PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF MONTROSE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: 5/12/2016

Transcription

1 The Board of County Commissioners met in special session held at the County Administrative Office Board Room at 1:30pm. Those present: Glen Davis, Chairman; David White, Vice-Chairman; Ronald Henderson, Commissioner; Teresa Williams, County Attorney; Ken Norris, County Manager; Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board. A. WELCOME None 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Ronald Henderson, District 1: Present; Glen Davis, District 2: Present; David White, District 3: Present 4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: This was the time for members of the public to present issues of concern or interest to the Board. B. COUNTY MANAGER, Ken Norris, consideration for removal or change in any items on this Agenda: None C. CONSENT AGENDA: NONE D. GENERAL BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: 1. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, Stephanie Tolen, presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to include a request for funding by Montrose County for Community Corrections and involvement in the daily operation of that facility. D1 Community Corrections Submittal #1 D1 Community Corrections Submittal #2 D1 Community Corrections Submittal #3 This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 178

2 D1 Community Corrections Submittal #4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE In Stephanie Tolen s absence, Carrol Warner, Chairperson for the 7 th Judicial District Community Corrections Board, explained that she had been asked to present a request to the Commissioners to consider assisting the Community Corrections facility in funding and oversight. Community Corrections had been in existence since 2013, and until recently had worked with Intervention Community Corrections Services (ICCS) located in the Front Range of Colorado. ICCS has many facilities and services throughout the State; however, they could no longer manage those services and were withdrawing them. Community Corrections was given short notice of this decision. If Community Corrections could find an organization or government agency willing to be responsible for oversight and funding of the facility, ICCS would extend their service to August 2016; otherwise the cutoff date would be the end of June Ms. Warner asserted that when she was Chief Probation Officer, she and others had worked for ten years to bring Community Corrections to the community. Ms. Warner then introduced the following people who were present at the meeting. Tyson Berry, Community Corrections Program Director Charlie Seevers, graduate of Community Corrections Kori Keil, Office Head of the Colorado State Public Defender s office District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller for the 7 th Judicial District Robert Omer, Chief Probation Officer District Judge Mary Degenhart Steve Green, Warden for Delta Correction Center Libby Hicks, with the Parole office Delta County Sheriff Fred McKee Tyson Berry gave a brief overview of the Community Corrections program as follows. Clients enter the program several ways: o Divergent client by direct sentencing of the Court o Transition client from the Department of Corrections o Conditional parole client Each client is assigned a case manager. Standards of supervision of clients are set by the Division of Criminal Justice and are based upon evidence-based practices. These standards require a progress and matrix case plan for each client by the case manager to address their criminogenic 1 risk factors. The case plans are designed for the client to progress through a four-level residential program and are set up through a five, eight, and twelve week level system that are dependent on the client s risk factor. 1 Criminogenic: Producing or tending to produce crime or criminals. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 179

3 With evidence-based practice, the client s success is based upon their own progress and motivation in the system. A non-residential program utilizes the evidence-based practice, case plan, and level system. Clients can enter the Community Corrections system through two specialized programs. o Community Return to Custody Facility (CRCF): This program was designed for parolees that have o violated parole and whom the Parole Board has determined can remain in the community. Short Term Residential Alternative Treatment: This program was designed for probationers who had violated or were struggling with their conditions of probation. In both of these programs, stabilization factors are encouraged such as education, employment, and treatment. Clients are held to the same strict guidelines as the Community Corrections clients, and the progressive and matrix case plan is used. Supervision of clients in the program are held to the same strict standards set by the Division of Criminal Justice regardless of how they enter the program or what program they are in. These standards are as follows: o A required amount of personal property searches o Breathalyzers o Urinalysis o Strict monitoring techniques are used for clients when they are given permission to have access to the community. Monitoring techniques include the following: Their case managers grant clients passes into the community only if that pass is deemed appropriate and necessary for the client to progress in the case plans. Staff monitors clients in the community by setting strict timelines to travel to and from the facility. All passes must have a landline (telephone) and are used by staff to verify the client s destination. Clients must call when they arrive at their destination and when they return. In addition to standards for clients in the community, there are standards set by the Division of Criminal Justice for supervising clients inside the facility. o Sergeant Sanders of the Montrose County Sheriff s Department and Canine Oxx conduct facility searches. (Contraband was found during one of those searches.) In addition, the Canine Unit from the National Forest is used to conduct searches of the facility. o If contraband is located, an investigation is conducted and charges are filed with the District Attorney s Office. One of the foundations for a client to be successful in the Community Corrections program is finding and maintaining employment. The Division of Criminal Justice recently updated their standards regarding client s job searching. Community Corrections has met and exceeded those standards listed below. o Each client in the program must complete a job readiness assessment to determine if job readiness training is needed. This requirement has been met by using the Workforce Center. The This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 180

4 Workforce Center comes into the program and conducts classes for the clients. Community Corrections also refers clients to the Workforce Center to receive job readiness training. o After the job readiness assessment is completed, the client is allowed to conduct a job search in the community or in the program. Community Corrections has computers for clients that are designated only for job searches. Clients may also conduct job searches at the Workforce Center. The guidelines for clients conducting a job search are strict and are as follows. Complete a form that details who they spoke with and at what time the conversation took place. The form is turned into the case manager, who is responsible to contact the person and verify the client s whereabouts. o Community Corrections has a seventy-five percent employment success rate for residential clients. To remain in the program, all non-residential clients must maintain fulltime employment. The Division of Criminal Justice audits all standards and first audit of the local program was conducted in January 2016; the program was found to be compliant within their standards. The majority of clients in Community Corrections have been convicted of alcohol or controlled substance abuse or related offenses. Due to this fact, Community Corrections offers in-house substance abuse treatment through the Center for Mental Health, which includes the following. (These programs are offered inside the facility.) o Weekly substance abuse class o Enhanced outpatient class o MRT (Moral Recognition Therapy) o AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) groups o Smart Recovery groups Community Corrections works closely with the Center for Mental Health regarding mental health treatment: o DDT (Dual Diagnostic Treatment) o Individual treatment Community Corrections works closely with Shay Boe of Sexual Offense Resource Services. It provides offense-specific treatment in the community and services for Parole and Probation. Community Corrections works closely with Carol Watson of New Directions Counseling for domestic violence treatment. Community Corrections case managers continue to obtain required training by the Division of Criminal Justice. They are also trained in supervised and specialized caseloads as follows. o Sex offenders o Domestic violence offenders Community Corrections meets standards set by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board for supervision of sex offenders in Community Corrections. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 181

5 Since Community Corrections opened on July 1, 2013 through the year 2015, 290 clients have entered the program. o Fifty-six percent of those clients successfully completed the program. The State s average for Community Corrections is fifty-four percent. o Twenty-three percent of the clients have regressed from the program for technical violations. The State s average is twenty-seven percent. o Seven percent of clients have left the program. The State s average is sixteen percent. o Two percent of clients were removed from the program due to new crime either in the facility or in the community. The State s average is three percent. These numbers show that the success rate for Community Corrections is higher than the State s average, and that its non-compliance was lower than the State s average. This was credited to staff retention, training, and holding clients accountable to the program s rules and rules of society. There is currently seventeen staff members employed at Community Corrections: 11 security staff, 3 case managers, 1 supervisor, and 1 administration coordinator. All but two staff members live in the Montrose area. A majority of the staff has worked in the Community Corrections program for over a year; several staff has been with the program for two years. Three staff (including Mr. Berry) has been with the program since it opened in The longevity of the staff generates better staff morale and understanding of the Community Corrections standards as well as better results for clients. Training and on the job learning is vital for all staff. The Community Corrections staff have met or exceeded the Division of Criminal Justice standard of forty hours of training per year. Community Corrections has utilized the Community Correction programs of Mesa and Garfield Counties for the required training. The Division of Criminal Justice has conducted training at the Community Corrections facility; this helped to reduce traveling costs. Regarding Community Corrections finances, Mr. Berry asserted that an itemized spreadsheet was provided from ICCS and he outlined the report as follows. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 182

6 Mr. Berry noted that although the spreadsheet indicated a deficit of $74,333.00, there were discrepancies in the spreadsheet. Those discrepancies included intervention administration salaries being tied into the salary amount to the average amount of every item in the itemized list. CCS has four other community correction programs throughout the State, including twenty-eight field service offices. Community Corrections unsuccessfully requested an itemized financial form for the Montrose facility from ICCS. Mr. Berry explained that the deficit amount decreased significantly when costs for rent and travel to Denver for ICCS meetings were subtracted. In order for Community Corrections to operate without a deficit, the average daily population should be forty-five. The average daily population in Community Corrections was thirty-four. The daily average population of the facility continues to grow with increased referrals from Probation and Parole as well as additional programs. It was Mr. Berry s hope Community Corrections would soon be profitable. Commissioner Henderson asked Mr. Berry the following questions. Mr. Berry s answers are noted in italics. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 183

7 1. Who set up the Community Corrections program in 2013? Gregg Kildow of Denver, Colorado was responsible for setting Community Corrections in place. He has been with ICCS since Does ICCS establish Community Corrections facilities throughout the State of Colorado? The organization began as field service programs, which are private probation, UA testing and technology 2 for Probation and Parole. Later they expanded to the Community Corrections program in Jefferson County, Colorado. 3. How is Community Corrections funded? The Division of Criminal Justice of Colorado has provided funding for clients in the program from the beginning. 4. Why did funding stop? Community Corrections continues to receive funding; however, according to ICCS, the average daily population of the facility is not where it needs to be for ICCS to remain financially stable. ICCS (a nonprofit organization) has also shut down other programs throughout the State. 5. Is Community Corrections $74,000 per year short of making a profit? Community Corrections has attempted to determine the costs of operations; however, ICCS does not allow Mr. Berry access to Community Corrections financial information. 6. Does the deficit include the rent being paid to the County as well as utilities? Yes. At Commissioner Davis inquiry, Mr. Berry responded that according to State statute, each client must pay the facility $17 per day. Mr. Berry then introduced Charlie Seevers, who was a previous client of ICCS from April 2014 through January He explained that Mr. Seevers chose to tell the Commissioners his experience with ICCS. Mr. Seevers informed the Board that his trouble with law enforcement began when he was a teenager and involved tickets for alcohol use. These encounters with the law led to probation, which he eventually completed. This behavior continued and his crimes became more serious as he became older. These situations usually involved incarceration, but would end with probation. The cycle of crime continued despite the incarcerations and probation. Substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) was the primary problem. Mr. Seevers explained that he grew up in the West End of Montrose County and had lived in the area most of his life, and that most of his family still lived in the West End. Repeated probation and encounters with the law led to being sentenced to Community Corrections on March 24, He was confident that if Community Corrections had not been in the community, he would have been sentenced to prison. At that point, he made the decision not to live his life as he had. Due to his incarcerations, his relationship with his family was not good; he had no money and no job. He requested a Community Corrections sentence, which the District Attorney s office granted by giving him a threeyear sentence. He became a direct-sentence client of Community Corrections, which meant he did not go into the program from parole. When he entered Community Corrections on April 2, 2014, he was required to wait a period of time before he could search for a job, which involved passing UA testing, as well as testing to determine Mr. Seevers understood the rules of the program. He found employment quickly at a local flooring 2 UA testing and technology is drug and alcohol testing. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 184

8 store in the warehouse. He stayed in that position while he resided at Community Corrections. Because of his employment, he was allowed passes to participate at locations with landline telephones in the community. This also allowed him to participate in the lives of his children and family while serving his sentence. He also was able to save money. He chose to take advantage of everything Community Corrections offered such as substance abuse counseling (this was required), MRT 3, and twelve step programs, which were not required. Most of Mr. Seevers current positive relationships were a direct result of being involved with Community Corrections. He explained that he went through the four levels that made him eligible to be a non-residential client of Community Corrections and this gave him more freedom to participate in the community. Having employment permitted him to go through the four levels quickly. Working with his case manager was very helpful because she knew his goals and was able to advise and direct his course. Eligibility for being a non-resident required him to have a certain amount of money saved after a deposit was made to rent a house. ICCS continued to manage his money once he was a non-resident client. The non-residential program required frequent drug and alcohol testing as well as a meeting with his case manager once a week. Mr. Seevers obtained his driver s license with help from his case manager, the Community Corrections staff and a letter from his employer. This was very significant for Mr. Seevers because he had not had a driver s license for a long time. There were conditions for having a driver s license: In the beginning, he was only allowed to drive to work, but this led to a raise because having the ability to drive meant he became more valuable to his employer. Later, the restriction was relaxed to permit him to drive within the 7 th Judicial District. Mr. Seevers emphasized that Community Corrections kept him honest enough with its rigorous rule system and drug and alcohol testing until he could build the stability to remain sober, recognize risk and potential problems such as old associates or situations that were conducive for a relapse into drugs and alcohol. That stability helped him until he had plenty of reasons to want to continue the good behavior on his own. When he entered the Community Corrections program, he was scared, penniless, jobless, and homeless, and although lesser types of probation had been tried, he continued to relapse into old behaviors. When he left Community Corrections he was an adequate and loving father, a dependable employee, was experiencing good relationships with his family, had developed a new set of friends, and was a contributing member of society. Although he did not enjoy all aspects of Community Corrections in fact it was the most difficult experience of his life it became the most positive and beneficial experience of his lifetime. When people take advantage of all Community Corrections had to offer and approached the experience with the right attitude, the effects on families and the community was very positive. Those who go through the program successfully are no longer a burden to their family or society. At Commissioner Davis inquiries, Mr. Seevers acknowledged he was not married, had two children, one of whom lived with Mr. Seevers. He was still involved with Community Corrections through the 12-step program, and was working with current in-house offenders. Mr. Seevers asserted that no one in his family had 3 MRT: Moral Reconation Therapy is the premiere cognitive-behavioral program for substance abuse treatment and criminal justice offenders. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 185

9 experienced drug or alcohol problems. In his youth, it was easy to obtain drugs and alcohol in this area and was the perfect escape for dealing with the sickness and death of his mother. Most alcoholics and drug addicts suffer from low self-esteem and in his situation, he used drugs and alcohol to mask the low self-esteem and avoid dealing with his problems. Commissioner Davis complimented Mr. Seevers on his ability to articulate his story to the Commissioners; he expressed the hope Mr. Seevers would never return to the old lifestyle. At Commissioner White s inquiries, Mr. Seevers asserted the District Attorney granted him an early termination of the non-residential program on January 19, He had not intentionally remained in contact with other Community Corrections clients, but he knew of several residents of the West End of the County who had successfully completed the program. He also encountered a few other clients when attending the 12-Step program. Mr. Seevers acknowledged that due to the degree of how quickly and successfully he completed the program, he was the exception to others who utilized the program. He pointed out that the Community Corrections program was still new. He was one of the first to enter the non-residential program. He was a resident of the facility for five months, and a non-resident for approximately fourteen months. Commissioner Henderson inquired how many people had been involved in the program since Mr. Berry reported there had been 290 people in the program from July 1, 2013 through the year Kori Keil, Office Head of the Colorado State Public Defender s office, expressed that Mr. Seevers story was one of the reasons she supported Community Corrections. She also supported the program because it gave DA Hotsenpiller and the Court options when negotiating cases and deciding agreements and sentences. Many times people who have committed a crime are returned to the community because incarceration solves only the short-term goal of incapacitating them and removing them from the community. Research shows that long-term incarceration does not prevent recidivism. Some people cannot be supervised by probation only and Community Corrections provides an additional level of supervision for those needing more structure, support, treatment, and supervision. Several Colorado statutes require the Court to determine that all appropriate alternative sentences for the offense have been exhausted before a person can be sentenced to the Department of Corrections. Ms. Keil then listed several reasons she supported a Montrose Community Corrections facility. Certain funds are allocated for each person sentenced to Community Corrections. These funds will leave the community if offenders are sent to other counties. The facility employs several people in the community; having no facility would mean the loss of good jobs in the community. Community Corrections helps members of the community remain in the area. Ms. Keil noted that the Community Corrections facility could provide other services in the future such as a pretrial services program, which would reduce costs of jail beds, and would provide supervision of those individuals waiting pretrial. This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 186

10 District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller for the 7 th Judicial District asserted that the Commissioners understood the need for the Community Corrections facility because the facility would not have come to fruition if the County had not supported it. There had to be a better reason than the need for keeping the facility going and that reason was money. The State of Colorado burdens its counties with the tremendous cost of supporting the State criminal justice system. He acknowledged this system was unfair and leads to desperate outcomes concerning public safety. Delta and Montrose Counties were burdened with costs that were not imposed on other counties throughout the State. The positive side to this requirement was that it allowed Montrose County to exert local control over critical services that are part of the criminal justice system. He pointed out that the facility in Durango (Hilltop, which is similar to the Montrose Community Corrections facility) is making money; Mesa County s facility makes a great profit, and Craig s facility was very profitable. He noted that the Montrose Community Corrections facility was operating at a deficit in the second year of operation; however, most operations do not show a profit the first three years. It was his opinion that the facility could make money and receive State funding to help with local criminal justice needs. He urged the Commissioners to consider assisting Community Corrections; it was a great facility due to its staff and partnership with the County. It was a safe facility and managed well. This was the County s opportunity to take control of how it would respond to criminal justice services issues. Commissioner Henderson asked why there had not been a joint session with the other members of the 7 th Judicial District concerning the matter. District Attorney Hotsenpiller explained there had been no time to arrange such a meeting. He pointed out that Montrose County was already a partner with the facility. He also noted that once a partnership was created with other members of the district, profits must be shared. Commissioner Henderson asserted that he was not concerned about that problem. The pressing issue and need was for Community Corrections to receive a letter of interest from the County that would give them more time to resolve the lack of funding problem. Commissioner White lamented that while the Public Defender s Office continues to receive more money from the State, Community Corrections must ask for money from the County. In addition, the County is mandated to add rooms to the Justice Center and pay for many other expenses such as Sheriff transportation costs, as well as the salaries of the District Attorney s personnel. Robert Omer, Chief Probation Officer, reported that the 7 th Judicial District Probation Office finished second in the State the last three years in success rates; however, they could not begin to be as effective as the Community Corrections facility. The Probation Office interacts approximately four times a month with a parolee; Community Corrections interacts with its clients on a daily, even hourly basis with the various programs that lead to changing cognitive behavior. There were success stories coming from the Community Corrections program other than Mr. Seevers. Only three of the twenty-two judicial systems in the State did not have a Community Corrections program. The Community Corrections facility was a huge asset to the community and could become a moneymaking operation. At Commissioner Henderson s inquiry, Mr. Omer explained that funds would come from the Division of Criminal Justice because Community Corrections receives more funding when the census increases. Additionally, Colorado legislation was currently changed (effective July 1, 2016) to allow Community Correction clients to receive Medicaid benefits. He reported that Community Corrections currently This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 187

11 had thirty clients in the facility and seventeen awaiting placement pending sentencing. The Probation Office makes recommendations to the Judges for placement in Community Corrections. Commissioner White asserted the Commissioners had discussed concerns with the Sheriff and others about the Community Corrections facility. The concerns that caused the Commissioners to be wary of the program were the clients that walked away from the facility, recidivism, and contraband drugs found in the facility. He acknowledged that the facility had some time to correct these problems. Mr. Omer asserted that although there had been incidents at the facility, there was also a great deal of misinformation. He pointed out however, that the community would have had to deal with these individuals if they had not been in Community Corrections. Mr. Omer reported there were approximately 1500 people on probation within the 7 th Judicial District. Commissioner White inquired what happened when an individual walked away from the program. District Attorney Hotsenpiller acknowledged that Commissioner White s concerns were valid, but that the district had many experts who knew how to deal with these problems. The 7 th Judicial District was aggressive at charging introduction to contraband. There had been one case of an individual hiding contraband in the battery compartment of his clock at Community Corrections. The drugs were found and the individual prosecuted. Other than the case that is pending, each person who walked away from the facility was charged with Class III felony escape charges and was now in prison. At Commissioner White s inquiry, District Attorney Hotsenpiller explained that ICCS was leaving because they were losing money. This was happening throughout the State, including Alamosa and Grand Junction. District Attorney Hotsenpiller acknowledged he did not know why ICCS was losing money. Commissioner White suggested that a matrix be created showing how many people started the program, who had successfully completed the four levels, and who had not completed the program. He expressed concern that Mr. Tyson did not have access to the entire financials of ICCS. It was his belief the County had been misled by Gregg Kildow of the Denver ICCS office. He noted however, that the Community Corrections project had been useful to the community. These questions needed to be answered before the County could financially support Community Corrections. He suggested that costs be shared by the District Attorney s Office and the Public Defender s Office. The County was overwhelmed with its responsibilities to the Criminal Justice system and law enforcement. It needed to be determined whether the Community Corrections facility was successful enough to warrant an investment. Mr. Omer agreed and noted that Mr. Berry could provide the County with more data. He clarified that the Probation Office pays for probationers (those who fail probation) from the State Judicial budget. Commissioner White suggested that offenders could provide resources as well. Mr. Omer noted that when administration overhead and rent paid to the County for the facility ($61,000), the $74,000 deficit was reduced and the balance became a surplus. Judge Mary Deganhart asserted that Community Corrections was requesting that the County issue a letter of support for Community Corrections with the assurance the County would be willing to review the possibility further. Community Corrections would submit this letter to ICCS, which would give Community Corrections time to create more solutions. She reported that approximately fifty-six percent (149 of 209) of Community This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 188

12 Corrections clients had successfully completed the program. Mr. Seevers was unique only in that he completed the program very quickly. Judge Deganhart emphasized that a letter of commitment was required by May 27, If ICCS received such a letter by the deadline, they would continue funding until August Commissioner Davis asserted the County understood the importance and need for Community Corrections. He agreed that the 7 th Judicial District needed to come together to discuss the matter and review the financial issues. He also wanted to discuss the issue with the District Attorney. He wished to explore the possibility of working with other groups to provide support. He assured those present that the Commissioners would consider the matter and let them know what was decided. Commissioner White suggested that the Commissioners be given information concerning the matrix of Community Corrections. Commissioner Henderson noted there were unintended consequences of subversive social activity. Montrose County was impacted by criminal behavior (drug activity, violence, burglary, etc.) that was not felt by other members of the 7 th Judicial District. No one wished to discuss these issues. Commissioner Henderson s attendance and comments at the Community Corrections meetings have not been acknowledged; however, Community Corrections continued to ask him for money. A much better job was needed to ascertain what the issues were, besides a lack of money. He expressed displeasure that Community Corrections might be considered a revenue source. Everyone needed to agree upon and be honest about the goals for Community Corrections. County Manager Ken Norris agreed that the County needed to review the information. He asserted that he had discussed the matter with Mesa County, who had provided information that would be helpful for the County. Carrol Warner reported that Sheriff McKee had to leave the meeting, but had left a note stating that he had full confidence in Tyson, that he supported Community Corrections, and Community Corrections had been successful in reducing transports for Delta County. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE F. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: NONE G. EXECUTIVE SESSION: NONE This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 189

13 With no further business coming before the Board, the Board of County Commissioners adjourned at 2:57pm. ATTEST: Tressa W. Guynes, Clerk & Recorder By: Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board Glen Davis, Chairman David S. White, Vice Chairman Ronald D. Henderson, Commissioner This document was approved on May 25, 2016, Reception # Page 190