57 Jail beds

I noted in Next Up at City Council this past weekend that one of the important items on the Portland City Council’s Agenda today is the report on and proposed expansion of City funding of fifty-seven short-term beds at the Multnomah County Jail. The report wasn’t posted on PortlandOnLine at the time, but Commissioner Leonard read my blog and made sure his staff sent me the report and added the link (pdf) on his page. Thank you, Randy.

[In considering why I might run for City Council again, the answer “To make sure citizens can easily find information they need to make reasoned decisions about City actions” doesn’t sound that exciting. But wouldn’t it be nice?]

When the City Council chose to fund these 57 jail beds, eighteen months ago, I was skeptical. Press reports indicated a high proportion of the target offenders would be drug-addicted people, and that the stated purpose of keeping them in jail overnight or over the weekend was to start them on the road to kicking their drug-dependency. After 21 years working with people in acute drug withdrawal on the locked inpatient psychiatry unit at OHSU, that didn’t make sense to me. Drug treatment is a long term process, not best done in incarceration circumstances. I work weekends, so I know people admitted on Thursday or Friday often suffer their worst cravings and withdrawal symptoms on Sunday evening, and can hardly wait to get out on Monday to get their fix — even with the best medication treatments available to help ease their agony (I was going to write “discomfort”, but that’s like calling childbirth pain “pressure”). The rationale of keeping people arrested on drug charges in jail over the weekend to “start treatment” or even to “teach them a lesson” didn’t sound like a good use of the $1.3 million allocated to the program.

Well, the report is interesting. It cites statistics showing bed usage and decrease in crime rates in the target areas (which include the Drug and Prostitution Free Zones the City Council is allowing to expire, because they just shift the behaviors elsewhere), and claims some of the improvement is due to the “P57” (for Project 57) beds. Particularly impressive:

“80% of P57 offenders have not experienced a second P57 arrest during
the 18 months of the program. It is also significant that 17% of our most
chronic offenders (6 or more arrests since the program began) have experienced a 12 month or longer hiatus from the criminal justice system
“swirl.””

But what I find most interesting is the information on how the beds are being used. The report says:

“P57 status was recently extended to include persons arrested on Fail To Appear Warrants. This allows FTA arrestees to be held in jail until they appear in court, which normally takes 2-10 days, not the more customary 24 hours typical of other P57 arrestees.”

And, it says, “prior to Project 57, persons arrested for P57 type
charges and issued citations-in-lieu of custody Failed to Appear or FTA’d
40% of the time.” In the third six months of the program, only 6% failed to appear at their court arraignment… apparently mostly because the accused people were kept in jail overnight or over the weekend, and delivered directly to court. For others not kept in the P57 beds, the court date is often several weeks after arrest. It’s not surprising people forget or fail to appear for a court date so distant from the alleged offense.

Quoting from the report again (emphasis mine):

“There is a strong indication that arrestees who participate in P57 booking
procedures are far more likely to appear in Court for their arraignment than
are those who are issued Citations-in-lieu of Custody. Folks who are booked
into jail are given arraignment dates within 24 hours or the next business day.
People who are issued citations are given court dates 30 days in the future.

While we need more data to evaluate this trend, it appears that individuals
who are heavily drug and alcohol impacted, as are most P57 arrestees, are
more likely to be able to make their court appearances if the date of
appearance is within close proximity to the occurrence of the arrest.”

What this tells me is that providing speedy court dates, as well as keeping people in jail overnight, makes a big difference. It would be good to find out what the barriers are to having all arraignments done within a couple of days of arrest. Perhaps getting people to court faster would improve recidivism rates for all citizens accused of crimes, without the expense and trauma of keeping them in jail in the interim.

The report also notes, (link mine)

“Community Court has been particularly effective in expediting arrestees
through the judicial process and into constructive sentencing alternatives.”

This isn’t a matter of “Book ’em, Danno” then “Lock ’em up and throw away the key”. Addiction and prostitition issues are pervasive problems affecting society in many ways. Solving them calls for a multi-faceted approach because the causes aren’t simple. But I’m glad to find that the $1.3 million the Portland City Council allocated for the Project 57 component appears to be providing one useful piece of the puzzle.

Now, when can we talk about City-County funding and division of responsibilities to avoid duplication, holes, and increased administrative costs?