HomeMy WebLinkAbout20162424.tiffWELD COUNTY
PRETRIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016
Centennial Center, 3`d Floor, Conference Rooms A & B
915 10th Street, Greeley
Members Present: Judge James Hartmann, Robb Miller, Marci Hoffman, Jerry Green,
Annette Kundelius, Karen Salaz
Members Absent: Commissioner Julie Cozad, Judge Thomas Quammen, Judge Michele
Meyer, Donnie Patch
Staff: Doug Erler, Dianna Campbell, Kamie Cooley, Sharon Behrens
Vice Chair, Robb Miller, called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.
1. Approval of Agenda:
a. The agenda was accepted with no changes. Karen Salaz moved to approve,
Judge Hartmann seconded, the motion passed.
2. Meeting Minutes:
a. The January 21, 2016 minutes were accepted with no changes. Judge Hartmann
moved to approve, Annette Kundelius seconded, the motion passed.
3. Informational Items:
a. Doug Erler introduced Kamie Cooley, newly appointed Pretrial Services
Supervisor. Kamie previously held this position and was recently appointed
when Dianna Campbell moved to Alternative Programs. Kamie reported on
statistics for the Pretrial Services program for the first quarter of 2016. She
reported an average year-to-date public safety rate of 86.0%, which means 14%
of the defendants supervised cases had new alleged charges filed. The technical
compliance rate was 92.8%, which means 5.2% of the defendants supervised
cases were revoked or monetarily modified, most notably for positive urinalyses,
missed urinalyses and/or lost contact. The court appearance rate is 84.9%, which
means 15.1% of the defendant closed supervision cases did not appear for a
future court hearing and a warrant was issued. Pretrial Services completed 727
Bail Reports through March (averaging 242 each month); a Bail Report is a
report which includes an incorporated risk -assessment (CPAT) and personal
interview to assist Judicial Officers make informed pretrial release decisions. Of
the bondable new arrestees, 72% were interviewed, which marks a significant
increase from the previous year. Of the Bail Report recommendations submitted
to Judicial Officers, Pretrial Services recommended 68% for unsecured release
CO vvvm V n COQ + f o r s
7i1CO
2016-2424
and recommended 93% of the time for pretrial supervision as an additional
condition of bond. Robb requested clarification on the court agreement rate for
unsecured versus secured release for defendants that were interviewed and
ordered to supervision. The program is maintaining an average daily population
of 871 defendants under pretrial supervision in the community with an average
of 198 new monthly intakes and an average of 224 monthly case closures.
Pretrial Services supervision is effective in each category, as the outcomes are
greater than what the CPAT predicts. The fee collection rate is 83%, as the
program has collected approximately $8,000 thus far in 2016. It was noted that
the fee collection is based on the $20.00 supervision intake fee.
Doug asked Annette Kundelius about the interview process at the jail for her
attorneys, as they are also meeting with defendants before bond hearings. She
reported that the attorneys in her office understand only to speak with defendants
not being interviewed by Pretrial Services first; however, she recognizes there is
a practical aspect to interviewing at the jail based on defendant availability and
location. Judge Hartmann reported the Court acknowledges that more Bail
Reports from Pretrial Services are submitted on the weekdays in comparison to
the weekends and he understands Pretrial Services uses the board approved
triage list to select defendants to interview each day. It was noted that there are
times when defendants refuse to participate in an interview; therefore, a Bail
Report is not provided. The board agrees that having defense attorneys present at
the bond hearings has made the process of setting bond smoother.
Judge Hartmann reported he met with Steve and Ron, local bondspersons, and
Jeff Clayton, a bail coalition advocate. They requested Weld County Pretrial
Services statistics and failure to appear rates for the entire court population and
raised concern about the authorization of Personal Recognizance (PR) bonds to
defendants. Judge Hartmann invited the bail bond persons to today's meeting and
future Criminal Justice Advisory Committee (CJAC) meetings. He said they are
reportedly working on a case study for criminal courts to determine court
appearance rates and plan to prepare a presentation to the CJAC in the future. He
referred the bonds persons to Doug for further information. Robb wanted to
know if there is data being captured for the FTA rate for all defendants on a
secured bond. As of now, neither Pretrial Services nor the Court is calculating
that statistic, but Karen Salaz believes the court's database might be capable of
running such report. Other jurisdictions (Arapahoe County) have completed such
a study, and it shows that pretrial supervision has a positive impact on defendant
court appearance rates. Doug noted that the bail bond industry's only lawful
mandate is defendant court appearance, yet they often tout public safety as part
of their business model. Annette inquired about the communication and
assistance between Pretrial Services and the Bail Bond industry to provide
information. It was noted that nationally, bonds persons are quite adversarial to
pretrial services programs. It was noted that the bail bond industry is often
placing their clients on electronic monitoring devices as part of their financial
agreements - in addition to court ordered electronic home monitoring, often
creating confusion and financial distress for defendants. Judge Hartmann reports
bonds persons approached him a year ago and he told them that Pretrial Services
was already established in Weld County and statute reports the jurisdiction is to
have one pretrial services program and he suggested the bonds persons meet with
the County Commissioners if they saw fit. As of today, Judge Hartmann does not
believe that has occurred.
In her statistical review to the board, Kamie presented statistics summarizing the
work of a Pretrial Specialist. Judge Hartmann noticed the increase in check in
calls from the sample provided. Kamie explained the reason was due to the
current vacant part-time position in the program. Annette requested clarification
on "days to close" statistics; it was explained that the data collected motivates
the Specialists to remove cases from their caseload on the court disposition date
if possible and to avoid caseload inflation.
b. Justice Services Strategic Plan Presentation - Doug familiarized the board on the
department's strategic plan. In a brief PPT, Dianna and Kamie provided an
overview "snapshot" of the department's plan, with attention to the Pretrial
Services program. The plan includes the department's goals, vision, core values,
and objectives and strategies to achieve goals. Objectives include using and
advancing evidence based practices in defendant risk assessment and
supervision. In review of the objectives, the program has educated judicial
officers about the CPAT and its data has validated the CPAT predictors. The
program has a 53% completion rate of Bail Reports on the weekends and strives
to complete all possible Bail Reports for new bondable arrestees. Pretrial
Services is working towards the goal of rates of 90% or better for public safety
and court appearance. Future elements, like assisting with PSI reports for
probation were also mentioned. Pretrial Services will use innovative approaches
in technology and optimizing workforce productivity. Using iPads, tablets, video
and/or audio for interviews and outbound communication systems for automated
court date reminders are examples. Judge Hartmann requested an extended
explanation of the goal to use video in the jail for bail report interviews. Dianna
said this is an aspirational goal and it might enhance interview rates and overall
efficiency. Doug reiterated though that face-to-face interviews are the ideal
approach. Pretrial Services' current database system (JPASS) has a built in
workflow currently sending reminder emails to defendants five days prior to
their next scheduled court date. Other areas of advancement include, but are not
limited to, having Spillman export data to be imported into JPASS. Another goal
is to work collaboratively with Marci Hoffman to be granted authorization to file
into JPOD (Complaint Affidavits, Travel Permits, etc.). Other possible
technology advancements mentioned include exploring kiosk functions,
specifically for South County residents, as it is a challenge for defendants to
report to the Greeley downtown office. Jerry Green reported Probation is
currently using a calling system for low risk and out of state offenders, which
transfers calls from that population to their database for only $3/month. Justice
Services' program goals include stationing staff at the jail on a more regular
basis and having a stronger presence at bond hearings to assist Court officials.
Dianna reported pretrial staff were recently trained and have access to
NCIC/CCIC and the program will continue to make training for staff a priority.
Being involved with the Pretrial Services Advisory Board, Colorado Association
of Pretrial Services, and National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies
Board are all important to the program. Dianna spoke about ongoing work
efficiencies toward continued improvement for the department as well as day-to-
day work behaviors and tasks (example: customer service). Their presentation
ended with a description of the departments Proclamation to its commitment to
the plan.
4. Action Item:
a. Consider Defendant Status Report (Draft) — This was a carryover item. Based on
the board's discussion, the program has been exploring ways to be more efficient
in reporting defendants' status and alleged violations to the District Attorney
(DA). Dianna reported the program plans to keep its current Status Letter
protocol for addressing the court for motions and positive compliance. The
proposed new "Defendant Status Report" form would be used and sent only to
the DA and Defense Attorney (copy to the Court) as an additional tool for
reporting non-compliance of defendants. The hope is that this would eliminate
putting the Court in the awkward position of observing poor performance by a
defendant, but give sufficient notice to the DA and Defense counsel to remind
the defendant to improve their pretrial conduct. It was noted that the key points
on the proposed form are maintaining contact and participating in and complying
with substance use monitoring. The proposed report is not intended to request
revocation, but to give the parties notice about a defendant.
Judge Hartmann raised concerns over Pretrial Services staff not immediately
reporting every instance of a positive UA or missed UA by a client to the DA's
Office. This is a concern that has been discussed with Pretrial Services staff by
members of the Board at prior meetings. Judge Hartmann voiced the position of
the court that every positive UA or missed UA should be reported to the DA's
Office, as the representative of the executive branch, and the DA's Office will
decide what action should be taken for the violation. Robb requested a more
specific policy and procedure regarding intermediate sanctions, most notably for
positive UA test results and reporting. He expressed concern about the DA's
office not having immediate test result information and the continuum of
intermediate sanctions before reporting violations by Pretrial Services. The
DA's office will not always file a motion to revoke or monetarily modify bond
based on non-compliance, but he said they need information to file a motion at
their discretion, and if they choose.
After considerable and good discussion, the program agreed to meet with the
DA's office to work out acceptable procedures. The program will update the
board on all work done. Addendum: the program has reviewed its existing
policies and procedures regarding defendant non -compliant behaviors, has made
adjustments in protocols and has a meeting set with the DA's office to discuss
proposed changes. Results of this meeting will be reported to the board.
5. Discussion Items:
a. Tabled discussion items, defendant Medical Marijuana use on pretrial
supervision and removal of pretrial services as a condition of bond, for next
meeting.
6. Roundtable:
a. No roundtable items presented.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:25 p.m. The next board meeting will be
Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Y&// ( )1A -----X
Kamie Cooley
Pretrial Services Supervisor, Weld County
Approved by,
Karen Salaz, District Administrator
Board Secretary
Reviewed by,
3tA6'
`J d
Doug Erler
Director, Weld County Justice Services
Hello