HomeMy WebLinkAbout20203451.tiffPresent:
WELD COUNTY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Centennial Center, 3`d Floor, Conference Rooms A & B
915 10th Street, Greeley
Judge Julie Hoskins, Judge Thomas Quammen, Judge James Hartmann,
Commissioner Steve Moreno, Keith Coleman, Matthew Turner, Rafael
Rodriguez, Jerry Green, Raquel DeNaeyer, Mike McCormick, Kyle Ward,
Mark White, Doug Erler, Pamela Hernandez, Dianna Campbell, Lindsay
Kelly, and Sydney Bender
Chair, Judge Hoskins called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
1. Introduction of attendees - Chair, Judge Hoskins.
2. Approval of October 15, 2019 meeting minutes
• The minutes were accepted with no changes. Jerry Green moved to approve, Robb
Miller seconded, the motion passed unanimously.
3. Sunset of the Court Date Notification Program — Final Report Summary
• Doug Erler reported that, due impending implementation of a statewide court date
notification system, the Weld County program has been sunset. A final report was
not included in the packets for this meeting but may be included at the next meeting.
4. Systems Mapping Project Updates — Sydney Bender and Kyle Ward
• Presented an update on the systems mapping project with University of N. Colorado
graduate students Samantha Lytle and Annaliese Engler. At the last meeting,
the Committee decided to move forward with a follow-up survey further
examining decisions surrounding booking, bail, and pretrial release.
On September 19, 2019 the team conducted a focus group with representatives
from the Weld County Sheriff's Office, the 19th Judicial District Courts, the Public
Defender's Office, the Weld County District Attorney's Office, and Pretrial
Services on decisions surrounding booking, bail, and pretrial release.
The team also administered a follow-up online survey, which received a limited
response (N=8). The survey received no responses from WCSO booking, 5
responses from Pretrial Services, one response from a judge, one response from a
deputy district attorney, and one response from a defense attorney. Sydney
highlighted that these responses are not adequate for a meaningful analysis and that
they survey will need to remain open. She asked for support from the CJAC
OJNYNCYNorN;Covi-lons
lII >31W0
2020-3451
members in recruiting additional responses. Dr. Kyle Ward highlighted the
importance of additional responses and asked that CJAC members complete the
survey.
In addition to the focus group and survey, the team also completed direct
observations of the booking process, pretrial release screening interviews, and bail
hearings. Based on these observations and feedback at the last CJAC meeting, the
draft map was updated. Sydney and Kyle asked that the CJAC take a few minutes
to review the maps in front of them and to suggest changes. The attendees reviewed
the map and discussed and suggested possible changes in small groups.
As no summary of the information was presented at the last CJAC meeting, the
team presented an overview of the information gathered on booking, bail, and
pretrial release thus far. When arrestees arrive at the jail, they receive an initial
medical screening. The defendant may be sent to the hospital if their medical needs
are beyond the ability of the jail medical staff. Once they are cleared, they are
booked into jail. Staff completes an initial needs assessment and further screening.
If needed, they will also meet with a corrections counselor. Defendants are housed
in temporary housing for 1-6 hours until they are transferred to the intake unit,
where they remain for approximately one day. If bond is posted, defendants are
typically released from the jail in 1-3 hours. UNC student, Samantha Lytle
highlighted the very limited space in booking.
Pretrial Services interviews eligible arrestees 7 days a week, except for county
holidays. Staff arrives at the jail at 6 am on weekdays and at 5 am on weekends.
When staff arrive at the jail, they first determine who is eligible to be interviewed,
this excludes, for example, defendants charged with non -domestic violence class 3
misdemeanors and those with ICE holds. At the time of the focus group, Pretrial
Services completed interviews for 78% of all eligible new arrestees. During these
interviews, Pretrial Specialists complete the Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool
(CPAT), and record drug use histories and basic demographic information. When
Pretrial Specialists complete a Bail Report, they make recommendations regarding
type of release and conditions. At the time of the focus group, staff did not use a
decision -matrix to make these decisions; however, Pretrial Services has since
worked to develop such a matrix.
In the follow up survey, respondents from Pretrial Services were asked when they
believe a PR bond is appropriate versus when they believe a CSP bond is
appropriate. Defendants with lower CPAT scores, non-violent charges, limited
criminal histories, few or no repeat charges, and few past FTA's were identified as
most appropriate for PR bonds. In contrast, CSP bonds were viewed as most
appropriate for cases with particularly several allegations, higher CPAT scores,
prior violent convictions, and/or recent FTA's. Pretrial supervision was perceived
as appropriate for defendants with higher CPAT scores, for high risk and/or repeat
offenders, and/or for those with several prior FTA's. Pretrial supervision strives to
ensure community safety by requiring consistent check -ins, monitoring for new law
violations, monitoring compliance with conditions, and providing court date
reminders. Respondents agreed that substance use monitoring was appropriate for
cases involving drugs or alcohol. There was less agreement over the role of GPS
monitoring. Two respondents agreed that GPS is appropriate for defendants with
victims while two other respondents questioned the utility of GPS monitoring for
pretrial release.
The CPAT helps inform bond and decisions but is not the only factor considered.
Participants agreed that the tool provides useful information. Focus group
representatives from the District Attorney's Office stated that victim input and the
number of prior failures to appear in court influence their bond arguments.
Additionally, statutory criteria, community safety, prior criminal history, and the
recency of that history, as well as whether the defendant is already on bond impact
whether a defendant receives a PR bond or not. Judges also consider a defendant's
income and ability to post bond. These factors were consistently included in
arguments made by defense attorneys and by deputy district attorneys as well as
described by judges setting bail/bond at the observed hearings. Focus group
participants stated that the PR bond recommendations made by Pretrial Specialists
do not impact bond recommendations or decisions. While these recommendations
may not influence decision -making, they were cited during bail hearings to
strengthen the district attorney or public defender's bond arguments and were
sometimes referenced by the judge. The type of charge and defendant's history
influence conditions attached to bonds. Cases involving drugs or alcohol are good
candidates for substance use monitoring. GPS monitoring is perceived as a useful
tool for domestic violence or sex offenses.
UNC student, Annaliese Engler noted that the defendants facing the same charges
could receive different bonds. She asked the committee what's the difference
between setting a $2,500 and a $5,000 bond? Judge Hoskins explained that judges
make decisions independently. One may set a $2,500 bond and another may set a
$1,000 bond. She said judges strive to be fair; however, may reach different
decisions.
Participants agreed that limited resources, funding, personnel, and time, present the
biggest challenges for the County. The respondents agreed that limited space and
facilities across the county present a significant challenge. Direct observation of
booking, pretrial interviews, and bail hearings as well as responses to the follow up
survey produced similar observations. Space is especially limited in booking.
Survey responses from public defenders, deputy district attorneys, and judges
highlighted challenges faced in determining and setting an appropriate bond.
Focus group participants also considered challenges facing our local justice system
as a whole. Many issues relating to mental health present a substantial challenge
across the County. Each organization has a different procedure for medication.
This can complicate access to those medications as defendants move between
organizations. Additionally, competency of defendants presents a major challenge.
Many defendants do not fit the criteria for M1 holds but may also not be able to
adequately care for themselves. Sydney and Kyle again encouraged CJAC
participants to complete the booking, bail, and pretrial release follow-up survey and
to share it with their staff. Sydney stated that she would send the survey out again
following the meeting's conclusion. They also stated that the team plans to move
forward to the next decision point and to hold a focus group on pretrial supervision
and bond modification and revocation. They anticipated administered a follow-up
online survey. They will report out the findings at the next CJAC meeting in April.
5. Ongoing Performance Reports
• Weld County Sheriffs Office
i. Captain, Matthew Turner reported that the average daily jail population rate
decreased inmates from 759 to 2018 to 752 in 2019 (-2.2%). The average
length of stay decreased from 22.5 days to 22.1 days in 2019.
• Alternative Programs -Work Release/Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)
i. Diana Campbell, Alternative Programs Director, reported Work Release
Program statistics from January -December 2019. The program averaged
113 new client intakes each month for 1354 total new intakes. Thirty two
percent of those were transported from the main jail for first day intake. Of
the intakes completed, 78% were male and 22% were female. Sixty six
percent were sentenced as a Condition of Probation. The top charge at intake
was Alcohol -Related Traffic (42%), and the top charge classification,
misdemeanor (75%). On average, the total number of discharged clients
was 110 each month. The average client count on the last day of the month
was 190. Of the total releases, 72.1% positive, 4.8% neutral and 23.0%
negative. Fifteen percent of negative discharges were for technical
regressions to secured custody. The top regression types were out of place
of assignment (29%) and illicit substance use (13%). From January -
December 2019, the Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) program had 562
new intakes. The top charge for EHM was non -alcohol related traffic
(56%). Additional TAD monitoring was ordered for 2% of clients. Of
EHM discharges, 84.1% were positive, 5.3% were neutral, and 10.6% were
negative. The top regression type was for illicit substance use.
• Pretrial Services
i. Lindsay Kelly, Pretrial Services Manager, reported Pretrial Services
program statistics from January -December 2019. She reported the year-to-
date Public Safety rate was 84.0%, which means 16.0% of defendants on
pretrial supervision accrued new jailable law violations. The Technical
Compliance rate was 88.7%, which means 11.3% of the defendants on
pretrial supervision had their bond or summons modified or revoked. The
court appearance rate was 81.9%, which means in 18.1% of closed pretrial
supervision cases these defendants did not appear for a scheduled court
hearing and a warrant was issued. She also reported that the average number
of new arrestees interviewed at the jail each month was 241. If a Bail Report
was completed and Pretrial Services recommended a PR bond, the Courts
agreed with the recommendation 82% of the time. If a Bail Report was
completed and Pretrial Services did not recommend a PR bond, the Courts
agreed with the recommendation 92% of the time. From January -December
2019, Pretrial Services had an average of 264 monthly new supervision
intakes and 319 monthly case closures. Of those cases closed, 38% were
sentenced and 18% FTA. Eighty-nine percent of complaint affidavits filed
with the DA's office resulted in that office filing motions for modification
or revocation with the Courts. Fifty-six percent of defendants were granted
cash, property or commercial surety bonds, while 44% of defendants were
granted PR bonds and/or issued a Summons.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. The next CJAC meeting is set
for Tuesday, April 21, 2020 @ 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed/by,
Sydney Bender Doug Erler, Director
Criminal Justice Coordinator Weld County Justice Services Department
Hello