~~ AMERICAN UNIVERSITY W A S H N G T 0 N, CCfAP Assignment No. 3~025 Review of Alternative Sentencing Programs in Camden County, New Jersey TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Bureau of Justice Assistance CRIMINAL COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT A Joint Program of the Bureau nf Justice Assistance, U.S. Dep<utment of Justice. and American University School of Public Affairs
~ AMERICAN UNIVERSITY W A S H NGTON, DC SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS justice PROGRAMS OFFICE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE CRIMINAL COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT CCT AP Assignment No. 3-025 Review of Alternative Sentencing Programs in Camden County, New Jersey July 2006 Consultants: John Clark J. W. Fairman D. Alan Henry This report was prepared by the Bureau of Justice Assistance Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University, Washington, D.C. This project is supported by Grant No. 2006-DD-BX-KO JJ, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ' P ROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS' TECH ICAL A SSISTANCE P ROJECT A PROGRAM OF THE B UREAU OF justice ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE 4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016-8159 202-885-2875 FAX: 202-885-2885 www.american.edu/j usrice
CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Background on Alternative Sentencing 4 III. Background of Efforts to Reduce Crowding at the Camden County Jail 5 IV. Description and Analysis of the HED and CSLS Programs 8 A. B. c. D. E. Overview History of the Programs Program Procedures Data Regarding Program Utilization Table: Offenders Placed in CSLS and HED from January 2005 to May 2006 Analysis of the HED and CSLS Programs 8 8 9 12 13 14 V. Recommendations 15 Recommendation One: Standardize the use of forms 15 Recommendation Two: Expedite sentencing ofhed and CSLS offenders 15 Recommendation Three: Update policies and procedures 15 Recommendation Four: Assure that program requirements are known to all parties 15 Recommendation Five: Staff the HED program during overnight hours 16 Recommendation Six: Set specific expectations for the electronic monitoring provider regarding the timing of notice of violations 16 Recommendation Seven: Automate program records 16 VI. Conclusion 17 Review of Alternative Sentencing Programs in Camden County, New Jersey. BJA Crimjnal Courts
I. INTRODUCTION In September 2005, Camden County (New Jersey) Administrator Ross G. Angilella requested technical assistance through the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (CCTAP) at American University. In his request, Mr. Angilella noted that the county jail has an operating capacity of 1,217 inmates, but had gone over 2,000 in recent months. As one means of addressing the crowding situation, Mr. Angilella was seeking an independent review of two alternative sentencing programs run through the county's Department of Corrections- Home Electronic Detention (HED) and Correctional Supplemental Labor Service (CSLS). 1 In response to this technical assistance request, the CCT AP assembled a technical assistance team comprised of D. Alan Henry, then Executive Director and currently Director Emeritus of the Pretrial Services Resource Center, John Clark, Deputy Director of the Pretrial Services Resource Center, and J.W. Fairman, Director of Public Safety for Cook County, Illinois. The technical assistance team was asked to review the county's alternative sentencing programs to determine the extent that their procedures were appropriate and properly implemented and to make recommendations, as appropriate, for improvement. On April4 and 5, 2006, Messrs. Fairman and Clark conducted an initial visit to Camden. During that visit, the team met with the following individuals: Assignment Judge Francis Orlando, Criminal Division Judge Samuel Natal, Trial Court Administrator 1 This technical assistance request was in follow up to an earlier CCTAP study conducted in 2005 and more specifically described in Section III of this report. See: Recommendations For Improving the Operation of the Criminal Casejlow Process in Camden County to Reduce the Jail Population. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. (CCTAP No. 3-005). American University. July 2005.
Mike O'Brien, Warden Eric Taylor, Deputy Warden Anthony Pizarro, Captain Ronald Barr, Lieutenant Nieves, Acting Prosecutor James Lynch, Assistant Prosecutor Josh Ottenburg, Public Defender Michael Freidman, Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Chair Judge John Mariano, County Administrator Ross Angillella, County Counsel Deborah Silverman, and Holly Cass of the County Administrator's Office. The team also attended a meeting of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, where they briefly described the technical assistance project. The purpose of this initial visit was to obtain initial background information on the operation of the HED and CSLC programs and on the perspectives of these system actors on issues surrounding these programs. On May 31, 2006, team members Fairman and Henry conducted a follow up visit, focusing on an in-depth review of the HED program, including accompanying Department of Corrections staff on their rounds. The following day, the two, joined by Clark, met with Judge Natal and with Municipal Court Judge Bob Zane to discuss the results ofthe previous day's tour of the program. The team also met with the County Administrator to discuss findings and preliminary recommendations. This second site visit entailed protracted observation of operational, recordkeeping, and communication aspects of the programs, and extensive interaction with staff, corrections managers at all levels, and offender-participants. The team consensus was that many of the perception and interagency problems that had dogged the programs in the months preceding this visit had, in large part, been successfully dealt with. The programs had in place well designed and observed procedures for both supervision and communication, and interagency communication had improved. This is not to say that problems do not remain that inhibit the systemic impact of the County's willingness to invest substantially, as it has, in alternative sentencing resources and to adapt evidence- 2
based, best correctional practices from other communities. The recommendations contained in this report build upon the progress that has already been made to address the remaining problems. 3
II. BACKGROUND ON ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING In the past 25 years, as jail and prison populations have soared, jurisdictions all over the country have sought ways to reduce populations while at the same time assuring public safety and offender accountability. As Norval Morris and Michael Tonry wrote in 1990: "We are both too lenient and too severe; too lenient with many on probation who should be subject to tighter controls in the community, and too severe with many in prison and jail who would present no serious threat to community safety if they were under control in the community." 2 Jurisdictions began experimenting with intermediate sanctions - punishments that lie somewhere between incarceration and probation. Intermediate sanctions offer an alternative to the "either probation or incarceration" choices that judges faced for so many years. Such sanctions include: home detention, community service, day reporting centers, intensive supervision, and fines. These sanctions save taxpayer money by providing less costly punishment than a jail cell. The use of both home detention through electronic monitoring and work programs such as CSLS has grown significantly in recent years. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of jail inmates in the U.S. who were being supervised in the community with electronic monitoring grew from 6,788 in 1995 to 11,403 in 2005. Likewise, the number of inmates under the jail's supervision that were being supervised outside the jail on work programs rose from 10,253 in 1995 to 15,536 in 2005. 3 2 Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, p. 3. 3 Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2006. 4
III. BACKGROUND OF EFFORTS TO REDUCE CROWDING AT THE CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL The Camden County Jail was built about 20 years ago and has long experienced crowding. Significant attention was focused on the crowding problem in January 2004 when a 65-year-old mentally ill inmate, held on a $150 bond for a non-indictable offense, was murdered by his cellmate in the Mental Health Unit of the jail. The cellmate had a violent history and was in jail charged with rape. A lawsuit arising out of that incident is pending. Shortly after that incident, the county took action in several ways. First, it hired the former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health Services to examine how the jail can improve its treatment of persons with mental illness. The former commissioner made several recommendations, including: identify resources to fill gaps in community-based mental health; review and revise staffing requirements at the jail, and classification and internal security at the jail's Mental Health Unit; and review practices related to the care and treatment of inmates in the Mental Health Unit. Second, it requested a National Institute of Corrections (NIC) assessment of the jail and the causes of crowding. NIC consultants recommended several strategies for addressing the crowding. These included: establishing an offsite receiving and holding center; implementing a pretrial services program; accelerating the processing of Municipal Court cases; accelerating the processing of probation and parole violation hearings; renting bed space in other county jails; and enacting sentence reduction measures. 5
Third, the county established a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. The committee was charged with the mission to review and analyze the recommendations of the NIC report, as well as any additional information related to crowding at the jail, and to provide recommendations for both immediate and long-term relief of crowding at the jail. The committee, which meets about once every six weeks, is chaired by retired Judge John Mariano and has representatives from the Superior Court, Municipal Co"urt, Prosecutor's Office, Public Defender's Office, Department of Corrections, Sheriff's Department, law enforcement, County Administrator's Office, and the Board of Freeholders. The committee has been focusing its attention on ways to keep persons charged with minor offenses (i.e., failure to pay fine, traffic and ordinance offenses) from being admitted to jail in the first place. Fourth, the county requested assistance from the Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (CCT AP) to conduct a review of the criminal caseflow process in the county. Noting that 51 percent of the inmate population is comprised of persons in preindictment or pretrial status, that technical assistance team concluded that this group "clearly presents the most opportunity for impact on jail population reduction by improving the basic pretrial criminal caseflow management process in Camden County." The CCTAP consultants recommended the following: that the recently-formed Criminal Justice Coordinating Council continue its work; that efforts to institute central police booking be completed; that training be conducted to upgrade police reports; that a stronger partnership be developed between the prosecutor's office and police agencies; that the operations of the bail unit be upgraded in the manner of a pretrial services agency; that there be a corresponding de-emphasis on the reliance on financial bail; that 6
the Central Judicial Processing hearings be scheduled closer to the arrest date; and that the expanded use of alternative correctional sanctions be explored. As a result of this final recommendation, county officials requested additional technical assistance from CCT AP to assess the HED and CSLS alternative sentencing programs. While the focus of this current assignment is thus much more limited than the NIC and the first CCTAP efforts, it is clear that the findings of those reports can be useful in reducing the jail population and should be considered in concert with the findings of this report. Technical Assistance Project. (CCT AP No. 3-025). American University. July 2006- DRAFT 7
IV. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE HED AND CSLS PROGRAMS A. Overview Under the HED program, sentenced offenders are placed in electronic monitoring and allowed out of their homes only for specific, pre-approved periods, such as to go to work. There is a $25 entrance fee and an $8 daily fee charged to participants. CSLS is a work program; sentenced offenders must report to the jail on specified days (usually either weekdays or weekend days), where they are transported to various sites around the county to provide labor for public or non-profit agencies. B. History of the Programs Both the HED and CSLS programs had been operational in Camden County for many years, and had been viewed by system actors as viable jail alternatives for sentenced offenders. Initially, both programs were administratively located under the court and run by county probation. Several years ago, the state legislature passed a law making all county court workers state employees. The state also directed that programs such as HED and CSLS should not be funded by the state. As a result, the court was no longer able to administer either program and they were terminated. Predictably, the jail population grew and the Department of Corrections agreed to resurrect these programs using corrections staff. The transfer of these programs from the court to the Department of Corrections was not as smooth as either the court or the department would have hoped. The court has raised concerns about how the department is running these programs, including the supervision provided and the notification to the court of violations, and the department has experienced communications frustrations with the court. These issues have led to an 8
under-utilization of these programs, and even led to HED being shut down for a period. This under-utilization, in turn, has put more stress on the jail population. Even before the initial site visit took place, court and corrections officials worked out many of these problems, and additional progress was made between the period of the first and second visits. In fact, by the time of the first visit, only one issue remained regarding the CSLS program- the judges were concerned about late notifications of offender absence from the program, even when the offender called in sick. The department has revised its reporting procedures to inform the court of any instance in which an offender misses a CSLS appointment. Since the issues regarding CSLS have been resolved, much of the remainder of this report is dedicated to discussing the HED program. C. Program Procedures There are minor differences in how the HED program works in Superior versus Municipal courts. Superior Court is discussed first. In cases where a Superior Court judge is considering electronic monitoring as a part of a sentence, the judge notifies the HED program staff at the Department of Corrections through a notice sent to the department. The notice provides the offender's name, address, and sentencing date. Once they have received a notice from a Superior Court judge, program staff immediately set up a meeting with the offender to determine whether he or she has a fixed address and a working land-line telephone. If the offender does not have such a telephone, the program has the capacity to have monitoring installed through the use of alternative telecommunications technology. Staff also gather employment information and information about a relative or other sponsor who will be able to provide contact assistance if necessary. That sponsor, Technical Assistance Project. (CCT AP No. 3-025). American University. July 2006- DRAFT 9
typically the homeowner or lease holder of the residence where the offender will be confined, must sign an agreement to not allow any weapons, drugs, or alcohol in the home during the period of confmement, and to allow corrections department staff to enter the home anytime of the day or night to check that the offender is in full compliance with program requirements. Those requirements, in addition to being confined in the home, include: no drinking, no use of illegal drugs, no rearrests, and keeping all appointments. The offenders are informed that if they violate any of the program requirements, they will be immediately placed under arrest and the judge will be notified with a recommendation that the offender be terminated from the program. Once this process is completed, program staff notify the sentencing court. Once an offender is sentenced and admitted to the program the staff begin the monitoring process. This includes: hooking the offender up to the electronic monitoring devise; an initial multi-screen drug test and random drug tests and breathalyzers during the monitoring period; weekly in person visits with the offender, either at his/her home or place of business; and a daily check to insure the person is at the prescribed location. Each offender also is provided a specific staff person's telephone number that they can use to contact the officer at any time. If the offender violates any of the program requirements the sentencing judge or his/her substitute is notified within one working day of the violation. The defendant is brought back to jail pending any action the sentencing judge deems necessary. For Municipal Court cases, the supervision and monitoring is identical to that described above; the only difference is how the defendant gets into the program. Municipal Court judges at the time of sentencing an offender will indicate the number of 10
days of incarceration, and, when they so desire, indicate that they would not oppose the defendant "doing his time" in the HED program. Any time such a sentencing order is received by the jail, the HED staff immediately undertake the same screening as described above. If the offender has the requisite telephone and contact person and agrees to the program requirements, he or she is admitted to the program. Currently, about half the offenders in the HED program are from Superior Court and half from Municipal Court. This is expected to change, however, following a recent Court of Appeals decision that held that third-time DUI offenders are not eligible for participation in HED. In April, about one-third of the approximately 90 offenders in the program were third time DUI offenders, which are handled by the Municipal Court. The technical assistance team's May 31 visit to the HED program began with an exhaustive discussion with its staff covering all program operations, including forms used, and communications with the judiciary. Through those discussions, the team was able to show program staff how their communications with the court could be misunderstood. For example, when staff encountered problems that would preclude an offender's participation in electronic monitoring they would inform the court that the offender was being "rejected." The court was not sure why the offender was being rejected, or what criteria the program was using to reject certain offenders. After our discussions with program staff it became clear that the program was not making judgments about the suitability of certain offenders for the program- clearly a judicial determination. Rather, by saying that it was rejecting an offender, the program was alerting the court that there was no feasible way to place this person under electronic monitoring. Program staff have 11
now agreed to be very specific in its notices to the court as to why it was not feasible to supervise the offender on electronic monitoring and avoid the use of the word "rejected." The team then accompanied program staff into the field as they made their rounds checking on several offenders who were on electronic monitoring in the community. Using a drive by monitor, staff drove past the homes of several offenders to confirm that the offenders were present. On one occasion a team member went inside an offender's home to observe the interactions between the program staff and the offender and her family members. The program staff document each visit, recording the date, time, and location, along with any observations. They also record any modifications that they have made to the offender's requirements, and the reasons for those modifications. For example, if the offender has a doctor's appointment, staff can allow the offender to leave home for that specific reason and for a specific time period, and then will record that modification. At the end of their tour of duty, program staff submit their reports from each visit and advise their supervisors and peers of their observations and any modifications made. D. Data Regarding Program Utilization The table below shows the utilization of the HED and CSLS programs over the past 17 months. As the table shows, the number of persons in the CSLS program has remained fairly stable - an average of 187 a month. The number in the HED grew slowly from its re-introduction in January 2005 until September 2005, when new sentences to the program were suspended out of judicial concern about program procedures. Those concerns were successfully addressed by November 2005 and the program re-opened to new placements - and the numbers in the program have been steadily rising since. Technical Assistance Project. (CCT AP No. 3-025). American University. July 2006- DRAFT 12
Table: Offenders Placed in CSLS and HED from January 2005 to May 2006 Month Number in Number in Total Number Average Daily CSLS HED in Both Population of Programs the Jail January 05 160 0 160 1,883 February 05 197 3 200 1,906 March 05 181 10 191 i,878 April 05 197 22 219 1,917 May 05 197 30 227 1,962 June 05 205 26 231 1,961 July 05 240 33 273 1,916 August 05 214 34 248 1,906 September 05 176 41 217 2,045 October 05 157 39 196 2,114 November 05 197 36 233 2,045 December 05 180 38 218 1,965 January 06 165 45 210 1,848 February 06 177 67 244 1,800 March 06 189 75 264 1,848 April 06 169 92 261 1,734 Ma_y 06 185 88 273-1,585 Average Over The 17-Month 187 40 227 1,900 Period The table also shows the average daily population of the jail in each of the 17 months. The table shows that there is no correlation between the rise or fall in the number of offenders in the two alternative sentencing programs and the average daily population of the jail. This does not suggest that the programs are not having any impact on the overall jail population. On the contrary, the table shows the direct impact of these programsabout 200 less inmates in the jail on any given day. But the table does underscore the need to have a comprehensive approach to addressing jail crowding. Improving alternative sentencing options will not impact the overall population if there are off- setting increases in the number of inmates in pretrial status or awaiting transfer to the state. Having a continuum of options available to match the level of risks of both the 13
pretrial and sentenced populations can assure that the benefits of improvements in one area are not erased by shortcomings in other areas. E. Analysis of the HED and CSLS Programs The issues that have arisen with both programs are the type that can be expected with the introduction of- or change in locus of- any sentencing option. The court has raised some legitimate issues concerning the operation of the programs, and the department has done its best to address those concerns in a prompt manner. From follow up discussions with the Superior and Municipal Courts, it is clear that the courts are now satisfied that their concerns are being addressed. From our review of the HED program, including the day spent in the field with HED program staff, we conclude that the program is operated in a highly-efficient and professional manner by highly qualified and motivated staff. We believe that the courts can have the confidence to utilize these programs more often. However, any dramatic increase in the use of these programs should be planned in advance with the Department of Corrections to assure that the department has sufficient staff to handle the increased caseloads. Technical Assistance Project. (CCT AP No. 3-025). American University. July 2006- DRAFT 14
program and phone and contact requirements, only to find the defendant had no idea - and often no way to pay - fees that are required. Program staff should make every effort to provide regular defense lawyers with a sheet that lists the basic conditions of the program, so that they can share that information with their defendants before plea hearings. Recommendation Five: Staff the HED program during overnight hours. The HED program has a day and evening staff, but no one on duty on the midnight shift. As a result, any violations of program requirements that might occur overnight are not identified until the day crew comes in the next morning. The technical assistance team made this recommendation during our April visit, and the warden reports now that efforts are well underway to assure that staff coverage will be provided during these hours. Recommendation Six: Set specific expectations for the electronic monitoring provider regarding the timing of notice of violations. The department needs to have a very clear agreement with its provider, BI Incorporated, that the department will receive immediate notice of any alerts so that staff can investigate any possible violations as they may be occurring. Recommendation Seven: Automate program records. Program staff should begin keeping necessary data on their clientele on computer. Hand-counting is time consuming and more likely to result in errors. More important is the fact that even a simple spread sheet system would allow the program staff to identify trends in their clientele, trends that may be of significant use to judicial officers and jail staff. 16
VI. CONCLUSION The key to the success of these programs is on-going communication between the courts and the Department of Corrections. When problems arise- an inevitability in any jurisdiction- the courts and corrections need to work together to address those problems. The value of established good working relationships between these two entities cannot be overstated. Those relationships start at the top- with the presiding judge of the criminal division and the warden- and require a commitment to mutual understanding of and respect for the responsibilities each faces. In recent months, through improved communication, many of the problems with these two programs have been successfully addressed. But many challenges lie ahead. The jail is still dangerously overcrowded and the funds to address that crowding are very short. By makingimproved communications a high priority of both the court and the corrections, these challenges can be met successfully. One final point must be made. Well over half the jail population is comprised of pre-indicted, pretrial, and pre-sentenced inmates. While our assignment was focused very narrowly at looking at two sentencing options, it is clear to us that the recommendations of the NIC report and of the first CCTAP report regarding the establishment of pretrial services hold the most promise for impacting the overall population of the Camden County Jail. Technical Assistance Project. (CCT AP No. 3-025). American University. July 2006- DRAFT 17