CITY OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD

CITY OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-2015

RICHMOND COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD 2013 MEMBERSHIP CITIZEN APPOINTEE Albertina R. Walker CCJB Chair COMMONWEALTH S ATTORNEY Honorable Michael N. Herring, Esquire CCJB Vice-Chair City of Richmond PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE Susan D. Hansen, Esquire Office of the Public Defender City of Richmond POLICE Ray J. Tarasovic Chief of Police City of Richmond SHERIFF Honorable Clarence T. Woody, Jr. Sheriff Richmond City Jail MAGISTRATE Gary M. Wooldridge, Esquire Chief Magistrate City of Richmond CITIZEN APPOINTEE Krista Samuels, Esquire CCJB Secretary CIRCUIT COURT Honorable Clarence N. Jenkins, Jr. Judge Richmond Circuit Court GENERAL DISTRICT COURT Honorable D. Eugene Cheek, Sr. Judge Richmond General District Court Criminal Division RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY Dr. Jack O. Lanier, MHA, FACHE Chief Executive Officer Richmond Behavioral Health Authority CITY COUNCIL Honorable Michelle R. Mosby City Council Member Richmond City Council 9 th District CITIZEN APPOINTEE David A.C. Long, Esquire CITIZEN APPOINTEE Dr. Julie A. Molloy CITY STAFF/PROGRAM STAFF: David M. Hicks, Esquire Interim Director Department of Justice Services Rufus Fleming Deputy Director Department of Justice Services Dr. Rhonda A. Gilmer Deputy Director Department of Justice Services Jennifer MacArthur Program Manager Division of Adult Programs Department of Justice Services Cecelia V. Garner Criminal Justice Planner Department of Justice Services Thomas Okuda Fitzpatrick, Esquire Criminal Justice Planner Department of Justice Services JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT Honorable Richard B. Campbell Judge Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 3 CCJB Role and Responsibility... 4 Background of the Plan... 5 Process Review Committee... 5 Programs Review Committee... 6 Data Analysis... 6 System Overview... 6 Richmond s Criminal Justice System Interventions and Community-Based Sentences... 7 Mental Health and Substance Abuse Interventions and Programs... 8 Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)... 8 Crisis Triage Center (CTC)... 10 Mental Health Docket... 10 Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program... 11 Substance Abuse Alternative Sentencing Project... 11 Addressing the Overlap Between Homelessness, Criminal Justice, and Mental Illness. 12 Bond Reform and Pretrial Services... 13 Pretrial Risk Assessment and PRAXIS Report... 14 Non Incarceration Sentence Options... 16 Day Reporting Center (DRC)... 16 Community Corrections/Local Probation... 17 Programs Dashboard... 18 Appendix A: Jail Population... 19 Appendix B: Pretrial Population in Jail... 20 Appendix C: Pretrial Supervision... 21 Appendix D: Sentenced Population at Jail... 22 Appendix E: Local Probation Supervision... 23 Appendix F: Mental Health at the Richmond City Jail... 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The opening of the new Justice Center marks a new approach for Richmond s criminal justice system that ensures public safety by strengthening defendants and offenders ties to the community. The shift in city agencies policies and practices parallels a national movement towards the adoption of evidence-based practices that combat recidivism and maintain safe and strong communities. The Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) provided a roadmap in the FY2011-2012 biennial plan to implement evidenced-based practices, policies, and programs with an eye towards reducing the jail census. This current plan builds upon the successful implementation of many of the initiatives in the last biennial plan and charts a course towards even greater adoption of practices and programs that are rooted in research. The research and planning for these initiatives not only considered the current scholarly literature and program successes in other localities, but also data collected from Richmond s criminal justice and mental health agencies. With the goals of lowering the number of individuals incarcerated and reducing recidivism in the city, the CCJB s plan includes reforms in pretrial release and bail decisions, greater utilization of community-based sentencing options, and treatment for individuals with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. A key focus of these initiatives is the adoption of risk and needs assessments and screenings to ensure that participants are placed in the most appropriate programs for their individual situations. Building upon the recommendations provided in the FY2011-2012 biennial plan, the City of Richmond (1) implemented a mental health docket in the General District Court to provide particular case management and treatment for defendants with underlying mental illnesses; (2) implemented a mental health alternative sentencing program to provide a specialized probation sentence coupled with community-based treatment and support services; (3) received federal grant awards for expanding emergency, permanent supportive and rapid supportive housing for court-involved individuals; (4) expanded the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training for police officers; (5) established a Crisis Triage Center (CTC), where law enforcement officers can transfer custody of individuals in crisis to professionals of a secure assessment facility to receive a clinical evaluation and linkage to appropriate care; and (6) expanded the electronic monitoring program for certain defendants and offenders supervised in the community using Global Position System (GPS) monitoring equipment. A thorough review of the inmate population revealed that roughly a third of the inmates on any given day were awaiting trial in a pretrial status and were held either without bail or were incarcerated because they could not post a secured bond. To provide better information to judicial officers that will assist in release decisions, the City of Richmond pretrial services agency has adopted a revamped research-based risk assessment instrument to identify those individuals who pose a likelihood of appearing for court and remaining crime-free. To enhance community-based sentence options, a Day Reporting Center (DRC) will be established to provide intensive intervention for offenders that would otherwise receive a jail sentence. Page 3

The initiatives described in this plan reflect a collective goal of the CCJB, criminal justice agencies, and community partners to reduce the jail population in a sustainable fashion while ensuring public safety. However, a sustainable reduction in recidivism requires attention to improving quality of life through job readiness training, continuity of care of behavioral health, and breaking the homelessness-to-jail cycle. CCJB ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY The City of Richmond established the Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) pursuant to The Comprehensive Community Corrections Act that requires jurisdictions to establish local pretrial services or community-based probation programs to also establish local CCJBs. 1 The board provides a direct link from state, federal and other local criminal justice entities to the Richmond community. In addition to advising on the operations of the local pretrial services and communitybased probation services, as provided for in the Virginia Code, the Richmond CCJB also serves as a planning and advisory body to the city for developing, monitoring, and evaluating community corrections programs that provide the judicial system with community-based sentencing options for certain individuals. Membership is legislated to consist of judges from Circuit Court, General District Court, and Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, the Chief Magistrate, the Chief of Police, an attorney from the Office of the Commonwealth s Attorney; the Public Defender or a defense attorney; the Sheriff; a local educator; the Community Service Board (CSB) administrator, a city council member, and citizen appointees. The purpose of the Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) is: (1) to allow the City Council of the City of Richmond greater flexibility and involvement in responding to crime in the city; (2) to provide more effective protection to the citizens of the City of Richmond; (3) to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of community criminal justice; (4) to provide increased opportunities for adult offenders to make restitution through financial reimbursement or the performance of community services; (5) to permit the City of Richmond through this board, to establish policies that structure programs which will assist judicial officers in discharging their duties and meet the needs of selected adult offenders; and (6) to approve funding sources that support programs engaging in pre and post trial services. Section 9.1-175 of the Code of Virginia requires that each CCJB must adopt and approve a biennial plan of its objectives and goals, and the strategies for implementing the programs and meeting the objectives and goals of the CCJB. 1 Virginia Code 9.1-173, et seq. Page 4

BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN In preparation for the opening of the Richmond City Justice Center, the City of Richmond has adopted a comprehensive plan to reduce incarceration and recidivism. The city has embarked on a multipronged approach that promotes public safety by providing appropriate levels of intervention and responses based on risks to the community. Whereas the historical paradigm assumed jail to be the default option for public safety for most defendants and offenders, research published by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has informed the formulation of new city policies and practices that presumes jail as the alternative placement or sentencing option. 2 This new paradigm of jail being the alternative is predicated on three main tenants: treating individuals with mental illness or substance abuse in community-based programs, early releases for lower risk defendants awaiting trial, and alternatives to incarceration sentencing options for certain offenders. The FY2011-2012 CCJB Biennial Plan outlined more than a dozen potential programmatic and process changes for the city s criminal justice agencies to consider. 3 Most of the initiatives have been either implemented or are slated to be established in the coming biennium. This plan builds upon those proposals. In addition to the work plan put forth by the CCJB, several workgroups and ad hoc meetings of stakeholders were established to review how individuals are processed through the criminal justice system, to assess the services provided and identify the programmatic needs that still remain. Specifically, two working committees, the Process Review Committee and Programs Review Committee, were formed to evaluate current sentencing and jail diversion options; determine how current initiatives can be maximized; identify barriers in the criminal justice system that may contribute to delays in pretrial release; and recommend policy changes in case processing decisions. PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE The Process Review Committee worked to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Richmond s criminal justice system by evaluating policies and procedures that impact the length of stay in jail and jail admissions. The committee assessed how defendants are currently processed through the system and recommended changes to case processing decisions and agencies policies. The committee worked to establish a common understanding of risk-based assessments and identified the need to implement an actuarial risk assessment tool to guide the community-based sentence placement recommendations. The committee also reviewed the pretrial release process and identified solutions to ensure that bail decisions are driven by assessed risks and that conditions for release do not result in unnecessarily long jail stays. (See Bond Reform Section). 2 Bennett, D.M. & Lattin, D., Jail Capacity Planning Guide, A Systems Approach (U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections 2009). 3 A copy of the FY2011-2012 biennial plan is available at http://www.richmondgov.com/justiceservices/documents/communitycriminaljusticeboard2011-2012plan.pdf Page 5

PROGRAMS REVIEW COMMITTEE The Programs Committee reviewed current sentencing options and jail diversion programs to determine how existing initiatives can be better utilized. The committee has started to review eligibility criteria for programs and will continue to identify changes that may be needed to increase program utilization. In the coming year, the committee will also review and implement evaluation criteria for the community-based sentencing programs and will develop protocols for sharing data on program participants and outcomes. DATA ANALYSIS In 2010, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) conducted an assessment of Richmond s Jail and Justice System and recommended that policy decisions should be guided with data collected from the local justice system. 4 To better understand the nuances of the jail population and the individuals processed through Richmond s criminal justice system, the city s Criminal Justice Planners worked with staff from the Sherriff s office, the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and the Richmond Office of the Commonwealth s Attorney to analyze Richmond specific data. These findings informed the planning and development of the initiatives set forth in this biennial plan. An understanding that roughly one third of the jail population are defendants awaiting trial and are not serving sentences informed the need to concentrate on pretrial bond reforms. (See Appendix A). Likewise, a full understanding of the population with mental illness at the jail has illustrated the need for the mental health docket and other initiatives in the community for individuals with mental illness. (See Appendix F). As is often the case, data sharing and robust data collection are needed to sustain and enhance these initiatives. SYSTEM OVERVIEW The following schematic map of Richmond s criminal justice system illustrates the processes by which justice-involved individuals are assessed and placed into community-based treatment or supervision programs. The map is broadly divided into four categories and considers interventions at key decision points in the criminal justice system. 5 These key points include decisions on arrest, pretrial status, charges, plea determinations, sentencing, community-based programs, jail release, violation response, and discharge from the criminal justice system. 4 City of Richmond Jail and Justice System Assessment TA #10J1074, (National Institute of Corrections NIC: August 9, 2012), available at http://www.richmondgov.com/sheriff/documents/nic_ta_assessment_report_final_august_2010.pdf 5 These decision points roughly follow the framework published in A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems (Center for Effective Public Policy, Pretrial Justice Institute, Justice Management Institute, and the Carey Group: 2010). Page 6

RICHMOND S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS AND COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES Page 7

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INTERVENTIONS AND PROGRAMS In 2009, the Mental Health Sub-Committee of the CCJB hosted a two-day Mental Health and Criminal Justice Cross System Mapping workshop to improve services and support for individuals in the criminal justice system with serious mental illness and co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, the participants developed a comprehensive understanding of how people with mental illness and co-occurring disorders process through the Richmond criminal justice system along five distinct intercept points: 1) Law Enforcement and Emergency Services, 2) Initial Detention/Initial Court Hearings, 3) Jails and Courts, 4) Re-entry, and 5) Community Corrections/Community Support. The workshop identified gaps, opportunities and resources to prevent unnecessary engagement of Richmond residents with mental illness and co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders with the criminal justice system. This workshop laid the groundwork for the development of the mental health strategies in the FY2011-2012 biennial plan and the initiatives described in this plan. Richmond is not unique in the number of individuals with mental illness that are involved in the criminal justice system. 6 The efforts to address individuals with mental health and cooccurring disorders have resulted in a concerted effort to provide appropriate community-based treatment to individuals who can be safely managed in the community. These efforts start at the initial contact with law enforcement officers, all of whom will be required to be trained in the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model. CIT trained officers understand the unique needs of individuals experiencing mental health crises and respond compassionately to de-escalate the situation. When appropriate, the officers bring individuals to the Crisis Triage Center (CTC) rather than to the jail, to be assessed by dedicated crisis staff clinicians from the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA) and connected to treatment. For those individuals who are taken to jail, clinical assessments are made to determine eligibility to a special Mental Health Docket. This docket adjudicates misdemeanor cases with a focus towards providing appropriate community-based treatment to individuals. A team comprised of pretrial and probation officers, clinicians, defense attorneys, and prosecutors meet to discuss each case and a General District Court Judge monitors participants treatment progress. The Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Project provides an alternative to incarceration with participants receiving treatment and community-based support services as a condition of their probation sentence. These initiatives are described with detail in the next few pages. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CIT) In 2008, Richmond began the process of implementing the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model to equip officers with the skills necessary to more effectively communicate with and understand the particular needs of individuals with mental illnesses. Integral to the CIT program is specialized training on how to compassionately de-escalate situations involving 6 National Alliance on Mental Illness Virginia, Fact Sheet: Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System, available at http://namivirginia.org/assets/pdfs/miandcriminaljusticesystem.pdf Page 8

persons with mental illness. This allows officers to reduce the potential for misunderstanding and respond safely and quickly to individuals in crisis. During the course of their regular patrol duties, police officers routinely encounter individuals with mental illness who exhibit symptoms or behaviors that may appear to be inappropriate, violent or dangerous. Additionally, the statutory structure of Virginia s civil commitment process requires police officers to routinely interact with individuals in crisis situations that may have mental illness or behavior health disorders. 7 Proper training helps police officers to properly identify these individuals and intervene more effectively. Richmond s CIT program is part of a state-wide expansion of CIT provided for in the Virginia Code. 8 The goals of the CIT programs as outlined in the Virginia Code include: 1. Providing immediate response by specially trained law-enforcement officers; 2. Reducing the amount of time officers spend out of service awaiting assessment and disposition; 3. Affording persons with mental illness, substance abuse problems, or both, a sense of dignity in crisis situations; 4. Reducing the likelihood of physical confrontation; 5. Decreasing arrests and use of force; 6. Identifying underserved populations with mental illness, substance abuse problems, or both, and linking them to appropriate care; 7. Providing support and assistance for mental health treatment professionals; 8. Decreasing the use of arrest and detention of persons experiencing mental health and/or substance abuse crises by providing better access to timely treatment; 9. Providing a therapeutic location or protocol for officers to bring individuals in crisis for assessment that is not a law-enforcement or jail facility; 10. Increasing public recognition and appreciation for the mental health needs of a community; 11. Decreasing injuries to law-enforcement officers during crisis events; 12. Reducing inappropriate arrests of individuals with mental illness in crisis situations; and 13. Decreasing the need for mental health treatment in jail. The CIT program is modeled after a program originally developed by the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department. The police-based specialized response program also provides officers with specialized mental health training and on various procedures guiding decisions related to disposition, transportation, custodial transfer, and diversion to appropriate treatment of individuals with mental illness experiencing crisis. This forty-hour intensive training is coinstructed with clinicians from RBHA and dedicated trainers from the Richmond Police Department. In April 2010, the Richmond Police Department participated in the first 40-hour training session for CIT and now regularly conducts training for not only the Richmond Police, but also staff from the Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department, the Richmond Sheriff s Office and neighboring localities. As of December 2013, more than two hundred sworn Richmond police officers have been trained in CIT. The goal of the Richmond Police Department is to train the entire department. 7 Code of Virginia, 37.2-800 et. seq. 8 Code of Virginia, 9.1-187 et. seq. Page 9

CRISIS TRIAGE CENTER (CTC) As part of the second step in the CIT program, 9 the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority and Richmond Police Department established the Crisis Triage Center (CTC) to serve as a secure assessment center where specially-trained police officers respond to calls involving people experiencing a serious mental health issue. Located at HCA-Chippenham Hospital in partnership with Chesterfield Community Service Board, the multijurisdictional center combines medical, psychiatric, law enforcement, and emergency mental health resources in one convenient and accessible location. The CTC allows officers to transfer custody of individuals in crisis to an on-site CIT trained officer and return to their duties while the center s staff provides comprehensive medical and psychiatric assessments and link the individual to treatment if necessary. The CTC helps prevent the criminalization of people with mental illness by providing a secure place for police officers to bring individuals with mental illness in lieu of jail. It also improves the efficiently and timely delivery of services to individuals in crisis by screening for hospitalization in one location. In addition to the voluntary admissions that currently take place at HCA-Chippenham Hospital; the CTC clinicians are able to evaluate the individual's need for acute inpatient psychiatric hospitalization on a temporary detainment order (TDO). The CTC is currently staffed for ten hours a day during the peak hours of crisis, from 2 p.m. to midnight. With additional resources, the goal is to expand the CTC to twenty-four hour coverage and eventually establish a second CTC north of the river. MENTAL HEALTH DOCKET The City of Richmond implemented the Mental Health Pretrial Docket in May 2011 to provide case management of alleged offenders with underlying mental illnesses. Participants are assessed for clinical diagnoses and their risks and needs as part of a mental health treatment plan. The docket adjudicates misdemeanor cases with a focus towards providing appropriate treatment to individuals. A team comprised of pretrial and probation officers, clinicians, defense attorneys, and prosecutors meet to discuss each case and a General District Court judge monitors participants treatment progress. The Mental Health Pretrial Docket is not a substitute for criminal dockets in the General District Courts; instead, it is intended to identify defendants who may be suitable for management in the community, rather than detention at the Richmond City Jail. Any defendant currently under the jurisdiction of the General District Court for pending charges may be assessed for eligibility, regardless of the nature or grade of offense. Placement of a case on the docket ensures only that the case will be managed with consideration for the defendant s mental illness. It does not guarantee a particular disposition or outcome. All inmates in the jail are initially screened for mental illnesses as part of their intake medical screening. A mental health clinician and the Region IV Jail Team (a collaborative effort between RBHA, area 9 Essential Elements for the Commonwealth of Virginia s Crisis Intervention Team Programs (CIT): CIT Program Development Guidance 2011. available at http://vacitcoalition.org/essential_elements_of_virginia_cit Page 10

Community Services Boards and Central State Hospital) conduct assessments on individuals identified as potential candidates for the docket. For a defendant who is deemed eligible, the mental health clinician makes one of the following recommendations: o The defendant s illness requires inpatient services at an appropriate facility; o The defendant s illness cannot be safely managed in the community; or o The defendant s illness can be safely managed in an outpatient setting in the community with appropriate resources. Individuals who are managed in the community and have had no new arrests, are actively progressing with their treatment plans, do not test for illicit substances, and comply with pretrial are be deemed successful. Successful completion may result in a motion from the Commonwealth s Attorney for removal from pretrial supervision, dismissal of relevant charges, or a specific sentence of suspended jail time. In FY2013, 125 defendants were placed on the Mental Health Docket, a majority of whom were diverted from the jail and received care in the community. MENTAL HEALTH ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROGRAM The Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Project dovetails the Mental Health Docket and provides a non-incarceration sentence for participants receiving treatment and communitybased support services as a condition of their probation sentence. Comprised of the same collaborative partners as the Mental Health Docket, this sentencing program allows for an uninterrupted continuum of care for adjudicated and sentenced individuals. Participants progress is monitored by the collaborative partners and the presiding judge of the Mental Health Docket. Successful completion of the program typically results in the dismissal of case. In FY2013, 40 individuals were sentenced to the Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program SUBSTANCE ABUSE ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROJECT The Substance Abuse Alternative Sentencing Project is a collaborative effort between the Richmond Behavior Health Authority (RBHA) and the Department of Justice Services (DJS) to provide a comprehensive substance use program as a community-based sentence. The program provides clinical assessments of defendants and develop individualized service plans based on identified problems, strengths and needs; group-based substance use disorder educational or therapeutic treatment services (motivational enhancement, relapse prevention, psychoeducational health, wellness and recovery groups) and purchase other substance use disorder treatment services, if and when needed, as appropriate for each defendant, including but not limited to methadone or other medication-assisted therapies, detoxification services, residential substance use disorder treatment services, residential recovery support services or additional outpatient services. Thirty two individuals entered treatment through the Substance Abuse Alternative Sentencing Project in FY2013. Page 11

ADDRESSING THE OVERLAP BETWEEN HOMELESSNESS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND MENTAL ILLNESS In Richmond, as elsewhere, a small group with complex needs drives escalating corrections and other emergency costs. These frequent users alternate between incarceration, hospitals, detoxification centers, and homelessness. The Richmond 2013 annual point in time survey found that 76.7% of homeless adults disclosed jail history. 10 In 2012, Homeward, the region s homeless coordinating agency, conducted a local study to better understand linkages between homelessness and contact with the criminal justice system. 11 The study identified 2,685 individuals in both systems; 13% had touched both jail and shelter systems more than four times over five years. A majority of this group suffers from mental illness, contributing to their cyclical behavior. This data suggests existing interventions are insufficient. The partnership, called the Richmond Frequent Users System Engagement (FUSE), includes the Department of Justice Services, Department of Social Services, Sheriff s Office, Homeward, and RBHA. FUSE builds on interagency collaborations and pubic investments to provide comprehensive mental health, substance use, and other support services with affordable housing to ensure housing stability and increase opportunities for employment and self sufficiency for frequent users in Richmond. Recently, the City of Richmond received two grants from The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide housing assistance to individuals participating in the Mental Health Docket and Alternative Sentencing Program. One of the grants provides twenty individuals with short to mid-term rental assistance who have the ability to maintain housing. The other provides permanent supportive housing to participants who have significant jail and homelessness experiences and require wrap around case management services. The goal is to reduce the costs of homelessness and incarceration of mentally ill offenders who are chronically homeless and who have been in jail and in shelters and who with moderate support could sustain themselves in private housing. A FUSE case manager will coordinate wrap around care in conjunction with the Mental Health Docket and Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program collaborative. Eligibility criteria for the short to mid-term assistance are mental illness, homelessness, and a history of incarceration. The permanent supportive housing assistance is reserved for individuals in the Mental Health Docket and Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program with mental illness and chronic homelessness with at least four stays in jail in the last five years. The FUSE case manager will work with a contracted housing locator to guide the client through housing searches and leasing. FUSE is consumer-centered, with 24-hour crisis response that provides tenants with hands-on assistance and to ensure housing stability. 10 January 2013 Snapshot of Ex-Offenders Experiencing Homelessness in the Richmond Region, Homeward, available at http://www.homewardva.org/sftp-homeward/january%202013%20exoffender%20snapshot.pdf 11 Ackermann, M., The Relationship between Incarceration in the Richmond City Jail and Stays in Local Homeless. Homeward (2010). Page 12

BOND REFORM AND PRETRIAL SERVICES Roughly a third of the jail population on a given day is awaiting trial and not serving a sentence. Further, data reveals that misdemeanor defendants incarcerated prior to trial averaged about five days in jail before being released, while defendants charged with non-violent felonies stayed in jail an average of 23 days and defendants charged with drug felonies averaged 34 days. Many of these individuals are eventually released to the community prior to their trial; however, before they are released they must either pay the full amount of their secured bond or pay a bail bondsman. For lower risk defendants, these stays in the jail can amount to unnecessary jail stays. The FY2011-2012 Biennial Plan recognized the need to increase utilization of an actuarial risk assessment to identify those individuals that pose a likelihood of appearing for court and remaining crime-free, and releasing them from the jail in a timely manner. To this end, the city has adopted a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) led initiative called Praxis that bases pretrial release recommendations on defendants assessed risk levels and current charges to keep high-risk defendants in jail and allow lower risk defendants to await their trial in the community. This DCJS initiative is part of a research project to validate a new risk assessment tool that builds upon the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument. (See Pretrial Risk Assessment & PRAXIS Report section). In order to guide the courts in their bail decisions, pretrial investigators conduct interviews with defendants soon after they are committed to the Sheriff s custody by the magistrates, verify relevant information, and complete the risk assessment report on the defendant s likelihood to appear for court and remain crime free if released. These reports are used by the prosecutors in making bond recommendations to the court and used by the courts as part of their bail decisions. The bail decisions are made at the earliest feasible point to allow defendants to timely return to their families and structured lives. Ideally these reports are used by the courts at the arraignment hearing the next business day after the individuals has been committed or at a bond hearing requested by the defendant. For individuals that are assessed to be of low risk to the community, recommendations are made to the court to allow the defendants to be released on their own recognizance. When deemed necessary, defendants are released on bond and supervised by pretrial officers to assure court appearances and community safety. The goal of pretrial supervision is to ensure that the defendant returns to court and remains crime-free while under supervision. While on supervision, defendants must meet regularly with their pretrial officer. Defendants may also be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing when ordered by the court as a bail condition. Certain defendants are also monitored with a Global Positioning System (GPS) embedded ankle bracelet. The use of Pretrial Supervision has increased in the last several years, with a precipitous increase in FY2012. (See Appendix C). The number of individuals placed onto pretrial supervision increased by about 45% from FY2011 to FY 2012, with about 500 more placements for defendants facing felony charges. Historically, the City of Richmond has relied on secured bonds to assure court appearances and safety in the community during the pretrial stage. Secured bonds require defendants to either pay the full amount before being released, or pay a bail bondsman a fee (usually set at 10% of the bond amount). In turn, the bail bondsman provides surety to the court that the individual will appear for court. Unsecured bonds, on the other hand, allow for a Page 13

defendant to be released upon the promise to return to court and payment of the bond amount only if the defendant fails to appear. Least restrictive are recognizance bonds which allow for defendants release upon their promise to return to court and do not set a monetary bond amount. Recent research in the field of pretrial release reveals that secured bonds do not provide increased public safety compared to unsecured bonds, when defendants are released from jail. Research by the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) reveals that for defendants who were lower, moderate, or higher risk unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving public safety [and] are as effective at achieving court appearance as secured bonds. 12 A 2011 study in Virginia similarly found that defendants released on pretrial supervision with unsecured bonds had higher appearance rates and lower rearrest rates when compared to defendants released to pretrial supervision with secure bonds. 13 The PJI study also found that secured bonds are associated with more pretrial jail bed use but not increased court appearance rates. 14 This higher bed rate use is associated with "fewer secured bond defendants being released and when they are released, taking more time to do so... 15 Over reliance on secured bonds disproportionately incarcerates poor defendants and is a primary cause of incarceration for low risk individuals who do not pose a significant risk of committing a crime or failing to appear for court. 16 Too often poor defendants remain in custody because they cannot afford to post the financial bail set by a court. 17 This research has informed the city s bond reform efforts, the increased use of pretrial risk assessment instruments, and the increased use of pretrial supervision. The results of Richmond s use of the risk assessment instruments will be analyzed as part of a state-wide research study on pretrial risk assessments and supervision being conducted by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT & PRAXIS REPORT The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) is an objective and researchbased risk assessment tool used to determine the risk of flight and danger to the community posed by pretrial defendants. Pretrial investigators interview defendants committed to the city jail and verify information with references to produce VPRAI reports prior to arraignments. The pretrial investigators examine the following eight risk factors to assign one of five risk level indicating the likelihood of pretrial failure: 1. Current Charge is a Felony. The report factors whether the most serious charge for the arrest event is a misdemeanor or a felony. 12 Jones, M.R. Unsecured Bonds: The As Effective and Most Efficient Pretrial Release Option, Washington, D.C., Pretrial Justice Institute (2013), 3. 13 VanNostrand, M., Rose, K.J., & Weibrecht, K., State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and Supervision, Pretrial Justice Institute (2011). 14 Jones, M.R., Unsecured Bond, 3 15 Ibid, 21. 16 Dresssel, W.F. & Mohoney, B, Pretrial Justice in Criminal Cases: Judges Perspectives on Key Issues, The National Judicial College (2013), 12. 17 Ibid, 12. Page 14

2. Pending Charges at the Time of Arrest. Pending charges require that the defendant was previously arrested for one or more charges for jailable offenses and has been arrested for a new crime that was allegedly committed while released on bail pending trial. 3. Adult Criminal History. A conviction as an adult for a jailable offense is counted as a prior criminal history. A charge with a deferred disposition is not counted as a conviction. 4. Two or More Failures to Appear (FTA). An arrest for failure to appear, bail jumping, or contempt of court that was a result of failing to appear is counted. 5. Two or More Violent Convictions. Violent convictions are defined for the purposes of risk assessment to include the following: murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, abduction, malicious wounding, robbery, carjacking, arson, assault (simple assault or assault & battery/misdemeanor or felony), and sex offenses (rape, sexual assault/battery, carnal knowledge of a child, forcible sodomy). Convictions for burglary and possession or brandishing of a firearm are not counted as violent convictions. A conviction for attempt or being an accessory before the fact to commit any of the offenses is counted. 6. Length at Current Residence Less than One Year. A residence is where the defendant currently lives and does not include non-residences such as a jail, prison, halfway house, hospital, or shelter. 7. Not Employed/Primary Caregiver for Previous Two Years. Employment includes part time or full time work performed regularly and consistently for a minimum of 20 hours per week. A defendant is considered a primary caregiver if he or she is responsible for, and consistently cares for, at least one dependent child or disabled or elderly family member, living with the defendant at the time of the arrest. 8. History of Drug Abuse. Drug abuse includes illegal or prescription drugs and does not include alcohol. Consideration is given to the information provided by the defendant, criminal history, supervision records, and information provided by references. One of five risk levels (low, below average, average, above average, and high) is assigned to the defendant based on the risk factors, with each risk factor increasing the risk level by one step (except for the failure to appear factor, which increases the risk level by two steps). The PRAXIS recommendation grid matches the VPRAI risk level with the current charges to generate a recommendation to the court reflecting the least restrictive terms and conditions of release that will reasonably assure a defendant will appear for court and not present a danger to the community during the pretrial stage. The report makes one of three recommendations. For individuals who can be safely managed in the community, the PRAXIS will recommend a recognizance or unsecured bonds. For defendants that cannot be safely managed in the community, the PRAXIS will recommend that the defendant be held without bond. And for those individuals who can be managed in the community but may need additional assurances to mitigate the risk of release, Pretrial Supervision will be recommended. After being court ordered to Pretrial Supervision, defendants are placed on a differentiated supervision level based on their risk level and the current charges. The supervision level is administered by the pretrial office and determines the frequency with which the defendants must meet with their pretrial officer. The PRAXIS report does not include information contained in the police report and does not reflect the circumstances of the alleged offense. It remains merely a tool to be used by the courts in considering bail decisions. Additional information from the Commonwealth, defense attorneys, and police reports are also considered by the courts in the bail decision. Page 15

NON INCARCERATION SENTENCE OPTIONS The National Institute of Corrections report on Richmond s justice system recommended a shift in perspective to view incarceration at the jail as the alternative, rather than the expected default sanctioning option. Rather than calling community-based programs jail alternatives, the NIC report suggested a change in nomenclature to accompany this change in outlook. To stem overcrowding at the jail, the report suggested that city officials should view the communitybased programs and services as the first choice or preferred, and the jail as the option to be used only when these options are contraindicated... 18 Underlying this paradigm shift is an assumption that jail sentences should be reserved for those individuals who truly pose a danger to the community and that interventions that target the criminogenic factors that lead to crime can be successful when provided for in community-based programs. The sentencing options available to the courts provide a spectrum of sanction possibilities, depending on the severity of the crime and the needs of the defendant. Risk and needs assessments are conducted on defendants to determine appropriate placement and treatment dosages for participants DAY REPORTING CENTER (DRC) The Day Reporting Center (DRC) will provide a one-stop community-based sentencing option. Slated to open in early 2014 at 501 North Ninth Street in the Richmond Public Safety Building, the program provides participants with evidence-based intervention principles proven to change criminal behavior. Up to 150 participants, who have been screened for appropriate placement into the program, will remain in the community in lieu of a jail sentence and will initially report to the center on a daily basis. They will receive structured support and classes to address unhealthy behaviors, substance abuse, anger management, education, job readiness, and life skills. Additional programming may include relapse prevention, mental health assessments, and family counseling. The DRC will monitor participants with daily check-ins, regular drug and alcohol testing, and intensive case management. Participants will also be required to perform community labor as a condition of participation. In addition to serving as a non-incarceration sanction, the DRC s goal is to help offenders gain structure and stability in their lives and change the way they think and behave. Participants will learn and practice the skills necessary to live responsible lives and will be ready to obtain gainful employment. 18 City of Richmond Jail and Justice System Assessment TA #10J1074, (National Institute of Corrections NIC: August 9, 2012. Page 16

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS / LOCAL PROBATION The Department of Justice Services Division of Adult Programs (DAP) continues to provide local probation supervision as a community-based sentence for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors or non-violent felonies for which jail sentences would be 12 months or less. Established pursuant to the 1995 Comprehensive Community Corrections Act (CCCA, 9.1-173 COV), local probation provides a continuum of punitive sanctions and treatment services. Local probation officers utilize risk assessments to target criminogenic risk factors and employ strategies to encourage behavioral change. Participants are also regularly screened for substance use and are provided with treatment options when necessary. DAP also provides electronic monitoring using GPS technology for certain court-ordered individuals. Page 17

PROGRAMS DASHBOARD In order to sustain the use of community-based sentence options, the city is developing a computer dashboard to provide up-to-date information about sentence programs to judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, court personnel, and probation officers. These community-based sentencing programs may be conditions of criminal sentences or part of the probation obligations. Phase one of the secured web-based application will provide an easy to use interface for users to check the capacity for new placements and enrollments before a referral to a program is made. In addition to providing current enrollment numbers, the dashboard will also provide to users placement criteria, targeted populations, and detailed information about the programs. The dashboard will provide timely reports on the capacity and utilization of the programs. Information from the dashboard will be used to help increase utilization of the different programs. Future plans for the dashboard include a centralized screening for defendants and the ability to electronically refer individuals to programs. This second phase of the dashboard will also include the ability for service providers to report to probation officers and to the courts on the progress individuals are making in the programs. Page 18

APPENDIX A: JAIL POPULATION Three Year Comparison Average Daily Population (ADP) Richmond City Jail Source: Richmond City Sheriff s Office Richmond City Jail Subpopulation by Confinement Status CY2012 Source: Data from Compensation Board LIDS Average Daily Population Information Report (Formally the Tuesday Report). Analysis by Richmond DJS. *The values represented in the graph are averages of the twelve monthly point-in-time snap shot reports rather than aggregate monthly averages as reported by the Sheriff s Office. ** State Responsible Sentenced Inmates are individuals convicted of one or more felony offenses with sentences of more than one year. Local Responsible Sentenced Inmates are individuals convicted of one or more felony offences with effective sentences of less than one year. ***This graph does not include the average 1.5 federal inmates per month. Page 19

APPENDIX B: PRETRIAL POPULATION IN JAIL Average Length of Stay (LOS) to Date, for Pretrial Inmates Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd 2009 53.2 29.8 21.4 4.7 8.4 4.1 2010 55.8 26.8 21.4 5.6 5.4 3.9 2011 67.3 33.7 23.1 5.3 5.1 3.9 2012 67.7 33.9 23.1 5.5 4.8 4.7 Pretrial Average Daily Population Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd 2009 153.4 95.6 71.0 12.3 2.5 41.7 2010 168.9 81.2 72.2 15.5 2.5 41.7 2011 193.2 84.5 74.4 13.8 1.6 39.6 2012 182.6 81.9 72.6 13.0 1.5 37.0 Count of Pretrial Inmates in Richmond City Jail Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd 2009 261.8 221.3 204.7 104.5 14.8 365.4 2010 281.0 199.3 206.8 110.5 14.9 366.7 2011 296.3 182.8 204.0 100.1 12.6 356.9 2012 283.2 179.2 208.7 91.8 12.1 316.8 Source: Data from Compensation Boards LIDS data and PMON Report. Analysis by Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and City of Richmond DJS. *In some cases, a pretrial inmate's confinement status may be overwritten. Analysis here includes inmates who were in the pretrial category (Category G in LIDS) during the monthly PMON report. **For inmates still confined at the end of the month, LOS-to-Date = Last Day of the Month - Commitment Date. For those released during the month, LOS-to-Date = Release Date - Commitment Date. Page 20

APPENDIX C: PRETRIAL SUPERVISION The Department of Justice Services Division of Adult Programs provides supervision and services to defendants awaiting trial that have been released on bond and ordered to pretrial supervision by the courts. The goal of pretrial supervision is to ensure that the defendant returns to court and remains crime-free while under supervision. While on supervision, defendants must meet regularly with their pretrial officer. Defendants may also be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing when ordered by the court as a bail condition. Number of Defendants Placed on Pretrial Supervision Source: DJS, PTCC Database *Defendants charged with both misdemeanors and felonies are counted as felony defendants. Average Length of Pretrial Supervision Source: DJS, PTCC Database Page 21

APPENDIX D: SENTENCED POPULATION AT JAIL Average Length of Stay (LOS)* by Most Serious Committing Offense (Days) Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd Ordinance 2009 105.8 83.0 80.1 33.1 24.2 31.0 9.0 2010 108.3 85.5 95.6 34.5 21.7 24.8 13.7 2011 91.3 78.2 84.8 32.3 13.1 24.1 4.5 2012 104.3 68.2 70.7 36.0 11.0 23.3 8.2 Count by Most Serious Committing Offense (Number of Individuals Released) Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd Ordinance 2009 179 505 355 170 86 1,690 1 2010 183 404 314 161 124 1,621 8 2011 196 355 325 196 124 1,751 7 2012 179 369 327 143 130 1,323 4 Jail Bed Days by Most Serious Committing Offense Year Violent Fel Drug Fel Nonviolent Fel Violent Misd Drug Misd Nonviolent Misd Ordinance 2009 18,872 42,169 29,021 5,781 2,036 49,967 9 2010 19,778 34,844 30,754 5,538 2,749 39,795 216 2011 18,014 27,606 26,235 6,232 1,529 41,983 77 2012 18,604 25,272 22,801 5,091 1,354 30,392 196 Source: Data from Compensation Boards LIDS data and PMON Report. Analysis by Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and City of Richmond DJS. Page 22

APPENDIX E: LOCAL PROBATION SUPERVISION The Division of Adult Programs provides probation supervision as a community-based sentence for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors or non-violent felonies for which jail sentences would be 12 months or less. The tables below represent the number of offenders supervised on local probation and the average length of probation supervision. These offenders have been convicted of misdemeanant and non-violent felony offenses for which the court imposes a jail sentence but requires less than institutional custody. Number of Offenders Placed on Probation Supervision Source: Richmond DJS, PTCC Database Average Length of Probation Supervision Source: Richmond DJS, PTCC Database Page 23

APPENDIX F: MENTAL HEALTH AT THE RICHMOND CITY JAIL Data from Annual One Month Snap Shots (July) Schizophrenia or Delusional Disorder Number & Diagnoses of Inmate Mental Illness in Jails Bipolar or Major Depressive Mild Depression Anxiety Disorders PTSD Other Mental Illness Mentally Ill with no Diagnosis Total Mental Illness Population 2013 52 41 14 17 26 44 1 195 2012 99 26 34 17 19 0 19 228 2011 69 103 16 2-2 0 192 2010 6 11 12 5-2 30 66 Source: 2013, 2012 & 2011 Appendix C; 2010 Appendix B Most Serious Offense Reported as Felony Most Serious Offense of Inmates with Mental Illness in Jails Most Serious Offense Reported as Misdemeanor Most Serious Offense Reported as Drug Most Serious Offense Reported as Violent Most Serious Offense Reported as Non-Violent Total Inmates Reported 2013 170 29 47 86 66 199 2012 124 104 82 38 108 228 2011 165 27 27 96 69 192 2010 42 24 8 20 38 66 Source: 2013, 2012 & 2011 Appendix D; 2010 Appendix C Data Excerpted from the Mental Illness in Jails Reports, published by the Compensation Board. The 2013 report is available at http://www.scb.virginia.gov/docs/2013mentalhealthreport.pdf. The data reflects information gathered for the month of July as reported to the Compensation Board by the local and regional jails in their annual mental health surveys. Page 24

Richmond City Jail Health Services Statistical Report Total # of New Patients seen by Psychiatric Provider Total # of follow up Visits by Psychiatric Provider Total # Positive Mental Health Screens from Intake Total # of Visits provided by Mental Health Team Total # of Visits provided to Inmates on Special Needs list during the month Total # of Segregation Visits performed by Mental Health Team during the month Total # of Inmates being followed for Special Mental Health needs Total # of requests for Mental Health Services received during the month Total # of Inmates on Mental Health Medication(s) Total # of New Patients seen by Psychiatric Provider Total # of follow up visits by Psychiatric Provider Total # Positive Mental Health Screens from Intake Total # of Visits provided by Mental Health Team Total # of Visits provided to Inmates on Special Needs list during the month Total # of Segregation Visits performed by Mental Health Team during the month Total # of Inmates being followed for Special Mental Health needs Total # of requests for Mental Health Services received during the month Total # of Inmates on Mental Health Medication(s) Source: Richmond City Jail CY2012 Avg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 44 52 37 51 38 39 42 55 44 27 54 31 61 63 74 80 75 62 62 48 74 62 60 58 45 61 118 91 101 90 66 103 140 157 160 139 137 118 109 87 51 55 73 67 86 91 78 90 95 129 108 115 61 61 53 61 66 68 59 59 37 63 65 71 68 340 403 405 379 383 377 370 289 180 289 361 348 296 83 80 75 81 74 78 73 79 84 80 92 100 100 226 138 190 181 167 214 231 254 335 265 291 245 201 212 192 192 212 211 220 242 241 225 192 209 208 205 CY2013 Avg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 49 56 46 59 48 50 45 57 32 59 44 46 51 54 51 48 58 40 50 51 62 58 69 49 49 67 152 132 122 170 164 179 139 165 138 153 182 136 144 143 127 151 172 162 147 168 168 140 126 132 116 111 68 61 72 67 60 68 66 68 68 71 72 76 69 404 408 280 285 514 354 478 434 448 484 514 346 305 91 99 101 99 82 95 90 80 89 83 91 91 87 281 235 238 310 305 316 293 316 275 275 321 243 249 205 217 207 211 207 228 208 203 205 203 203 194 183 Page 25