Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 Division of Correctional Services response to the document - A Review of the Luzerne County Criminal Justice System Conducted by T. Shumaker Consulting, L.L.C., presented by J. Allen Nesbitt, Director of Correctional Services. Mr. Shumaker was challenged in this report to identify criminal justice system organizational inefficiencies and recommend improvements/alternatives to those inefficiencies in areas or functions including, but not limited to: A. Delivery and management of Prison food services, purchase and distribution; B. County Jail Staffing; C. Consolidation of K-9 Units with County agencies; D. Probation Officer allocation, function and responsibilities; E. Frequency and delivery of training for County criminal justice system personnel; F. Overlapping responsibilities and services provided by more than one County criminal justice agency or unit; G. Documenting the As Is model of the Luzerne County criminal justice system to determine the decision points within the system and define who makes those decisions. H. Identify a To Be model criminal justice system organization that clearly identifies and defines a To Be model of the desired criminal justice system with Luzerne County. I. Develop a criminal justice system organizational structure and management information system flow and decision driven outputs for County Criminal justice decision makers use. The report is broken down into four (4) major sections; an Executive Summary briefly outlining his findings; a chronological breakdown of the interviews conducted; an in-depth review of the Luzerne County Criminal Justice System; and examples of Prison Architectural Sketches. This review will concentrate on the information found in the conclusions drawn in the Executive Summary. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Delivery and management of Prison food services, purchase and distribution. Basically, the decision comes down to either contracting the food service to a private vendor or preparing the food in-house. There are a number of advantages to contracting this service, including one source deliveries and agreed to meal costs per day. However, when appropriate policies and procedures on purchasing, portion control and use of inmate labor are in place, costs for doing the work in-house are just as competitive. A review was conducted and found that the daily cost of three meals served at the prison each day was $4.75, with each meal costing approximately $1.58. This cost was inclusive of food, materials, cleaning and food preparation supplies and staff costs, which was competitive with private contracted services. B. County Jail Setting With bed space at a premium at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, alternatives to traditional incarceration will be necessary in the future. Expansion of the Minimal Housing Unit placement criteria, as well as the placement criteria at the Day Reporting Center will be necessary. New alternatives, such as Mental Health placements, will be necessary to meet the future criminal justice population needs of the County. 45

47 C. Consolidation of K-9 Units with County agencies. After receiving Mr. Shumaker s strong recommendation to re-evaluate the purpose of the roles of the K- 9 in Luzerne County, members of the criminal justice system met and conducted such as evaluation. The County Sheriff, Emergency Services and the Division of Corrections made the decision to eliminate their K-9 units and all were removed from the 2014 budget. Other local police departments and the Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections have agreed to assist our agencies should the need arise. D. Probation Officer allocation, function and responsibilities. The biggest lost time factor discovered was the transporting of juveniles to other jurisdictions detention centers by the Probation Officers. The need for security (two Probation Officers transport) and the relative distances necessary to drive the juvenile, have serious impact on the absence of the staff from their other duties. We are currently reviewing alternatives such as part-time Sheriffs and a private transportation company. E. Frequency and delivery of training County criminal justice system personnel Many of the criminal justice agencies have similar training requirements and needs yet conduct their training without consideration of opening those trainings to other. We are attempting to coordinate training opportunities with other county agencies to increases those opportunities. F. Overlapping responsibilities and services provided by more than one County criminal justice agency or unit. Sharing of data is key to a better working criminal justice system and there are a number of different computer programs available. The most serious drawback to centralizing the Luzerne County system, is that each of the components within that system are tied to other other statewide or national systems already. The blending of these systems has not been possible in the past; however, the Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB) is attempting to review these needs and provide recommendations. G. Documenting the As Is model of the Luzerne County criminal justice system to determine the decision points within the system and define who makes those decisions; And, H. Identify a To Be model criminal justice system organization that clearly identifies and defines a To Be model of the desired criminal justice system with Luzerne County. Mr. Shumaker provided an excellent overview flowchart of the current criminal justice system in Luzerne County. He includes suggestions of possible changes to improve the system which will be reviewed by CJAB for further recommendations. I. Develop a criminal justice system organizational structure and management information system flow and decision driven outputs for County Criminal justice decision makers use. Due to a lack of information similarly used by all of the criminal justice system participants, this section needs to be revisited. His recommendation to utilize the CJ-UCM is a strong beginning but due to multiple system needs by each agency, it may be difficult to coordinate. A special committee of the criminal justice participants should be challenged to review this task. It would be beneficial to have Mr. Shumaker return and provide guidance in this event. 46