrator and
the Community Corrections director, Joe Degraff, and others worked intensively to cull
jail population information, case load and case flow information. Some of the information
was gleaned from ad-hoc reports while more was available through the normal reporting
processes. There is enough information in variations that could be prepared on a regular
basis to provide good management information for the whole system.
_______________________________________________________________________
95
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Generally, law enforcement agencies collect information on arrests and summonses but
they are not methodically examined in relation to the jail as well as the entire county. At
the moment, the most important information for law enforcement is who they do and do
not bring to jail and why. The Jail staff can then use its database to examine anyone
who is brought to jail.
Next to the jail and law enforcement agencies, the most important information provider is
the court. The Washtenaw court collects information in usable formats for caseload and
caseflow analysis information. Court officials were very cooperative. They are more
than willing and able to set up more permanent information reports to be generated on a
regular basis, in the future.
It is important to connect the jail data with court information. Combining such information
as "time to release" (by various release types) and failure-to-appear information can
ensure that the County is maximizing safety and limiting costs. The Court can also use
this information to examine overall bonding practices (see below).
Sentencing practices are difficult to track and to determine their effectiveness. Their
impact on the jail should be examined very carefully. The much larger and very
important overall impact on long-term recidivism requires a more sophisticated level of
examination that should come later.
All alternatives and community supervision programs (including state and local probation
offices) should collect performance data in order to be able to analyze which defendants
and offenders do well on which programs. They must be able to hone their own
organizations and activities in order to be more effective. But first, they must define their
objectives, operationalize their definitions of success and then determine realistic
measuring instruments.
Recidivism
It is critical to measure all alternative programs impact and how they compare to the
populations that do not receive treatment. What programs in and out (mainly out) of jail
are most effective with whom. Recidivism is only one part of this analysis. Most
analysts, however, will say that it is difficult to measure recidivism because of the many
different definitions. This is correct and not correct. It is not critical that Washtenaw
measure for the world – just itself. Ensure that all measures are carefully defined so that
Washtenaw County officials know what they mean. It is important to be able to measure
across jurisdictions but most important is the ability to be able to compare Washtenaw
figures to itself over time.
Who Should Be Jailed?
Only Washtenaw citizens should determine how big the Washtenaw County jail should
be and how many beds at each security level are needed. The bottom line is that a
CJCC can examine whom it expects to keep in jail based on, type of crime, criminal and
_______________________________________________________________________
96
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
personal profile of persons arrested and/or sentenced, and length of stay in jail. Data
should follow the flow of defendants and offenders from arrest all the way through the
system. How long does it take an average case to reach disposition for different kinds of
crimes? What is the average time from each event to the next? Determine how many of
these defendants and offenders can be expected. How many might be female, or
youths. Do you want to house them locally? How many of these defendants and
offenders could be referred to non-jail alternatives such as supervision in the community
(pretrial or sentenced), drug treatment and testing, active probation or community service
while in the community, and day reporting. This can be done locally by someone who is
assigned to assist the management group.
Financial Impact of Planning and Management
Planning and management not only save tax dollars by preventing unnecessary
expansion of jail facilities and their operations. In Washtenaw County’s situation any
plan that eliminates one full-time 24-hour post, through better planning of additional
facilities or the development of an alternative program, would eliminate more than five full
time employee positions.
If the average annual cost of a deputy or jailer is $30,000 then one 24 hour post would
cost annually $150,000. The cost of this position over the expected life of a facility, say
30 years, would be 4.5 million dollars. This amount represents a significant percentage
of the cost of the new addition to the jail. Your long term operational cost, essentially
labor, eclipse the immediate cost of facilities construction or expansion. Also, alternative
programs are less labor intensive. There is a very real impact from good planning.
A good planning and management process can save a jurisdiction much more than one
24-hour-post. This example, however, should illustrate that by understanding what is
actually happening in the criminal justice process public officials will not be back
requesting more funds from taxpayers in a short time.
_______________________________________________________________________
97
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
VIII. Community Meeting
Introduction
The community meeting was held on Thursday, October 9, 2003.
included in the appendix to this report.
The agenda is
The community meeting provided an opportunity for criminal justice leaders, government
and community representatives to hear about and express their views about issues
related to their criminal justice system. The goals of the community meeting are to:






educate participants about historical and current legal issue related to jails
encourage participants to identify problem areas regarding legal liability
constitutional issues, employment practice, and procedural rights issues
educate participants about the role of public policy in influencing the size of
the jail population and how effectively the local criminal justice system is
managed
give participants an assessment of the local criminal justice system based
on the jail assessment and interviews
give participants a description of the type of planning needed to
successfully address jail facility problems, i.e., the Total Systems Planning
Model
allow participants share their concerns and ideas about the local criminal
justice system and the development of adequate jail facilities
The rest of this section simply summarizes the materials presented during the community
meeting.
National Institute of Corrections
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is attached to the Bureau of Prisons in the
United States Department of Justice. It was established in the early 1970s as a result of
concern generated by unrest in a variety of correctional settings. It was initially funded
through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEA). In 1977 the NIC
received its first appropriation. The purpose of the Institute is to provide training,
technical assistance, and information to state and local correctional agencies and to
sponsor research, evaluation, and policy and program development. The NIC is a very
small agency by federal standards with offices in Washington, DC and Longmont,
Colorado.
The staff members, who operate the Jails Division in Longmont deal exclusively with the
problems and concerns of local corrections. Since its staff is small the NIC contracts with
a variety of services and technical assistance providers to provide technical assistance to
local jurisdictions.
_______________________________________________________________________
98
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
What Do You Use Your Jail For?
To clarify the values surrounding incarceration in a jurisdiction, government decision
makers and community leaders must consider a very basic question, "What is our jail
for?" The way the jail is used is largely dependent on the philosophies and practices of
the key officials in the Washtenaw County criminal justice system. The CJCC should
ensure the jail is utilized for the appropriate offenders as defined by the local community.
Many communities see the purpose of the jail as protecting society by locking up
dangerous persons or as a punishment for crimes. Often, inmate data indicates many of
the persons in jail are not dangerous, or shouldn't be punished because they are pretrial
defendants and simply lack financial resources.
To evaluate how the jail is being used, adequate inmate data and system data as
described in the meeting must be collected and analyzed. This information will tell
county officials who is confined in jail and for how long. This will identify a potential pool
of person who could be handled in a different manner.
The Washtenaw County Jail & Criminal Justice System Data
Gibson reviewed the system-wide data and information collected during the on-site visit.
It is important to note that this is just illustrative data that has not been carefully analyzed
or evaluated. This brought out a lot of discussion and comprised a large part of the
presentation.
The Washtenaw County Jail Facility
Aguirre reviewed the current Washtenaw County Jail design and compared it to others.
_______________________________________________________________________
99
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendices
_______________________________________________________________________
100
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendix A
Information Request
_______________________________________________________________________
101
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Information Collection Requests
I.
List of persons to interview
A. Sheriff
B. Jail administrator,
C. Relevant Board of Supervisors (County Commission members) members,
D. County Administrator,
E. Judge(s) at each level of court,
F. Police chiefs of the most significant jurisdictions,
G. Prosecutor,
H. Public Defender,
I. Representative of the Defense Bar,
J. State police,
K. Fire marshal or chief,
L. Federal law enforcement authorities – if they have an impact on the jail, for
example a federal marshal or INS representative,
M. State jail inspector,
N. Local or regional probation director,
O. Any pretrial services,
P. local community corrections agencies,
Q. Representatives of treatment agencies such as those that provide mental
health services and or substance abuse treatment.
R. Any other officials at any level of government which the sheriff’s office
determines to be relevant,
S. Significant community and/or victims organizations as determined by sheriff’s
office,
T. Any other persons that the sheriff’s office believe are relevant to the project.
II.
Criminal Justice System Questions
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Is there some form of Criminal Justice System Management Committee(s)?
If yes, please describe who is on the committee(s), how often they meet,
and describe their mission(s)?
Are there recent laws that have been passed by the state legislature that
you believe will have a significant impact on the local criminal justice
system?
Do victim laws have an impact on the court case flow or the decisions
made by any of the primary criminal justice system actors?
Do you have a copy of the relevant bail laws, state court rules, or any
relevant administrative orders of the local court? If “yes”, please make
copies available.
What are the local laws regarding the “waiving” of juveniles to the adult
court? Has this been an issue within your jurisdiction? Do you house
juveniles in the jail? If so, under what circumstances?
Information Systems
_______________________________________________________________________
102
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Please describe the information systems that are used for different
agencies.
1. Is there a “CJIS” or central criminal justice information system shared by many
agencies? If “yes”, then which agencies share the system?
2. Please provide a brief description of the following: age, kind of computer
system (mainframe, pc, etc) and software in which the system is written.
a. Jail information system,
b. Police systems for the major police departments,
c. Court system,
d. Prosecutor system,
e. Defense system,
f. Any kind of local court services, pretrial services, or community corrections,
g. Parole and/or probation system,
h. what other automated criminal justice systems are there in the jurisdiction?
III.
Information Collection for Particular Agencies
A. Court Questions:
1. General Questions
a. Does the Court Administrator and/or Clerk have caseload and case flow
information?
b. Are there any differentiated case management processes? For example, is
there a special case track for incarcerated defendants? Defendants charged
with drug cases?
c. Similar to differentiated case management, are there any specialty courts?
Drug court, domestic violence court, or others?
d. Who sets the dockets?
e. What kind of calendaring system is used?
f. Does the state supreme court set any case management guidelines (rules)?
g. Does the local court?
h. Is there a formal or informal case continuance policy?
i. Are there any institutionalized processes or rules by which the court assists the
prosecution and defense to negotiate appropriate cases more expeditiously?
2. Data to collect
a. Caseload Data by Case type -- to the greatest degree possible – such as by
charge. Several years of data would be great for comparison purposes and to
identify trends.
1) Number of cases filed – by type,
 Number/percentage of cases begun but not filed,
 Number/percentage of dismissals,
 Number/percentage of charges reduced prior to filing.
2) Number of cases disposed by different methods (trial, non-trial, diversion,
dismissal, etc.)
3) Number of cases pending
4) Age of pending caseload
_______________________________________________________________________
103
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
5) Is there information indicating the number/percentage of cases that are
disposed of by
timeframe? For example:
 Number of cases disposed with average and median times by disposition
event,
 Number of cases disposed that were less than three months old,
 Number of cases disposed that were less than six months old,
 Number of case disposed that were less than 12 months old,
 Number of cases disposed that were less than 24 months old,
 Number of cases disposed that were less than 36 months old,
 Number of cases disposed that were more than 36 months old.
b. Other Caseflow Data: Average and median times to and between each court
event(s). Is information available to track the average and/or median time
between the normal court events?
1) Arrest to initial appearance
2) Arrest to the next appearance after the initial bond appearance
3) Arrest to filing or preliminary hearing - whatever is the most common
method of binding over felony cases.
4) Filing to plea
5) Filing to trial
6) Plea to sentencing
7) Trial to sentencing
B. Prosecutor
1. General Questions
a. Does the office set explicit prosecution standards? What level of sufficiency is
required to file a case? For example, does a case have to meet just probable
cause, or information must strong enough to meet a preliminary hearing, or
even go to trial as charged?
b. How are cases screened?
c. How are cases assigned?
d. Does the office review requests for arrest warrants?
e. What is the caseload per attorney?
f. Are caseloads weighted by kind of case other than misdemeanor and felony?
g. Is there any office policy concerning continuances?
h. Is there a negotiation policy/process? Are there any institutional processes in
which the court, prosecutor and defense review cases in order to expedite
normal plea negotiations?
2. Data Questions
a. Number of cases received for screening
b. Number/percentage of cases:
1) Misdemeanors and (separately) felonies not filed, or diverted,
2) Misdemeanors and (separately) felonies filed, or diverted,
_______________________________________________________________________
104
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
3) misdemeanor dispositions: plea, non-jury trial, jury trial, dismissed,
diversions and total convicted,
4) original felony dispositions prior to being bound over to district court –
dismissals and pleas, diversions,
5) felony dispositions after being bound over to district court – dismissals,
pleas, jury trial, non-jury trial, diversions and total convictions.
6) How many attorneys are there? Non-attorney staff?
C. Defense
General Questions
a. Is there a public defenders office?
b. How is indigence determined?
c. How much time does it take the defense counsel to be appointed?
d. How are cases screened and assigned?
e. How soon is the incarcerated client seen? Are there explicit guidelines?
f. What percentage of the caseload is incarcerated at time of appointment?
g. How long does it take to arrange a bond review hearing?
h. What is the office caseload for the County?
i. What is the caseload per attorney?
j. How many attorneys are there?
k. How many non-attorney staff are in the office?
l. Are there any institutional processes in which the court, prosecutor and
defense review cases in order to expedite normal plea negotiations?
m. How is discovery handled?
n. Is the public defender involved in some form(s) of criminal justice system
management group(s)?
D. Jail
1. General Questions already included on NIC application.
2. Data and Information
a. A recent snapshot of the jail population with as much detail as is practical. The
number and percentage of inmates in local facilities by:
 Legal status and case type: pretrial (traffic, misdemeanor and felonies);
awaiting sentence, (traffic, misdemeanor and felony); sentenced (same); holds
for other agencies, holds for other jurisdictions, etc.
 By charge,
 By sex,
 By arresting agency and case type if available.
b. Exit information relating to average length of stay (ALOS). An example would be
a sampling of exit information on all inmates leaving the facility during a certain
period, e.g., a month, six months or a year, or longer if available. It might include
the following information;
1) ALOS by several categories
a) legal status (pretrial, sentenced local and state, out of county holds,
b) Charge level ("a" above by traffic, misdemeanor, and felony)
c) Charge (by pretrial, sentenced, other)
_______________________________________________________________________
105
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
d) Arresting agency
e)
2) method of release -- if pretrial release identify the kind of bond by level of
charge,
a) personal recognizance,
b) other non-financial release
c) cash bond,
d) surety bond,
e) property bond,
f) other bond.
3) Most serious charge,
4) arresting agency,
 Average length of stay and average daily population
 by arresting agency
 by charge
 by kind of release
5) Percentages of total population released in the following increments (or
similar) % of total release sample that are released within 12 hours, 24
hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 7 days, 14 days, 30 days, 30+ days – of
booking.
a) By legal status and level of charge
b) By kind of release
c) By arresting agency
6) Booking Information – Information on inmates entering the facility.
a) Total booking information for a particular time period
b) Average daily booking
c) By legal status and level of charge
d) By sex
e) By legal status
f) By arresting agency
E. Police
1. General Questions for Each Agency
a. Are there explicit arrest standards?
b. Do officers have the authority to issue misdemeanor and/or felony summonses
in some cases?
c. Are there jail alternatives provided for officers dealing with public inebriates
d. Are there jail alternatives provided for officers dealing with people' mental health
problems?
2. Data to Collect
a. Arrest information: Citations and arrests by charge over the past few years.
b. Have there been any policy or law changes that have effected the number or
kinds of arrests?
c. What is the average length of time it takes to book a prisoner into the jail?
_______________________________________________________________________
106
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
F. Probation and Community Corrections
1. General Questions
Almost all of these questions (excepting PSI questions) can be used for most
community supervision programs.
2. Data to Collect
a. Average daily caseload for program?
b. Average daily caseload per officer/counselor for the officer?
c. Are caseloads weighted by kind of case?
d. Percentage of success and failure?
e. Percent of failures for technical violations?
f. Percent of failure for new arrests while under supervision?
g. Percent of Violations served with summons v. arrests?
h. Percent of cases in which jail was part of the sentence?
i. Average number of PSIs ordered?
j. Percent of all PSIs completed that are for incarcerated defendants/offenders?
k. What is the average length of time it takes to complete a PSI?
G. Community Supervision Programs
Please list all community programs.
H. Alternative Programs
Please list all “alternative” programs that may or may not be considered in the
community.
_______________________________________________________________________
107
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendix B
Interview Schedule
National Institute of Corrections - Washtenaw County Study
Name
Date
Leah Gunn – County Board of Com.
Barbara Bergman – County Board of
Com.
Wesley Prater – County Board of Com.
Glynis Anderson- Home of New Vision
Jim Balmer- dawn farm
Ellen Schulmiester-shelter assoc
Carole McCabe-avalon
Donna Sabourin - CSTS
Susan Cares - Public Health
Kathy Reynolds - WCHO
SAFE HOUSE - Lore A. Rogers
Bob Guenzel
Frank Cambria
Gordon Burger
Judge Brown
Judges Simpson
Judges Kirkendall
Harley Rider
Paul Bunten
Dan Oates
John Phillips
Elizabeth McGuire
Jon D. Scicluna
Herb Mahony
George Baser
Daniel Minzey
Mike Stuck
Scott Patton
Kirk Filsinger
Carl Watkins
Tim Greene
Henry Pittner
Brian Mackie – Prosecuter
Time
Location
7-Oct
admin
7-Oct
admin
7-Oct
admin
7-Oct
1:00-2:00
7-Oct
1:00-2:00
7-Oct
1:00-2:00
7-Oct
4:00-5:00
7-Oct
4:00-5:00
7-Oct
4:00-5:00
7-Oct
1:00-2:00
7-Oct
2:30-3:30
7-Oct
2:30-3:30
7-Oct
07:30-09:00
downtown
7-Oct
07:30-09:00
downtown
7-Oct
07:30-09:30
downtown
7-Oct
07:30-09:30
downtown
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
8-Oct
0900-1000
Sheriff's office
7-Oct
8:30 - 9:30
downtown
_______________________________________________________________________
108
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
Lloyd Powell - Public Defender
Defense Lawyer - Joe Simon
Defense Lawyer – Brant Funkhouser
Dan Dwyer - Court Administrator
Mark Ptaszek - Administrator
Peggy Haines - Court Clerk
Patrick Hughes - Probation Admin
Joe Degraff – Community Corrections
John Heiftje - A2 Mayor
Cheryl Farmer - Ypsi Mayor
Saline Mayor
MTA
Chambers of Commerce
U-M, EMU, WCC?
Harley Rider
Hudson Miles
Metropark
Paul Bunten
Saline P.D.
Dan Oates
Ann Arbor, PD
John Phillips
Pittsfield Township,
D.P.S.
Elizabeth McGuire
Pittsfield Township,
D.P.S.
Jon D. Scicluna
Washtenaw County
S.O.
Herb Mahony
Washtenaw County,
S.O.
George Baser
Ypsilanti. P.D.
Daniel Minzey
Washtenaw County,
S.O.
Mike Stuck
Milan P.D.
Scott Patton
Washtenaw County
Administration
Kirk Filsinger
Washtenaw County
S.O.
Carl Watkins
Northfield Township,
P.D.
Tim Greene
Northfield Township,
P.D.
Henry Pittner
HSB
November 2003
7-Oct
8:30 - 9:30
downtown
7-Oct
5:00-6:00
downtown
7-Oct
5:00-6:00
downtown
7-Oct
9:30-10:30
downtown
7-Oct
9:30-10:30
downtown
7-Oct
9:30-10:30
downtown
sheriff's office
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
_______________________________________________________________________
109
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendix B
Final Meeting Attendees
Kirk Filsinger
Daniel Minzey
Brian Mackie
Steven Hiller
Mark Ptaszek
Dan Dwyer
Suzette Rygiel-Abella
Joseph DeGraff
Amy Klinke
Scott Patton
Bob Guenzel
Archie Brown
Lloyd Powell
Delphia Simpson
Barbara Bergman
Anne Matteson
Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff
Prosecutor
Prosecutor
Trial Court
Trial Court
Trial Court
Trial Court
County Administration
County Administration
County Administrator
Judge
Public Defender
Public Defender
County Commission
Judge, 15th District Court
_______________________________________________________________________
110
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendix C
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
LOCAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
Washtenaw County
Ann Arbor, Michigan
AGENDA
I.
Introductions
II.
Overview, National Institute of Corrections
III.
Purpose of this County Jail
IV.
Washtenaw County Information Overview
V.
Jail Facilities Review
Observations and recommendations
_______________________________________________________________________
111
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
Appendix D
Example Documents for Developing
a Criminal Justice Collaborating Council
_______________________________________________________________________
112
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATION – WHY?
activities and lists goals and objectives that could
be adopted by any CJCC.
CJCCs: The Need
Administration of the justice system is primarily a
responsibility of local governments. In many
cities and counties, a sentiment is expressed that
the system of criminal justice should, and could,
work better. Scarce local resources could be
allocated more efficiently if city and county law
enforcement activities, court practices, and
corrections programs were planned and
conducted in a coordinated fashion.
This sentiment is especially acute in jurisdictions
where jail crowding is a severe or chronic
problem. Could improved planning and
coordination reverse crowding in correctional
institutions and work overload in other justice
agencies? Could a system wide, interagency,
and intergovernmental CJCC help in this area?
CJCCs: The Advantages
The work of CJCCs can produce many benefits,
including better understanding of crime and
criminal justice problems, greater cooperation
among agencies and units of local government,
clearer objectives and priorities, more effective
resource allocation, and better quality criminal
justice programs and personnel. Taken together,
these results can increase public confidence
in and support for criminal justice processes,
enhancing system performance and, ultimately,
the integrity of the law.
Improved planning and coordination help
individual justice agencies become more
efficient, productive, and effective. Such
improvements also help officials of general
government—such as the city mayor, board of
supervisors, and county commissioners—
evaluate and make decisions about the
justice system’s cost and performance. Many
local governments also are finding that
comprehensive system wide planning
(interagency and cross-jurisdictional) helps to
streamline the entire local system of justice,
eliminating duplication, filling service gaps, and
generally improving the quality of service while
controlling costs.
The major benefits of local justice planning are
shown in the exhibit on page 4, which illustrates
the relationships between major planning
The Need for Improved
Criminal Justice Coordination
In most jurisdictions of the United States, the
responsibility for crime prevention, crime control,
and improvement of the administration of justice
rests largely with local government. But often, the
local government machinery set up to deal with
crime does not work well. Examples may include
the following:
• The narcotics detail of a police department
postpones arrests until the entire network of a
drug ring is identified, then processes 50 to 100
new cases into the local justice system. Jails and
courts, unprepared for the influx, are suddenly
more crowded and backlogged.
• In another locale, the jail has been crowded for
a long time, the county cannot afford to build a
new one, and public support for financing a new
jail is at an all-time low. Legal liability is a
concern, yet officials of general government and
justice agencies seem to be immobilized. There
is no consensus about what needs to be done.
• Concerned about crime, a county board of commissioners approves a large budget increase for
county law enforcement and jails. Increasing the
capacities of only part of the system, however,
results in more arrests for minor offenses,
increases the jail population, and contributes to
court delay but does not reduce serious crime.
Situations like these are familiar in many
localities. The first indication that a major
decision has been made in one part of the
criminal justice system often comes in the form of
a deluge of new cases that overwhelms another
part of the system. Agencies needlessly
duplicate each other’s efforts, increasing the
overall cost of local services. Decisions made
with inadequate information produce unintended
or unanticipated effects. Interagency disputes
may be settled only when the opposing parties
tire of fighting.
The Connection Between
Planning, Analysis, and
Coordination
_______________________________________________________________________
113
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
Planning is the process by which we bring
anticipations of the future to bear on current
decision making. Planning is future oriented,
rooted in the belief that we can make decisions
that not only will help us anticipate and cope with
alternative futures but also will help us have
more control over determining that future.
Planning is an integral part of informed policy
making and competent agency management.
Because planning involves defining problems,
clarifying objectives, establishing priorities, and
instituting programs, every executive must regard
planning as a major responsibility of his or her
job. Planning is part of the executive function, not
something to be assigned to others.
Local justice planning is directed toward the goal
of improved decision making. It requires analysis
and produces improved coordination as well as
other benefits. Planning is the larger concept.
Interestingly, the words “planning,” “analysis,”
and “coordination” are often used interchangeably, as if it is understood that they are related.
Over the years, criminal justice planning
committees increasingly have been renamed
“criminal justice coordinating committees.” This
change reflects a realistic attempt to move away
from some negative baggage associated with the
word “planning,” especially its connection to
centralization of authority and control.
Centralization of control is an unfortunate feature
of some planning efforts. It offends independently
elected and appointed officials who feel obligated
to constantly fight against erosion of their
authority. So, to many, a criminal justice
coordinating committee may initially appear to
be a criminal justice planning committee in
disguise.
Benefits of Local Justice
Planning and Coordination
Good planning at the local level can be expected
to result in:
• Improved analysis of problems. Planning
produces the data and analyses needed by
elected officials and justice administrators to
improve their decision making.
• Improved communication, cooperation, and
coordination. Planning provides a mechanism
for improving communication, cooperation, and
coordination among police, courts, corrections,
November 2003
and private service agencies as well as between
different levels of government and the three
branches of government. Improved coordination
is a result of planning.
• Clear goals, objectives, and priorities.
Planning permits more precise articulation of
purposes and links goals, objectives, tasks, and
activities in more meaningful ways.
• More effective allocation of resources.
Planning provides a framework for resource
allocation decisions. It simplifies setting priorities
for the use of resources to achieve justice goals
and objectives.
• Improved programs and services. Planning
produces a clearer understanding of problems
and needs. Planning also makes it easier to
formulate goals and objectives and to evaluate
and compare alternative programs and
procedures.
• Improved capacity and quality of personnel.
Planning focuses organizational effort and
provides agency personnel with new knowledge
and information. Planning can result in benefits
to the entire community, such as making the
justice system more accountable, more open to
the public, more efficient, and more effective.
Justice system coordination can also save
taxpayer money.
Many different justice planning and coordination
activities serve to improve justice system policy,
program, and operational decision making at the
local level. Exhibit 2 illustrates the relationships
between major classes of justice planning
activities and general objectives and goals that
may be adopted by any CJCC. Each planning
activity contributes to one or more of the six
planning objectives, which, in turn, contribute to
improved decision making and, ultimately, to the
achievement of justice system goals. Although
most planning activities actually contribute to the
achievement of more than one planning
objective, each is located above the one it most
directly serves.
Planning can also increase public confidence in
and support for the justice system. Ultimately, the
effectiveness of the justice system depends on
the willingness of the majority of citizens to obey
the law and to report crime, identify suspects,
and cooperate with the prosecution. Citizen co-
_______________________________________________________________________
114
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
November 2003
operation is also necessary if ex-offenders are to
reintegrate into the fabric of the community
successfully. Anything that can be done to
increase public confidence in the justice system
and its support for justice processes contributes
to system
performance. A coherent plan, produced by a
coordinating body that speaks with a responsible
voice, can soothe public fears of crime and allay
any concerns that little can be done about it.
Appointed and elected officials of general
government and citizens concerned with broad
policy issues must rely on justice agency heads
for advice on what to do about crime and justice
problems. But these executives seldom agree.
Although the different agencies must interact
(they share the same clients and workload), they
often do so only when absolutely necessary—
and then with little apparent concern for the
“system” of which they are a part.
In the aggregate, planning can protect the
integrity of the law. Planning can produce a
justice system that makes it unnecessary for
aggrieved citizens to take the law into their own
hands; that does not allow the morale of justice
agency personnel to sink to the point where
unethical behavior seems justified; and that
prevents public services from becoming so poor
that courts must close facilities and grand juries
must expose scandals. As people recognize that
crime is less a problem to be solved than a
condition to be managed, planning is increasingly
viewed as a sign of good management.
Planning protects the integrity of the law to the
degree that it converts ideals into practice—by
administering justice. Competent planning, in
short, is a sign of good government.
In such a context, comprehensive planning must
seek to build linkages among agency decision
makers without attempting to subordinate them
to any higher authority. No one is at the helm, but
no “master planner” will be allowed to steer. Not
fragmentation, but the problems resulting from it,
must be the target. Accommodation and
cooperation can be fostered only if planning is
able to demonstrate mutual regard for agencies
that work together to achieve shared objectives.
The independence of the key participants must
be respected.
The Context of Planning
and Coordination
Developing competence in planning and applying
it effectively to criminal justice policymaking and
operations is no easy task. In large part, the
difficulties of justice planning (as well as the need
for it) arise from the nature of the system itself.
By design, the system is fragmented. No central
authority manages it. No one branch of
government or level of government is responsible
for the entire process.
The checks and balances with which the local
justice system is punctuated are intentional and
necessary, but they do result in inefficiencies and
conflicts. There is great dispersion of power
among divergent forces. And the professional
orientations, values, and managerial
perspectives of key agency participants are
markedly different—often diametrically opposed.
This makes conflict and tension among justice
agencies virtually inevitable as each
understandably attempts to turn events to its own
advantage.
Sometimes, a concern about respecting the
doctrine of the separation of powers leads a key
justice leader, often a judge, to express
discomfort at being asked to serve on a CJCC.
But judges serve on many CJCCs and, in fact,
chair them in some communities.
The reality is that CJCCs bring independently
elected and appointed people together in a forum
where they agree to work together, realizing they
have interdependent relationships. Under the
constitutions of each state, these key participants
recognize they are independent and have an
obligation to remain so. Nothing in this model
should be interpreted to suggest that they will or
should lose their independence.
NOTE: This information is an excerpt from a
National Institute of Corrections publication
entitled: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee.
NIC Accession Number 017232
_______________________________________________________________________
115
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Washtenaw County Local System Assessment
• Crime analysis
• Criminal justice
system analysis
• Productivity
analysis
• Legislative
analysis
• Special studies
• Database
development
• Definition of
responsibilities
• Convening and
serving coordinating
groups
• Coordination
with other
planning units
• Formulation
of goal
statements
• Clarification
of issues and
values
• Construction
of goal
hierarchies
November 2003
• Management
of federal/
state/local
resources
• Review of
agency
budgets
• Program
design,
development,
implementation,
and evaluation
• Technical
assistance
• Information
brokerage
MAJOR JUSTICE PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Planning Objectives
Improved
analysis of
criminal justice
problems
Improved
coordination
and
cooperation
Clearer goals,
objectives,
and priorities
More effective
allocation of
resources
Improved criminal
Justice programs
and services
Improved
capacity and
quality of
personnel
Purpose of Planning
Improved criminal justice policy, program, and operational decision making
Criminal Justice System Goals
Protect integrity
of the law
Control crime and
delinquency and/
or root out
causes of crime
Improve quality
of justice
Improve criminal
justice system
and related
programs
Increase community
support
for criminal
justice system
_______________________________________________________________________
116
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Gibson/Aguirre
Committees Descriptions and Guidelines
I. Organizational and Operational Guidelines for Committees
A. Membership




Each committee is chaired by a member of the CJCC6.
Each committee is limited to nine (9) members.
Each committee may have as many subcommittees as deemed necessary, both
permanent and temporary. There is no set limit to the number of persons on a
subcommittee.
Each Subcommittee is to be chaired by a member of the committee.
B. Open Meetings and Open Records Law
All Committees and Subcommittees are subject to the Wisconsin
open Meetings and Open Records Law and this means that the chairpersons will be
responsible for ensuring that all meetings are properly posted.
The Waukesha County District Attorney’s Office, along with the private law firm of Arenz,
Molter, Macy and Riffle, are sponsoring a symposium on open meetings and open records
on January 23, 2003.
C. Conflict of Interest Guidelines
The Council is preparing conflict-of-interest guidelines for members, to include all
committee and subcommittee members. These will be presented upon completion.
D. Financial Support
The Council does have county budget appropriations but these are to be disbursed at the
direction of the Council or the Executive Committee based on guidelines set by the Council.
E. Committee Decision Making Processes
The committees and subcommittees shall use a majority-voting method following Roberts
Rules of Order. It is expected that the subcommittees may be larger and the committees
will be involved in vigorous and even contentious discussions at times and Roberts Rules
of Order may be very useful.
The CJCC itself has chosen to use a consensus model of decision-making with a two-thirds
vote back-up in the event that consensus cannot be reached.
6
More than one CJCC member may be on a Committee or subcommittee but one will be designated as the
chairperson.
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
II. Committee Missions and Descriptions
A. Executive Committee
Mission:
The mission of the Executive Committee is to provide operational guidance and assistance for the
Council and its Committees during the time between CJCC meetings. The Committee also
provides leadership services and oversees the day-to-day operations of the CJCC. The CJCC
selects the members as outlined in the Council’s By-Laws.
Any member of the Council may attend and participate in the Executive Committee meetings. The
Executive Committee shall be responsible for the following:
 Develop Council meeting agendas and ensure matters are ready for Council meetings.
 Ensure assignments are completed and prepared for Council meetings.
 Propose to the Council the formation of Standing Committees, Subcommittees and Ad
Hoc Committees.
 Recommend to the Council individuals to serve as chairs and members of above-listed
committees.
 Coordinate the Standing Committees, Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Committees.
B. Data Analysis and Information Committee
Mission:
The mission of the Data Analysis and Information Committee is to provide the operational
capability underlying one of the principles of the Council, which is to make information-driven
decision-making the norm for the Waukesha County Justice System. To that end, the Committee
provides three levels of service.

The first is to work with the Council, its members, their staffs, the committees, and others to
identify the general information needs of the Council and its committees and constituent
agencies.

The second is to investigate ways and means to create the infrastructure and specific
process(es) of providing that information on a regular basis.

The third service is to assist the council, its members and committees to identify,
investigate and create specific processes to provide information relating to very specific
situations that are deemed to require more information before making a decision.
C. Jail and Huber Utilization Committee
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
2
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
One of reasons for the existence of the Council is to find the most effective and efficient means of
providing for public safety and ensuring the most appropriate use of the jail.
The Jail and Huber Utilization Committee is to regularly examine how the jail and Huber facilities
are being used and by whom. A focus is on examining inmates in the jail – both defendant and
offender characteristics to include demographics, residence, criminal charges, criminal history,
other presenting problems, etc. and inform the council and other committees of inmate
subpopulations that might be susceptible to other kinds of correctional and treatment possibilities
both inside and outside of the jail and Huber facility.
A second mission is to regularly track significant defendant and offender subpopulation trends
(short term and long term) in order for all members to better plan and manage the Waukesha
criminal justice system.
D. Community Programs and Interventions
One of reasons for the existence of the Council is to find the most effective and efficient means of
providing for public safety and it is necessary to explore all ways of first deterring initial entrance
into the criminal justice system and if not that than to find the most appropriate, effective and
efficient means to respond to criminal activity with a focus on what on what will reduce criminal
recidivism and victimization at all levels.
To that end this committee will use information from many sources including the Jail and Huber
Utilization Committee to identify appropriate defendant and offender subpopulations in order to
select effective, efficient and cost effective alternative programs and processes for defendants and
offenders in Waukesha County. The Committee focuses on three areas:
The first is to examine both defendant and offender characteristics to include demographics,
residence, criminal charges, criminal history, other presenting problems, etc., and identify some
best practices that maybe used most effectively with the various subpopulations identified. The
second is to match some of the best practices that may be used most effectively with the various
subpopulations identified. The Committee will regularly map the strengths and weaknesses in the
treatment and educational program areas that are a part of, or contiguous, to the Waukesha
Criminal Justice System.
The third is to measure the effectiveness, efficiency and ultimate impact of all criminal justice
system-related programs and processes that directly relate to treatment and education of
defendants and offenders – including those who might be kept from entering the criminal justice
system.
Public Relations and Education Committee
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
3
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
The Committee focuses on several areas, such as providing information about the general
activities of the Council to the public in general, assist in educating the public about specific
initiatives, programs or services supported by the Council, and to regularly identify community
concerns that are related to the responsibilities of the Council and/or its members.
The Committee should prepare a public relations plan or process that focuses on educating the
press and other interested parties about the Council’s creation, its purposes and activities.
Juvenile Justice Committee
As of the creation of the Council it is generally accepted that the Waukesha Juvenile Criminal
Justice System operates at an effective and efficient level and it is the goal of the Council to
maintain or improve that level of overall performance.
This Committee is to focus as a mini-Criminal Justice Collaboration Council for the Juvenile
Justice portion of the Waukesha County criminal justice system. The focus is to ensure that
issues and initiatives are identified, mapped, measured and responded to in a way that ensures
the most pro-active, comprehensive, information-driven process.
One focus of this committee is to examine the current successful processes that might be relevant
for the adult system for possible replication – and vice versa.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
4
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the CJCC is to enhance public safety in Waukesha County through
community collaboration by ensuring offender accountability, providing rehabilitation
programs and supporting the rights and needs of victims.
VISION STATEMENT
Our criminal justice system will be characterized by a balanced proactive response
to criminal behavior that incorporates accountability and the principles of restorative
justice.
We envision a team approach that utilizes meaningful, shared, system-wide
information and community resources to promote our core values.
We will treat all individuals fairly, equally and with dignity.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
5
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
COLLABORATING COUNCIL
MEMBERS
Judge Kathryn Foster
Circuit Court Branch 12
Chief Judge District
Dan Finley
The County Executive
Jim Dwyer
The County Board Chair
Carol J. Lombardi
Mayor, City of Waukesha
Paul Bucher
The Waukesha County
District Attorney
Dan Trawicki
The Waukesha County
Sheriff
Robin Dorman
The Chief Public Defender
for Waukesha County
Karl Held
Supervisor, Waukesha
County Office Probation and
Parole
Carolyn Evenson
Clerk of Court,
Courts Administration
Division
Peter Schuler
Director, Waukesha County
Dept. of Health and Human
Services
John Hefley, Chief
Waukesha County Police
Chiefs Association President
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
6
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
Example of by Laws originally used by Waukesha County, Wisconsin
WAUKESHA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLABORATING COUNCIL
BY-LAWS
Article I: Name
The name of this Council shall be the Waukesha County Criminal Justice Collaborating Council. It will be referred to
as the Council throughout these by-laws.
Article ll: Creation
The Council is created by ordinance as adopted by the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors
and signed by the County Executive.
Article lll: Mission
The mission of the Council is to enhance public safety in Waukesha County through community collaboration by
ensuring offender accountability, providing rehabilitation programs and supporting the rights and needs of victims.
Article lV: Structure
Section A: Membership:
There are eleven voting members of the Council who are members due to the position they hold. These eleven
members serve on the Council for as long as they occupy the position.











Chief Judge or Presiding Judge for Waukesha County
County Executive
County Board Chair
Sheriff
District Attorney
Clerk of Circuit Court
Mayor of City of Waukesha
First Assistant Public Defender - Waukesha County
Waukesha County Police Chief Association Representative
Director of Health & Human Services
Parole and Probation Manager responsible for Waukesha
Additional members may be appointed as the Council deems appropriate. Council members may designate
one chief staff person to represent them and vote at Council meetings. Any member wishing to appoint a
designee is to identify the designee in written correspondence addressed to the Chair of the Council. No
more than three consecutive meetings shall be allowed for a member's designee to attend Council meetings.
Designees can only be changed by notifying the Chair in writing.
Any member of the Council may recommend removal of any agency member whom they believe
is no longer appropriate for membership. Lack of attendance by a member may be cause for
removal from the Council. Resignation of Council members shall be submitted to the chairperson
and brought to a vote of the Council.
Section B: Legal Influence of the Council:
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
7
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
The Council is not a body that "orders" members to do anything beyond what any one member
has the legal power to do as a part of their legal position. It can make system-wide policy through
consensus.
Section C: Committees:
1. Executive Committee
Only members of the Council may serve on the Executive Committee. The Council shall
determine the membership of the Executive Committee. Any member of the Council may attend
and participate in the Executive Committee meetings. The Executive Committee shall be
responsible for the following:
a. Develop Council meeting agendas and ensure matters are ready for Council meetings.
b. Ensure assignments are completed and prepared for Council meetings.
c. Propose to the Council the formation of Standing Committees, Subcommittees and Ad
Hoc Committees.
d. Recommend to the Council individuals to serve as chairs and members of above-listed
committees.
e. Coordinate the Standing Committees, Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Committees.
2. Standing Committees
Data Analysis & Information Committee


Identify the general information needs of the Council and its committees.
Investigate ways and means to create the infrastructure, which can provide that information on a regular
basis.
Identify and create systems that can provide information on an ad hoc basis as requested by the Council.

Jail & Huber Utilization Committee
 Examine how the jail and Huber facilities are being used and by whom, by
focusing on both defendant and offender characteristics including
demographics, residence, criminal conduct and criminal history.
Programs & Interventions Committee


Explore ways of deterring initial entrance into the criminal justice system.
Identify ways to reduce criminal recidivism and victimization by researching efficient and cost-effective alternative
programs and processes for defendants and offenders in Waukesha County.
Public Relations & Education Committee


Educate the public about initiatives, programs and services supported by the Council
Identify community concerns that are related to the responsibilities of the Council
Prepare a detailed, proactive public relations plan that will promote Council activities and

Juvenile Justice Committee


initiatives.
Identify the issues and initiatives relating to juvenile justice.
Examine current successful processes that might be relevant for the adult system and vice versa.
3. Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Committees
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
8
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
The Council may authorize the formation of Subcommittees and Ad Hoc committees, to deal with
specific problems or issues. Standing Committees, Subcommittees and Ad Hoc committees shall
report their information and recommendations to the Council.
Section D: Meetings:
1. Meetings of the Council shall be set by the Council, the chairperson, and/or upon petition by
any four members of the Council. Notice of Council, Executive Committee, Standing Committee,
Subcommittee and Ad Hoc committee meeting times and location shall be provided to all
members and duly posted in compliance with open meetings statutes.
2. Minutes of the Council meetings shall be recorded and distributed to all members of the
Council.
3. A minimum quorum is a simple majority of seated voting membership.
4. Recommendations of the Council shall be made by consensus. If consensus cannot be
reached, recommendations may be made by a 2/3 vote of Council members.
Article V: Officers
Section A: Officers:
The Chairperson of the Council shall be either the Chief (Presiding) Judge, the County Executive,
or the Chairperson of the County Board. The Council will select the vice-chairperson. The
chairperson and vice-chairperson will be selected annually.
Section B: Duties of Officers:
The chairperson shall preside at all meetings. The vice-chairperson shall preside in the absence
of the chairperson.
Article Vl: Change in By-laws
Proposed amendments to the by-laws are to be included on the agenda of an Executive
Committee meeting. The proposal will be forwarded to the Council for approval. Any action in
response to the proposed change in the by-laws taken by the Council shall become effective
immediately.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
9
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
Contract Employment Announcement
Waukesha County
Criminal Justice Coordinator [Job Description]
Description Criminal Justice system Coordinator
Job Posted
Benefits No
Salary Range $ 00,000 – 00,0000 per year
Type Contract Position
Hours 30 – 40 hours per week
Contact Waukesha County Human Resources
(jobapplication@waukeshacounty.gov)
1320 Pewaukee Road, Room 160
Waukesha, WI 53188-2428
(262) 548-7044
Position:
Criminal Justice System Coordinator
It is a contract position to provide services that may require between 30 and 40 hours of work per
week.
(This position is NOT a Waukesha County government position).
QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED:
A master’s degree (or currently enrolled with two years of credits towards completion) in criminal
justice or related social science field is required.
Candidate must be able to pass a criminal justice background review as staff person may have
access to confidential criminal history information,
Candidates should be detailed persons able to coordinate activities of many committees and the
Council simultaneously.
They must be able to work independently, set their own agenda and help others formulate and
implement project plans.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
10
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
The candidate must have good verbal and written communication skills and have the ability to
present before small and large groups of people.
Good computer skills are strongly desired and include the Microsoft Office suite to include Word,
Excel, Access, PowerPoint, and have a working knowledge of a commonly used social science
software applications such as SPSS or SAS. Candidates must have the ability and willingness to
learn new software applications as needed.
Assist the council and committee members and the staffs of various departments and
organizations to collect and analyze data and prepare it for presentation in many different formats,
Ability to work with a variety of different persons, to include a range of personnel from the heads of
agencies and organizations to support personnel, with tact and diplomacy and still get things
done.
Knowledge of local criminal justice systems and county governments is desirable.
treatment information and to ongoing criminal investigations.
Well versed or able to become very well versed in Wisconsin open meetings law(s).
Work Description:
Coordinate and provide administrative support and higher-level research and analyses services to
the newly formed Waukesha County Criminal Justice Collaborating Council, its committees and
subcommittees.
The Council is constituted of the heads of each of the primary criminal justice system related
agencies in Waukesha County – Chief Judge, Chief Executive, Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors, Prosecutor, Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Public Defender, Mayor of Waukesha,
Chief of Probation and Parole, Director Health and Human Services, and a representative of
Waukesha County Chiefs of Police.
The Council is supported by a number of working committees that include staff members from
many county and other involved organizations and involved citizens.
This person will report to the Chair of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and may work with
the limited assistance of a Criminal Justice Systems Management Consultant to coordinate the
activities of the Council and its constituent committees and subcommittees.
Exemplary Duties:
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
11
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
 Coordinate the activities of the Council and its constituent committees,
 Ensure that all meetings of the Council and its various committees and subcommittees
are appropriately posted,
 Prepare or arrange for the preparation of minutes for all meetings,
 Provide material support as needed for council and committee meetings,
 Assist the council and committee members and the staffs of various departments and
organizations to collect and analyze data and prepare it for presentation in many different
formats,
 Prepare Council and/or committee documents as needed,
 Conduct limited research into various criminal justice system programs and processes,
 Prepare grant proposals to obtain financial and other kinds of support from governments
and private organizations,
 Become knowledgeable of the basic operations of the Council’s constituent organizations,
 Represent Waukesha County at in oral, written mediums and at meetings around the
state and nation as needed.
Work Site and Times:
Work will generally take place in the Waukesha County Courthouse in the City of Waukesha.
Occasional travel may be required.
Work times will generally be during the administrative work day but will be determined by the
Administrative Coordinator along with the Chair of the Collaborating Council.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
12
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
Appendix E
MENU OF OPTIONS TO RELIEVE JAIL CROWDING
By: Billy Wasson
1.
POLICE DIVERSION: Used instead of arrest. Police may counsel or
reprimand, handle within the department, or refer person to another agency.
Suspect is referred or delivered to a sobering station, shelter, mental health
service, church, family, friend or relative. Officer and suspect may create informal
contract in which officer agrees to not file charges subject to conditions, which
may include informal supervision, acceptance of support services, or intervention
by a third party, such as a parent, interested relative, mediation/arbitration
service or social service agency. Recognizes that numbers of persons flowing
into jail is an indicator of community’s inability to provide alternatives to arrest.
Useful in cases where police are booking prisoners because they don’t know
what else to do with them. Best if all arresting agencies are urged to develop
written arrest policies and that these policies contain provisions, which
encourage police diversion of youth and adults.
2.
CITATION/SUMMONS: Police officers issues citation or summons at the time
of arrest for any infraction, misdemeanor or non-violent felony. The persons
receiving the citation or summons promises to appear in court at a specified time
and place in lieu of being transported to jail for pretrial detention. May also be
used at Jail Intake to release prior to lodging. Jail Intake staff needs written
Policy/Criteria to maintain consistent releases. Helpful if officers in the field are
provided with written, objective criteria to help them make decisions about who to
cite and who to detain in jail.
3.
UNIFORM BAIL SCHEDULE: The Court will develop a bail schedule,
hopefully a uniform bail schedule, and procedures that would allow officers to
collect pre-established bail at booking.
4.
BAIL ADVOCACY: Requires staff to secure names, addresses and phone
numbers of potential sureties from detainees at the point of booking. Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
13
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
contacts the sureties to notify them of the defendant’s situation, the bail amount,
and the details of how to post bail for the defendant.
5.
RELEASE ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE (Unsupervised): Essentially releases
carefully screened misdemeanor and felony charged pretrial prisoners on their
promise to appear in court. Used as alternative for persons who cannot raise bail
but are eligible for bail release. Any objective point scale is usually employed
(several commonly accepted versions are in use throughout the nation).
Detainees are interviewed at booking concerning their ties to the community; e.g.
residence, jobs, etc. and staff verifies this information. Points are awarded based
upon verified information that has been statistically tied to willingness and ability
to appear in court. If the detainee scores above a cut off-score, the person is
released on his or her “OR”. The court most usually delegates this authority.
Defendants are reminded of court dates via phone or mail.
6.
CONDITIONAL RELEASE: A responsible third party agrees to stand up for
the defendant, mentor the offender during the pretrial period and accompany the
offender back to court. Can be considered a version of the ROR option,
described above, which provides additional supervision and incentives for the
defendant to appear in court.
7.
SUPERVISED RELEASE: Essentially the same as ROR (Unsupervised)
except the person is released only after having agreed to abide by special
conditions which may limit their movement, prohibit associating with certain
persons, require them to submit to supervision or report to a specified place each
day. It may require them to spend the night at a supervised or custodial location,
or agree to electronic monitoring or some other program of supervision.
8.
WARRANTS-HOLDS CLEARANCE PROGRAM: All bookings are
immediately checked to see if holds or outstanding warrants exist. Purpose is to
quickly resolve these by 1) automatic release of holds if jurisdiction issuing the
hold does not pick up the inmate within a few days of notification; 2)
misdemeanor holds with bail set at a specified amount might be automatically
released five days after notification; 3) pretrial release staff reviews all warrants
and attempts to quickly resolve them; 4) admission to jail is refused for warrant
arrests with bail set at a specified minimum amount; 5) a warrant clearance
“expeditor” helps extricate less capable inmates who are trapped in an endless
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
14
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
loop of warrants, fine failures to pay, etc., then approaches the court and/or
motor vehicles department with remedial plan.
9. DAY REPORTING (Off-site): Very flexible program, which can take a variety of
forms. Can be linked to residential program to extend supervision of the
defendant to 24 hours a day. Defendant is required to appear at a day reporting
center early in the morning. The defendant must provide a supervisor with a
detailed schedule and itinerary for the day. There is no on-site programming.
Once the itinerary is approved, the defendant must follow the schedule or call in
and get approval of its revision. Staff follows through to see that the defendant is
where he or she is supposed to be. Defendant may also be required to provide
positive verification of his or her whereabouts; e.g., pay stubs, appointment slips,
etc. Defendants can be enrolled in a variety of education, drug treatment, work,
medical treatment and related activities.
10.
DAY REPORTING (Off and on-site): Same as above, except the
defendant may be programmed on-site. These programs take various forms; Day
treatment centers, job training, counseling, or minimum-security custody for work
release inmates on their days off. Can be operated in conjunction with a
Residential (Work Release and/or Restitution) Center.
11.
HOUSE ARREST/CURFEW: Can be used pretrial or post-conviction.
Essentially restricts person’s movement and free time, usually by confining a
person to their home. May or may not permit release from home for specified
purposes; e.g., to go to work, school, or treatment. May or may not be used in
conjunction with electronic monitoring devices, with Day Reporting Program, or
with intensive field supervision.
12.
WORK RELEASE: Inmates are housed in custody at night and during
non-work hours but released to work during work hours. Staff follows up. Can be
used pretrial or post-conviction. Often administered from a minimum security or
residential setting.
13.
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AND/OR SENTENCE EXECUTION: Can
be implemented at any point prior to conviction. Either prosecutor agrees to
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
15
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
postpone filing of charges, or criminal proceedings are suspended on condition
the defendant participate in some remedial program, agree to certain conditions,
stay out of trouble, and complete the program within a reasonable period of time.
Ideal for drug treatment, restitution, community service, paying back child
support, etc. Defendant most motivated prior to disposition of his or her case.
Failure to comply with conditions may result in resumed prosecution. There are
many forms of this option. Drug courts are one current, popular version.
14. DEFENDER BASED ADVOCACY: Helps develop a plan of habilitation and
restoration to offer to the prosecutor and the court as a disposition plan.
Essentially provides sentencing or dispositions plan so the judge has more
sentencing options. Especially effective where probation pre-sentence reports
and/or supervision service is weak. Can also be used during the pretrial period to
achieve bail reduction, or ROR, to facilitate plea bargains, by showing defendant
is actively engaged or willing to become actively engaged in treatment prior to
court hearings.
15. TASC (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime): Originally federally funded
this program model provides an assessment of the defendant’s substance abuse
problem, determines the appropriate treatment modality, brokers services with
treatment providers and provides case management services and reports to the
courts on clients involved in their programs. TASC generally employs staff
qualified to identify and assess substance abuse needs. They generally do not
also provide the treatment. Can be used pretrial or post-conviction. Can be
developed as a form of Defender Based Advocacy or Deferred Prosecution
program.
16.
IN LIEU OF A FINE OR COMMUNITY SERVICE (Supervised and
Unsupervised): The court orders the defendant to devote unpaid time to some
worthwhile project. The terms are usually defined in terms of hours to be worked
and the type of service to be provided. Several levels of supervision and control
can be provided within the community service option framework. For example,
the judge may rely on the offender to simply show up at his or her assignment.
Supervision may be provided by the agency receiving the services. An additional
level of supervision and enforcement is provided if some agency is authorized to
administer the program, assure referrals show up for their assignments and
provide feedback to the courts concerning the behavior of the referrals, their
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
16
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
completion and compliance rates. A private non-profit organization often
performs this function. The work crew form of this option provides a third level of
supervision and control. Here, offenders are supervised by staff of a work crew
program who may be correctional personnel, but who also could be supervisors
of parks, recreation, public works or other related departments that need labor
and have meaningful work for the offenders to do. They pick up trash along the
highway, maintain cemeteries, restore little league ball fields, clear trails and
brush and do other work for government or nonprofit organizations. Typically, 8
hours of supervised manual labor is substituted for a day in jail. Many
jurisdictions sell their crew labor to off set their operational costs.
17. DAY FINES: Day fines are designed to reduce the number of inmates who are
in jail because they cannot pay their fines, also used to relieve the backlog of
cases with unpaid fines. The concept tries to equalize the impact of financial
penalties on offenders from various economic backgrounds. Each unit of fines is
equivalent to the offenders’ gross wage for one hour of work. This has the dual
impact of making fines appear fairer by relating them to income levels. This
system also increases the likelihood of the fine being paid because poor
offenders see them as more affordable.
18.
RESTITUTION: Restitution can take three forms; 1) direct monetary
compensation from the offender to the victim; 2) service to the community (see
Community Service Option) or 3) monetary compensation to the victim through
contribution to a Restitution Fund.
19.
PROBATION AND PAROLE SUPERVISION: If it is a meaningful
service, probation supervision in the community can serve as a reasonable
option to secure confinement. This cannot be accomplished if there are very
large caseloads and few services; thus, one option is to strengthen the probation
service and/or provide probation services to client populations (e.g.
misdemeanants) not currently eligible for such services. Differing levels of
supervision and services can be provided within the basic probation framework.
For example, at one end of the continuum, large numbers of minor offender
cases can be “case banked”. In these cases, payment of fines or restitution is
required but supervision is not necessary. These cases can be “case banked”
into large administrative caseloads where the probation function is primarily
oriented toward seeing the probationers meet their financial commitments. Other,
stepped up probation options might be called minimum, medium and intensive
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
17
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
probation, with increased levels of over-sight, special conditions, and
requirements that probationers be enrolled in remedial programs. Of course,
basic probation supervision can be combined with many of the other options that
have been described here. Specialized probation caseloads are also an option;
e.g., for drinking drivers, domestic violence, nonsupport and so forth.
20.
STRUCTURED SANCTIONS: The way jurisdiction handles its parole
and probation violations (PV’s) can impact crowded conditions significantly.
Either by Court Policy direction or law changes the discretion on length of stay for
PVs can be placed in a grid that aligns violating behavior with a specified penalty.
Concern must be given to due process issues if this option is used.
21.
ELECTRONIC MONITORING: Offenders are monitored electronically.
Usually used as a form of administering the house arrest option. Active electronic
monitoring systems work with telephones using computerized random calling to
the offender’s residence. Passive systems operate via radio transmission in a
wrist or ankle bracelet, again linked to a phone system. Electronic monitoring is
often combined with other options noted in this list; for example, with
probation/parole supervision, or for pretrial prisoners, as part of a supervised
pretrial release program. This is an especially useful option for the disabled, for
older offenders with medical problems, or for other inmates that might be
victimized in the jail setting.
22.
SHOCK INCARCERATION/PROBATON: Creative use of split
sentence which combines short periods of incarceration – the “shock” of a short
period in custody – with probation supervision in response to indications the
probationer needs external controls; e.g., is in crisis, is acting out, has violated
conditions of supervision, drug use, etc. will serve as an option only to the extent
the periods of incarceration are very short.
23.
NON-SECURE RESIDENCE: Provides an organized and supervised,
alcohol, drug-free structured living environment. Provides no external fences or
locks to keep resident confined. The Non-Secure Residence option can take
many forms. Useful as a work furlough or work release center, halfway house
(halfway in or halfway out, as in a pre-release center), probation center (for
certain probation violators), temporary housing for those in transition or crisis,
restitution center, etc. Some represent highly specialized options; e.g.,
therapeutic communities, residential drug treatment centers, etc. The residence
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
18
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
can also serve as an assembly point for community service, day reporting and
other programs.
24.
MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION: Inmates housed in dorms.
Minimum external perimeter controls. Inmates do not leave the grounds and are
secured at night. This option can take many forms. In the past, many honor farms
or honor camps represented expressions of the use of this option. Boot camps,
forestry camps, and minimum-security institutions are contemporary expressions
of this option. Length of stay is usually short.
25.
WEEKEND SENTENCES/JAIL BY APPOINTMENT: This option is not
recommended but is being included here because it is an often-used option in
many communities. Weekend sentences – where offenders serve sentences on
weekend days, as a kind of installment plan – are not recommended for two
reasons. First, they absorb expensive secure bed space. By definition, persons
who are ordered to serve weekends are not likely to really need secure
confinement. Others do, and the program takes these beds out of service for the
offenders who need to be placed in secure confinement. Secondly, these
programs tend to crowd jails at precisely the worst time of the week, on
weekends when the courts are not in operation and jail population’s peak.
Another version of this option is to have convicted offenders make appointments
to serve their jail time. While this can make more efficient use of available jail
space, these offenders rarely require secure custody. Other punishment options
can be constructed for this population. In one jurisdiction, in collaboration with the
local school district, the “weekend” sentences are held in a holding file and once
every two months they are ordered to appear at a school and are bivouacked in
the gym and do community service on the school grounds for the weekend.
26.
JAIL CAP: Either Federal Court or Executive Branch decision imposes
the jail capacity on the facility. Requires procedures, criteria or release grid be
put in place to guide the release of offenders. Usually administered at intake as
well as after lodging has taken place.
27.
CAPACITY EXPANSION: Obviously the jurisdiction can increase the
capacity or volume of offenders that the jail or any other sanction/service can
handle in the jurisdiction. Either the wholesale shortening of the length of stay or
the addition of bed space are the two options here.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
19
Washtenaw County, MI
October 2003
28.
JAIL POPULATION CAPACITY MANAGEMENT PLAN: The
jurisdiction uses all of the continuum of alternatives available to it and places
them into a holistic document to provide a comprehensive big picture of all
means used to manage its’ crowding. The focal point of this approach is a locally
maintained Criminal Justice Coordination Council. This Council places all the
relevant policy makers (police, prosecution, judicial and executive) around the
same table to coordinate policy matters in the local County Jail system.
Capacity Management Facts as used in Marion County, Oregon:
 The Capacity Management Plan was enacted by the Board of Law
enforcement Services (Sheriff and County Commission members sitting as
a group) via a County ordinance.
 That ordinance sets the maximum capacity of the facility at 528 and the
work center at 144. Neither of those capacities can be exceeded.
 The present structure of the Capacity Management Plan is the result of
review and input received from the District Attorney’s Office, the Chief of
Police and the Courts. It is intended to be a document that is subject to
review and revision.
 As part of the implementation of the Capacity Management Plan, the Board
of Law enforcement Services insisted on a monthly update.
 The Capacity Management Plan was driven by economics, an everincreasing pretrial population that needed consistent lodge criteria and the
need to stabilize the sentenced population.
 From the outset, the intent was to apply the new ”lodge” criteria to the
existing population and develop a “baseline” of data with which to measure
the impact on public safety and develop appropriate future changes.
 All persons brought to the facility are “processed”, i.e., they are
fingerprinted, photographed and the arrest record submitted.
 If someone is brought to the facility on multiple charges, they will be lodged
only on those charges meeting the lodge criteria and released on the nonlodgeable charges.
 Since the implementation of the Capacity Management Plan, no sentenced
inmate has been released from his or her sentence early.
 Sentenced inmates continue to be reviewed and moved to appropriate
placement n less restrictive custody levels, i.e., work center, electronic
monitoring, day reporting.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
20
Washtenaw County, MI

October 2003
There are provisions for lodging non-lodgeable charges. Override requests
continue to be made (and have been approved) by arresting officers, Parole and
Probation staff and Judges.
 Since its implementation, information regarding the Capacity Management Plan
and its impact from the District Attorney’s Office, the Chief of Police, our Parole
and Probation staff and facility supervisors is developed and presented to the
policy makers.
 Recommendations as to any modification of the Capacity Management Plan will
be presented when needed.
 There is a significant amount of data to review before any recommendations for
change can be made.
______________________________________________________________________________
NIC Local System Assessment
Gibson/Aguirre
TA 04J1007
21