Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency

Hampton-Newport News

Criminal Justice Agency

Annual Report FY2001-FY2002

HNNCJA September 2003 136 Kings Way Hampton, VA 23669

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1 Mission & Vision for the CJA 2 Divisional Functions 2 Agency Goals & Objectives 2 Acknowledgements 3

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIVISIONS (CCD) 4

CCD Utilization 4 Caseloads & Supervision 5 Services 7 Substance Abuse Screening, Assessment, and Treatment 8

PRETRIAL SERVICES DIVISIONS (PTS) 10

PTS Screenings & Investigations 10 Pretrial Placements 11 Caseloads 13 Supervision & Services 14

PLANNING & EVALUATION 15

Data Management 15 Offender Risk/Needs Assessment Pilot Project 15 Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board 16

MISC. PROJECTS & RELATED ACTIVITIES 18

Information, Education, & Training 18 Partnerships & Community Involvement 19 Of Special Note 19

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY 21

Contact Information 21

CJA FY2001/FY2002 Annual Report Page 1

INTRODUCTION Fiscal Years 2001 (FY2001) and 2002 (FY2002) were eventful years for the Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency (CJA). The Cities of Hampton and Newport News, Virginia continue to benefit from the local community corrections/probation and pretrial services options available to the Courts through the CJA. During FY2001 and FY20021:

♦ Approximately 7,300 offenders were placed under local community corrections/probation supervision

♦ Over 11,600 pretrial investigations were conducted

♦ More than 2,800 defendants were released to pretrial supervision

♦ Approximately $32,300 was facilitated in court fines and costs

♦ Almost $13,800 was facilitated in restitution payments to victims of crime

♦ Over 164,300 hours of community service were performed – providing the two communities with

over $846,500 in free, unpaid labor In addition to managing the day-to-day responsibilities, several other significant efforts were undertaken during the two-year period. During FY2001, the Agency held a series of staff retreats, which resulted in the adoption of new vision and mission statements. A values statement was also developed: Professionalism through quality, integrity, teamwork, and accountability. Furthermore, job descriptions and classifications, the organizational structure, and daily duties were updated during the period, and a concerted effort was placed on staff training as well as strengthening treatment and referral relationships and options. This report represents FY2001 and FY2002 activities of the Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency. Background The CJA was established as the result of a multi-jurisdictional effort between Hampton and Newport News to provide unified and comprehensive community-based criminal justice programs to both jurisdictions. A local government department, the CJA was formally established by City Council resolutions in Hampton and Newport News, effective July 1, 1995, in response to the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders (CCCA), §9.1-173, et seq., and the Pretrial Services Act (PSA), §19.2-152.2, et seq., of the Code of Virginia.2 Through the CCCA and PSA, the CJA provides a multitude local community correction probationary and pretrial services. In addition to providing services under the authority of the CCCA and PSA, the CJA serves as the central criminal justice planning agency for Hampton and Newport News, primarily through support of the Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board (HNNCCJB). The HNNCCJB was established July 1, 1995 through City Council resolutions in accordance with §9.1-178 of the Code of Virginia.3 Grants made available through the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services provide the majority of funding utilized for CCCA and PSA authorized services. For each year of this report, the total amount 1 Fiscal Year (FY) runs from July 1 through June 30, the year corresponds to that in which June 30 falls. 2 The Community Diversion Incentive Program, established in the area in 1983 preceded the CJA. This program, authorized under the Community Diversion Incentive Act, was dissolved when the CCCA went into effect. Pretrial services programs were established under federal grants in FY1994 for Hampton and in FY1995 for Newport News. The CCCA was renumbered in 2001 to §9.1-173, et seq. from §53.1-180. 3 The statute authorizing Community Criminal Justice Boards was renumbered to §9.1-178 in 2001 from §53.1.183.


available for the CJA’s CCCA and PSA services was approximately $1.69 million, of which 91.6% was from the state general fund. The remaining funds came from the Cities of Hampton and Newport News. A four-year federal grant providing funding for criminal justice planning and the CCJB expired in FY2001. Funding has not been replaced. Mission & Vision for the CJA The mission of the CJA is to promote public safety through the provision of community-based pretrial and post conviction criminal justice programs and services, and criminal justice planning, to the cities of Hampton and Newport News Virginia. The vision for the CJA is to become a leader among criminal justice agencies by ensuring the highest state of public safety by providing, promoting, and enhancing innovative and professionally administered model programs which break the cycle of crime and victimization. Divisional Functions The CJA includes five divisions, performing three primary functions:

�� Community Corrections Divisions (CCD) �� Hampton Community Corrections Division �� Newport News Community Corrections Division

�� Pretrial Services Divisions (PTS) �� Hampton Pretrial Services Division �� Newport News Pretrial Services Division

�� Planning & Evaluation Division Agency Goals & Objectives The CJA strives for accountability – for those under our supervision, for our staff, and for our Agency as a whole. To help assess our progress, and ensure that the CJA is meeting its intended purpose, goals and objectives are established annually and reviewed on a quarterly basis. Goals for the CJA include:

1. To provide community corrections supervision through a variety of punitive intermediate sanctions and punishments.

2. To make offenders accountable to the community for their criminal behavior. 3. To provide offenders with education, training, and treatment enabling them to become functional

members of the community. 4. To expedite the release of defendants admitted to jail awaiting trial. 5. To provide defendant background information and recommendations for use by judicial officers in

determining or reconsidering the risk to public safety pending trial. 6. To increase the utilization of non-secure bond including supervision in lieu of a secure bond. 7. To reduce failures to appear in court and improve public safety by providing custody and supervision

for pretrial defendants. 8. To improve court, Commonwealth’s Attorney, and public defender pretrial defendant case

management. 9. To measurably increase the availability of new substance abuse treatment and treatment capacity for

offenders and defendants under supervision. 10. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency. 11. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the local criminal justice system. 12. To create partnerships with community organizations beyond the criminal justice system for the

purpose of education, collaboration, and inclusion in the decision-making and planning process.


Each of the above noted goals has identified objectives. These objectives are modified annually based on performance, need, and any new requirements imposed as conditioned by the grant. In total, 68 separate objectives were identified for FY2001 and 91 for FY2002. In summary, the CJA met or exceeded most all of its goals and objectives for FY2001 and FY2002. For each year, 92% of all objectives were met, exceeded, had progress made, or were ongoing in nature. Other objectives were noted as “pending”. Of those with projected numbers served by the CJA, 69% were met at a level of 75% or higher in FY2002 and 62% exceeded 100% of the projection. It should be noted that those objectives not met at 100% are typically due to uncontrollable factors. For example, the CJA projects the number of community service hours performed for the year. This process is usually based on past trends. However, trends are subject to change given different sentencing environments, the types of cases brought to trial, the needs of the defendants/offenders coming before the courts, and new laws that have unknown impacts until they are actually implemented. Therefore, a number could be considerably off projection given the surrounding circumstances. During FY2001 and FY2002 the CJA was required to add specific objectives for a new substance abuse assessment and treatment initiative. As these objectives were new, the development of them was based on limited information. These objectives were also modified during the two-year period. These figures are included in the analyses of Agency progress; however, they do skew the overall picture, as these objectives did not reach the projected levels. Despite the lower than projected performance of specific objectives, the overall goal of providing enhanced substance abuse assessment and treatment services was met. Acknowledgements The success of the CJA is due to the many individuals and organizations supporting its mission. We would like to thank and recognize the following for their support of the CJA (in alphabetical order):

�� Center for Child and Family Services �� Clerks, General District, JDR, and Circuit Courts, Hampton and Newport News �� Commonwealth’s Attorneys, Deputies, and Assistants �� Community Service Worksites and Supervisors �� Hampton and Newport News Legislative Delegation �� Hampton City Council �� Hampton City Offices �� Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board �� Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board �� Jail and lock up staff of Hampton and Newport News City Jails and Lockups �� Judges, Circuit Court, Hampton and Newport News �� Judges, General District Court, Hampton and Newport News �� Judges, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Hampton and Newport News �� Magistrates, Hampton and Newport News �� Newport News City Council �� Newport News City Offices �� Police Chiefs, Hampton and Newport News �� Police Departments, Hampton and Newport News �� Sheriffs, Hampton and Newport News �� Staff of community corrections and pretrial services agencies in other jurisdictions �� Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association �� Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services


COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIVISIONS (CCD) The primary goal of the CJA’s Community Corrections Divisions (CCD) is to provide a continuum of punitive intermediate sanctions and punishments, through local probation services, to Hampton and Newport News Courts. Through effective intervention and treatment strategies, the CJA strives to enforce Court orders regarding offender conduct, conditions of supervision, and other obligations while encouraging behavioral change for a reduction in recidivism risk. CCD offers:

�� Differential supervision according to offender risk and need

�� Community service placement �� Anger management counseling �� Employment and education

assistance �� Specialized services/programs as

needed or ordered �� Random alcohol and drug testing �� Domestic Violence Program

�� Assessment �� Domestic violence counseling

(meets state standards)

�� Substance abuse treatment programming ��State required screening and assessment ��Appropriate level of education and

treatment ��Alcohol and Drug testing

�� First Offender Program ��State required screening and assessment ��Education and treatment ��Community service placement ��Employment and education assistance ��Alcohol and drug testing

�� Follow-up criminal record checks �� Identification of wanted persons

CCD Utilization The CCD continued to be supported by the Judiciary of Hampton and Newport News in FY2001 and FY2002. At 3,744, placements to CCD in FY2002 increased 6% from FY20004. Since the implementation of the CCCA in 1995, placements to CCD have increased by approximately 108%. Placements to CCD in Hampton-Newport News constitute over 11% of placements to local community corrections in Virginia.

C o m m u n it y C o r r e c t i o n s T o t a l P l a c e m e n t s

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

4 0 0 0

F Y 1 9 9 6 F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

4 Placements include court placements, reinstatements, and transfer-in cases. “Placements” refers to individuals, not independent sentencing events. However, an individual may be under supervision, completely closed, and later opened as a new “placement”.


Of all placements to CCD in FY2001: �� 85% were new placements from Court �� 10% were transfer-in cases �� 5% were Court reinstatements

Of all placements to CCD in FY2002:

�� 83% were new placements from Court �� 9% were transfer-in cases �� 8% were Court reinstatements

For Fiscal Years 2000, 2001 and 2002 the percentage of placements from Court and transfer-in cases, relative to the total number of placements for each year, remained relatively stable, with a fluctuation no greater than 2 percentile points in either direction. Reinstatements in FY2001 fell to 5% of total placements. However, in FY2002 reinstatements, as in FY2000, made up 8% of total placements. Caseloads & Supervision Along with placements, the average daily caseload (ADC) for CCD continued to increase, reaching 1,433 in FY2001 and an all time high of 1,488 in FY2002. Between FY1997 and FY2002, the active caseload increased over 105%.5 The increase in caseloads is most likely due to two primary factors: increased placements to supervision, as indicated above, and increased average length of supervision.

In FY2002, the length of supervision for misdemeanants averaged 4.9 months, up approximately 12 days from FY2001, and approximately 18 days from FY2000. The length of supervision for felons averaged 10.9 months, a 69-day increase over FY2000, but only a 9-day increase over FY2001. The average length of supervision (ALOS) for both misdemeanants and felons for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 remain well under the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services’ guidelines.6

A v e r a g e D a i ly C a s e lo a d( B a s e d o n b e g in / e n d m o n t h fi g u r e s)

6 2 87 4 2

1 0 9

9 0 0

1 8 5

1 1 2 0

1 7 4

1 2 6 9

1 6 4

1 2 9 0

1 9 8

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 2 0 0

1 4 0 0

F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

A c t iv eI n a c t iv e

5 Inactive case statistics are not available for FY1997. 6 The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services funds programs to the level of 12 months average supervision for felons and 6 months average supervision for misdemeanants.


Though the ALOS for misdemeanants remained relatively stable from FY2000 to FY2002, the ALOS for felons saw a substantial increase in FY2001, but seemed to level off in FY2002. As illustrated by the chart above, the ALOS for felons between FY1997 and FY2001 has been quite volatile. While we have no empirical data to explain the fluctuation in the ALOS of felony cases, we do have several anecdotal explanations. The 4.6 month increase in ALOS for felony cases between FY1997 and FY1998 is most likely due to a change in how the Agency calculated and reported data. Beginning in FY1998 the ALOS was calculated using the supervision days of cases only while the case was classified as active. While we have no definitive data to substantiate this, the method of data collection and calculation for FY1998 to FY2002 could be in contrast with previous calculation and reporting methods. The 1.6 month decrease in felony ALOS between FY1998 and FY1999 most likely was caused by the closing of several Community Diversion Incentive cases (CDI). The CDI was dissolved in 1994 when the CCCA went into effect; however, cases assigned to CDI were carried over to the new CCCA program. These CDI cases may have skewed the ALOS, which most likely increased supervision days and ALOS. The last of the CDI cases were closed in FY1998, and therefore were not carried over to FY1999. Because the cases did not carry over, the supervision days as well as ALOS decreased in FY1999. In FY2000 the ALOS for felony cases saw a 1.6 month decrease from FY1999; this may be due to a change in staff. Two senior case managers left the Agency during FY2000, and their cases were assigned to new case mangers. Many of these cases were completed felony cases that had not been closed and were erroneously accumulating days of supervision. Once identified, the cases were properly closed, which in turn most likely caused a drop in supervision days and ALOS. If we look at felony ALOS for FY1999, FY2001 and FY2002 we see a more stable upward trend emerge, similar to the misdemeanant ALOS. This diminutive upward trend in ALOS most likely can be attributed to laws enacted in 1999 that altered the first offender statute for drug violators, requiring them to undergo substance abuse screening followed by appropriate treatment if needed. In 2000 the laws were further stiffened with community service (100 hours) and employment requirements. Due to the aforementioned, coupled with and continued increase in placements of first-time drug offender and domestic violence placements, the ALOS for both felons and misdemeanants is expected to continue to increase. Of the 2,710 misdemeanant cases closed during FY2001, 71% were successful, 1% higher than the state average. In FY2001, 50% of the 224 felony cases closed were successful. Of the 3,284 misdemeanant cases closed during FY2002, 68% were successful. Of the 275 felony cases closed in FY2002, 41% closed successfully.

A v e r a g e L e n g th o f S u p e r v i s i o n( In m o n t h s ; u s i n g d ay s / co u r t pl a ce m e n t s)

3 .0

7 . 2

3 . 4

1 1 . 8

3 . 9

1 0 . 2

4 . 3

8 . 6

4 . 7

1 0 . 6

4 .9

1 0 . 9

0 . 0

2 . 0

4 . 0

6 . 0

8 . 0

1 0 . 0

1 2 . 0

F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

M i s d .F e l o n s


Services The CJA is positioned to provide offenders with a wide array of services and programs as may be needed. In FY2001, CCD service placements included:

C o m m u n i t y C o r r e c t i o n s S u c c e s s R a t eH a m p to n - N e w p o r t N e w s

0 .0 %

1 0 . 0 %

2 0 . 0 %

3 0 . 0 %

4 0 . 0 %

5 0 . 0 %

6 0 . 0 %

7 0 . 0 %

8 0 . 0 %

F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

H N N M i s d .S t a t e M i s d .H N N F e l o n yS t a t e F e l o n y

�� 819 substance abuse service placements (testing, education, and treatment) �� 385 domestic violence counseling placements �� 2,008 community service work site placements �� 217 other service placements (i.e.: anger management, parenting, “Fatherhood Program,”

special evaluations, specialized counseling, financial planning, employment services, etc.) In FY2002, CCD service placements included:

�� 1,079 substance abuse service placements (testing, education, and treatment) �� 420 domestic violence counseling placements �� 2,637 community service work site placements �� 343 other service placements (i.e.: anger management, parenting, “Fatherhood Program”,

special evaluations, specialized counseling, financial planning, employment services, etc.) Through supervision and available services, CCD is able to assist offenders in making “payment” to the community through a variety of methods. In FY2001, CCD clients:

�� Performed 81,753 hours of community service work, equating to over $421,028 of labor

(using minimum wage of $5.15 per hour as the calculation basis) �� Paid $4,480 in victim restitution �� Paid $9,547 in court fines and costs

In FY2002, CCD clients:

�� Performed 82,617 hours of community service work, equating to over $425,477 of labor (using minimum wage of $5.15 per hour as the calculation basis)

�� Paid $9,289 in victim restitution �� Paid $22,744 in court fines and costs


Immeasurable contributions include the payment of taxes and the financial and personal support of children. Substance Abuse Screening, Assessment, and Treatment Services In FY2000 the CJA and similar agencies around the state were tasked with conducting state mandated substance abuse screenings and assessments on offenders. The screening and assessment procedures are governed by guidelines developed by a statewide oversight committee established in response to the mandating laws. The oversight committee selected a substance abuse screening instrument (SSI – Simple Screening Instrument) and an assessment instrument (ASI – Addiction Severity Index) for use on all eligible adult offenders. Separate instruments were selected for juvenile offenders. The CJA responded by having staff trained in administering both instruments, having staff trained to train others on using the screening instrument, and revising the agreement with the Agency’s primary service provider. The CJA’s original plan was to have in-house staff conduct all SSIs and utilize our primary service provider, the Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board, to conduct the ASI. Within the first few months of using the screening and assessment process, the CJA noted that additional training was necessary and that a new process for conducting ASIs needed developing. The CJA amended the process and began conducting all substance abuse assessments in-house. We also modified our treatment referral procedures and supervision practices. A staff member certified in substance abuse counseling conducts ASIs and handles substance abuse treatment referrals. In order to maximize funds, this individual’s schedule rotates between offices in Hampton and Newport News. In addition, this staff member assists other staff with difficult substance abuse cases, provides training on the SSI, and works with providers on reporting and service quality. The new process yielded positive results quickly. Within the first year the CJA noted the following improvements to the substance abuse screening, assessment, and treatment processes:

�� Easy scheduling of ASIs: By doing ASIs in-house, the CJA easily schedules 20 or more per week. This was not possible under the previous process and backlogs occurred.

�� Centralized assessments for our clients: By conducting ASIs in-house, the CJA minimizes variation

in interpretations, creating more consistent assessment results. Under the previous plan, the CJA had no ability to determine if assessments were being consistently conducted.

�� Centralized placements and coordinated communication between the CJA and service providers: By

having the in-house capacity, the CJA has a single point of contact for placements and referrals. This minimizes “phone tag” with CJA and service provider staff and allows several individuals to be placed in services at a time. Previously, each CJA staff member would contact the provider for each individual placement. This was an inefficient use of time, especially for the treatment providers. Often, the provider would be on the phone with one CJA staff member while another was leaving a message. The provider would then spend the rest of their time returning calls to the CJA. This created a massive bottleneck and frustrated treatment provider and CJA staff alike. The CJA centralized process allows other CJA staff to concentrate on individual client issues. It also improves placement time, as providers are able to take care of placement paperwork as opposed to spending the day returning calls. Other CJA and treatment provider staffs focus on client progress and contact each other on specific clients.

�� Quality assurance: By having individuals in-house who specialize in substance abuse treatment and

focus attention on how treatment is delivered, we have individuals who can help ensure that service providers do what they are contracted to do.


�� Cost effectiveness: The use of taxpayer funds to support an in-house capacity is very cost effective. The cost of contracting for assessments, treatment, additional drug testing, and additional case management services for the CJA’s large population would be exceptional.

�� Coordination: By having in-house assessments and treatment experts, the CJA has a team approach

capacity. Each staff member is made aware of the special issues of each client requiring additional case management assistance. Better coordination between the CJA and treatment providers allows for a quicker response to negative and non-compliant behaviors.

�� Minimized potential for client “loss”: Sending clients to a provider for assessment, treatment, and

other related services puts them into a whole different system. It is easier for clients to manipulate the various players when there is a highly fragmented approach. In turn, it is a possibility a client may become lost in the treatment process and not get the services they need. Finally, it increases the delay in treatment delivery and reduces the motivation of the client to succeed. By keeping a fair degree of the treatment “process” in house and developing a centralized and coordinated approach, there is less room for error.

During FY2001, the CJA conducted 466 SSI’s, 58% (n=271) of which warranted further assessment based on score or case manager overrides. Including transfer-ins, the Hampton-Newport News CJA conducted 343 ASI’s. As a result 70% (n=239) of the individuals assessed using the ASI were identified as being in need of substance abuse education and/or treatment.7 During FY2002 the CJA conducted 604 SSI’s; almost 3% of all SSI’s conducted in Virginia by local CJA agencies (n=23,058).8 Of the 604 SSI’s conducted, 75% (n=452) required an ASI be performed based on score or case manager overrides. Including transfer-ins, the CJA conducted 452 or 100% of ASI’s required by SSI scores or by case manager overrides, compared to the state average of 64% 8. Of the 452 ASI’s in FY2002, 88% (n=399) required, according to ASI’s scores and/or case manager overrides, substance abuse education and/or treatment.7

7 Figures for SSI’s and ASI’s for both the CJA and the state are a combination of Pretrial and Community Corrections. The SSI and ASI Figures were placed in the Community Corrections section of this report because a majority, over 80%, were conducted in Community Corrections. 8 Figures obtained from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Service’s Comprehensive Community Corrections Act And Pretrial Services Act Annual Legislative Report for July 2001- June 2002.


PRETRIAL SERVICES DIVISIONS (PTS) The primary goal of the Agency’s Pretrial Services Divisions (PTS) is to provide judicial officers with crucial defendant background information to make more informed release decisions. Supervision is available for qualified individuals awaiting trial. Through appropriate supervision, the CJA strives to reduce failure to appear rates and provide defendants with services necessary to ensure their appearance at court for trial. PTS offers:

�� Jail-based screening and investigations �� Defendant interview �� Criminal history background

checks (VCIN, DMV, CJIS, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Supreme Court)

�� Verification of community ties �� Reference checks

�� Reports and recommendations to the Courts

�� Bond hearing investigation reports �� Criminal history record checks

�� Identification of wanted persons �� Fugitive tracking �� Pretrial screening of potential Drug Court

Treatment Program candidates �� Intensive supervision �� Court reminders �� Specialized programs and services

��Anger management ��Substance abuse education ��Alcohol and drug testing ��Substance abuse treatment ��Employment and education assistance

�� Follow-up criminal record checks

PTS Screenings & Investigations PTS begins their work in Hampton and Newport News jails. Since the goal is to provide the Courts with information prior to arraignment, the staff works midnight and early morning shifts. The cooperation of the Magistrate’s offices and jails is imperative to PTS operations. Combined, Hampton and Newport News report admitting approximately 14,900 persons to jail awaiting trial during both FY2001 and FY2002. For both FY2001 and FY2002 approximately 45% of individuals admitted to jail awaiting trial bonded out before the pretrial investigation process began. In accordance with state guidelines, defendants detained due to certain reasons are automatically “screened out” by PTS and not investigated.9 Other defendants not investigated include those who are debilitated at the time of the interview (drugs/alcohol/medication), those exhibiting behavior not conducive to an interview, and those who refuse an interview. Overall, admissions to jail awaiting trial decreased 10% from FY2000 to FY2001; however, the variance between FY2001 and FY2002 admissions to jail was less than ½ of a percentile. Admissions in Hampton decreased by 7% between FY2000 and FY2001 and by 5% between FY2000 and FY2002. However, admissions to jail awaiting trial were stabile in FY2001 and FY2002, with a variance of no more than 1 percentile in either direction. In Newport News, admissions to jail awaiting trial decreased 14% between FY2000 and FY2001, and 16% between FY2000 and FY2002. Like Hampton, admissions to jail awaiting trial stabilized in FY2001 and FY2002, with a variance of no more than 2%. Despite the decrease in the number of individuals admitted to jail awaiting trial during FY2001 and FY2002, the number of defendants available at pretrial during the initial screening phase has remained relatively consistent, varying no more than 2% in either direction. This is believed to be largely due to bail reform laws effective July 1, 1999. Under the new laws, defendants with certain criminal histories and instant offenses are held without bond. This necessitates additional pretrial investigations, court arraignments, and bond hearings.

9“Screened out” defendants include those held for: drunk in public; Federal/U.S. Marshall’s Office hold; juvenile defendant; parole violator; detainers.


PTS conducted 5,792 investigations during FY2001, which represent 39% of all defendants admitted to jail awaiting trial, and 71% of defendants admitted to jail available at pretrial screening. In FY2002 PTS conducted 5,852 investigations, up 1% from FY2001. This represents almost 40% of all defendants admitted to jail awaiting trial, and an 73% of defendants admitted to jail available at pretrial screening. The number of investigations fell 8.5% between FY2000 and FY2001; however, this coincides with the 10% decrease of individuals admitted to jail over-all that same year. We consider this to be positive, as the number of Pretrial investigations increased, relative to the number of individuals admitted to jail. The 5,792 investigations conducted by the CJA in FY2001, and the 5,852 investigations conducted by the CJA in FY2002 constituted over 13% of all investigations conducted statewide (FY2001, n= 42,781; FY2002, n=46,109). An investigation includes several components, including an interview with the defendant. Once a defendant has been investigated, Pretrial staff completes a court report prior to arraignment. This report provides the Court with additional information regarding the defendant. In most cases the information provided by PTS is the determining factor on whether or not the Court places a defendant on Pretrial Supervision.

Defendants denied bail initially are permitted to appeal the decision. Depending on the time span between the initial pretrial investigation and the hearing, a separate investigation may be necessary. In addition to initial Pretrial investigations, the CJA conducted 811 investigations for bond hearings in FY2001, and 844 investigations for bond hearings in FY2002; a 140% increase from FY2000. Pretrial Placements Placements to pretrial supervision have remained steady over the last several years in spite of the drop in individuals admitted to jail. Hampton and Newport News Courts placed 1,278 defendants under PTS supervision in FY2001. In FY2002 the Hampton and Newport News Courts placed 1,431 defendants under PTS supervision, up 12% from the previous year. In FY2001, 22% of individuals investigated were placed under PTS supervision, up 1 % from FY2000. In FY2002, 24% of individuals investigated were placed under PTS supervision, up 3 % from FY2000. While the number of individuals placed under PTS supervision in FY2002 is significant to the CJA, this figure represents less than 25% of those investigated by PTS, and less than 10% of the total admitted to jail.

P r e t r i a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s

05 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 03 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

4 0 0 0

4 5 0 0

F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

H a m p t o nN e w p o r t N e w s


The ratio of felony to misdemeanant placements under PTS supervision in Newport News continues to broaden, in that more misdemeanants are being placed under supervision. The ratio of felony to misdemeanant placements in Hampton too continued to broaden for FY2001 and FY2002. However in Hampton more felons are being placed under supervision. Possible causes of this trend are under review.

Caseloads The average daily caseload (ADC) for individuals placed under pretrial supervision has declined from a high of 354 in FY2000. Between FY2000 and FY2002 the active caseload decreased over 12%. The significant decrease in ADC between FY2000 and FY2002 coincides with the steady reduction of the average length of supervision (ALOS). However, in spite of the reduction in the ADC, the Hampton Newport News Criminal Justice Agency constitutes approximately 10% of the state ADC. 8

P r e t r i a l P l a c e m e n t sB y C o u r t

3 8 8

8 0 0

4 3 1

8 7 4

3 6 8

8 8 3

4 3 4

8 8 1

3 8 6

8 7 2

4 7 3

9 5 8

01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 0

1 0 0 0

F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

H a m p t o nN e w p o r t N e w s

Pretrial Placements by TypeHampton

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002

Misd.Felony

Pretrial Placements by Type Newport News

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002

Misd.Felony


A significant factor contributing to the average daily caseload is the average length of supervision of defendants. Defendants under PTS supervision are kept under supervision until the case is brought to trial, or for some reason the defendant is remanded to custody. The Supreme Court of Virginia guideline provides for up to 60 days for misdemeanants and up to 120 days for felons to be brought to trial. In FY2000 the Hampton ALOS of individuals supervised by PTS was well above the Supreme Court of Virginia guideline. However, the Hampton courts made a cognitive effort to reduce the number continuations, therefore, reducing extended pretrial periods and ALOS. The ALOS of individuals under PTS supervision is, as of the end of FY2002, under Virginia Supreme Court guidelines. A drop in the ALOS is considered positive.

Supervision & Services For those placed under PTS supervision, the goal becomes one of ensuring that the defendant adheres to their release conditions and reports to court for trial. Defendants are typically required to report to their Case Manager in person once a week and via telephone once a week. Case managers may impose additional reporting requirements on the defendant if necessary.

A v e r a g e D a i ly C a s e lo a d( B a se d o n b e g in /e n d m o n th fig u re s )

2 7 2 2 7 8

1 5

2 9 1

2 1

3 3 0

2 4

2 9 3

2 9

2 8 9

2 4

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

F Y 1 9 9 7 F Y 1 9 9 8 F Y 1 9 9 9 F Y 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 1 F Y 2 0 0 2

A c t iveIn a c tive

FY2001 Average Length of Supervision(In days; using days/court placements)

60

120

62

113.7

75

131.5

57

104

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

SupremeCourt

PTS Total HamptonCases

NewportNews Cases

Misd.Felons

FY2002 Average Length of Supervision(In days; using days/court placements)

60

120

54

99.6

60

91

52

106

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SupremeCourt

PTS Total HamptonCases

NewportNews Cases

Misd.Felons


The CJA is positioned to provide defendants with a wide array of services and programs as may be needed. In FY2001 PTS service placements included:

�� 513 substance abuse service placements (testing, education, and treatment) �� 12 anger management counseling placements �� 66 other service placements (i.e.: AA/NA referrals, mental health services)

In FY2002 PTS service placements included:

�� 539 substance abuse service placements (testing, education, and treatment) �� 21 anger management counseling placements • 86 other service placements (i.e.: AA/NA referrals, mental health services)

The cost-benefits to the community of PTS include reduced jail expenses, reduced court expenses through reduced FTAs, the payment of taxes, and the financial and personal support of children. PTS continues to have an excellent success rate. Of cases closed in both FY2001 and FY2002, 89% were closed successfully. Approximately 7% failed to appear for court and only 4% had their supervision revoked. The CJA success rate in FY2002 was 3% higher then the state average. In addition, technical violations for the CJA were 3% lower than the state average.10

FY2002 Pretrial Closures

Successful89%

FTA7%

Technical Violation

4%

FY2001 Pretrial Closures

Technical Violation

4%

FTA7%

Successful89%

10 The state averages in FY2002 for FTAs were 6%, successful closure rates were 85%, and technical violations were 7%.


PLANNING & EVALUATION DIVISION The Planning & Evaluation Division was established to provide data management and support to the CJA, as well as serve Hampton and Newport News as the central criminal justice planning agency, primarily through support of the Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board (HNNCCJB). The Planning & Evaluation Division offers:

�� Agency data management and analyses �� Special population evaluations �� Special project support �� Grants identification �� Support to the CCJB for:

�� Criminal justice planning activities directed by the Code of Virginia �� Effective and efficient adult offender programming �� Effective and efficient juvenile justice services �� Crime prevention �� Community awareness and involvement �� Systems improvement (general) Through:

�� Coordination of activities, services, and decisions �� Evaluation of programs and populations �� Funding opportunities �� Special project support

Data Management FY2001 and FY2002 proved to be trying years for the CJA in regard to data management. The Agency moved to reliance upon the state-developed case management database, PTCC, for most case file information. Unfortunately, software and installation problems resulted in hours of down time for the system. Staff had to conduct business using all manual forms and when the system came up, staff then had to enter the information from the manual forms into the database. Because of the number of problems, the CJA was granted a use waiver by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for certain required data entry elements. Several corrective measures were taken and PTCC use became easier for staff. However, PTCC continues to be limited for Agency data management and evaluation purposes. The Agency continues to produce manual monthly reports, generated from manually collected data. And, as with any organization, the Agency struggles to ensure that all staff record data in a consistent manner. Prior to PTCC the Agency utilized a variety of methods to keep historical client information. Thousands of individual index cards were kept with information on every CCD case the Agency had received. This valuable information was difficult to access by all Agency staff. The “card file” was eliminated in FY2001 and all information dating back to FY1995 was entered into a database. The “card file” database was placed on a common server, and is easy to use and available to all staff.11

Offender Risk/Needs Assessment Pilot Project In June 2000, the CJA joined with Chesterfield Community Corrections and the Rappahannock Regional Jail to pilot the use of a risk/needs assessment tool. Based on recommendations from national and international experts, the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) was selected for testing. The LSI-R is an assessment tool designed to assist in the identification of criminogenic risk factors. The use of the LSI-R can be beneficial

11Only Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency Staff has access to the “card file” database.


for offender classification, case management plan development, and program or service identification and development. The idea of the project stemmed from an assumption regarding local-responsible offenders that is often contradicted by those responsible for their supervision. The assumption is often made that because an offender has a low-level offense (i.e. a misdemeanor or non-violent felony), he/she is also low risk of re-offending. However, extensive research demonstrates that the instant offense, or even the criminal history, is not the primary indicator of recidivism risk. Research also demonstrates that addressing the criminogenic tendencies of offenders in a manner that acknowledges differing needs of supervision and treatment based on the risk and needs of an offender can change criminal thinking and have an impact on recidivism. The project has five goals:

1. Develop an assessment-based profile of local-responsible offenders placed in agencies authorized under the CCCA.

2. Train case management and treatment staff on criminogenic tendencies, matching treatment based on assessments, and working with offenders to reduce risk of recidivism.

3. Educate criminal justice and treatment stakeholders on the importance of addressing criminogenic tendencies when working with offenders.

4. Identify and develop treatment programming for CCCA agency participants based on the assessment profile.

5. Determine whether the LSI-R can be incorporated as a standardized risk/need assessment tool for local community corrections programs statewide.

The project began in early FY2001 with the support of the National Institute of Corrections and the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. Dr. Ed Latessa, a nationally recognized expert in the area of offender programming and evaluation, conducted a one-day seminar for local criminal justice and treatment stakeholders. Almost 100 individuals attended the seminar that addressed the importance of offender assessment, understanding criminogenic tendencies, and appropriate treatment and supervision. For the next two days, CJA staff attended training that built upon Dr. Latessa’s seminar. By the end of the training, the CJA’s case management staff was certified to administer the LSI-R. Following training, the LSI was utilized to collect information for analysis. The project continued throughout FY2002 and, based on preliminary results, continues into FY2003. A full report will be available through the CJA at a later date to be determined. HNNCCJB In 1994, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation resulting in the creation of local Community Criminal Justice Boards throughout the Commonwealth. These boards include a variety of key criminal justice and community stakeholders. Each Board, by law, must include the following mandatory members: a judge from each court (Circuit, General District, and Juvenile & Domestic Relations), a chief magistrate, a chief of police, a sheriff, an attorney for the Commonwealth, a public defender or an attorney experienced in defense, a local educator, a community services board administrator, and a member from each governing body (or a city or county manager, administrator, executive, or assistant or deputy) represented by a Board. The Code of Virginia defines several broad responsibilities for Community Criminal Justice Boards:

1. Advise on the development and operation of local pretrial services and community-based probation programs and services pursuant to §19.2-152.2 and §9.1-183 for use by the courts in diverting offenders from local correctional facility placements;

2. Assist community agencies and organizations in establishing and modifying programs and services for offenders on the basis of an objective assessment of the community’s needs and resources;


3. Evaluate and monitor community programs, services and facilities to determine their impact on offenders;

4. Develop and amend the criminal justice plan in accordance with guidelines and standards set forth by the Department of Criminal Justice Services and oversee the development and amendment of the community-based corrections plan as required by §53.1-82.1 for approval by participating local governing bodies;

5. Review the submission of all criminal justice grants regardless of the source of funding; 6. Facilitate local involvement and flexibility in responding to the problem of crime in their communities;

and 7. Do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the responsibilities expressly given in [the

authorizing legislation]. §9.1-180 Code of Virginia The Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board (HNNCCJB) began its work in 1995 and has often been held up to others as a “model” effort. Many other boards replicated the original bylaws and Council resolutions of the Hampton Newport-News CCJB. In addition, Hampton-Newport News CCJB members and associates have traveled throughout the Commonwealth and country to share their experiences. The Planning & Evaluation Division provides staff support to the HNNCCJB as resources allow. A primary goal for the HNNCCJB has been the development of a criminal justice plan. Since its inception, the HNNCCJB has developed a mission statement, identified primary areas for focus, and proposed objectives and strategies for action. In FY2001, the Board’s plan was published. Over time, the role of Community Criminal Justice Boards in general has expanded, both within the Code of Virginia and as they have matured and realized their potential. To maintain the level of accountability placed on these Boards by the General Assembly, staff support is essential. The HNNCCJB realized this need early on and prioritized gaining staff support. The HNNCCJB has been very active in a number of initiatives, and would be rendered ineffective without such support. Criminal justice planning is essential and a required element for most criminal justice grant opportunities. Through the HNNCCJB and its planning activities, communication is enhanced among the stakeholders. This allows development of coordinated plans, thus reducing duplicative efforts, improving the use of limited resources, and increasing the likelihood of obtaining federal and state resources for local projects. Between FY1998 and the first part of FY2002 federal grant and local matching funds allowed the CJA to employee two individuals devoted to HNNCCJB activities. By mid-FY2002 these funds were exhausted and staffing was eliminated. The Director of the CJA assumed most administrative duties with the assistance of other agency staff.


MISC. PROJECTS & RELATED ACTIVITIES Information, Education, & Training With the growing size of the Agency, the services provided, and the individuals we have contact with on a daily basis, information and education are vital to the CJA’s success. This applies not only to the information we provide to others, but to our own staff. Of special note during FY2001 and FY2002, the CJA provided information, education, and training to others through the following:

�� Agency Brochure – A brochure describing the CJA and the various divisions was created and continues to be used.

�� Agency Open Houses – Held in each city, the open houses provided information on the CJA and the population served.

�� Hampton Bar Association – A presentation on the CJA and procedures was provided to members of the Hampton Bar Association.

�� Jail Staff Orientation – Staff present information on Pretrial Services regularly to new jail staff through the Newport News Jail Staff Orientation.

�� Legislative Breakfast – Information on the CJA, the HNNCCJB, and the Newport News Drug Court Program was presented to legislators, judges, and city representatives.

�� Peninsula Legal Assistants – Information on the role of Pretrial Services in the pretrial process was provided to legal assistance from throughout the Peninsula.

�� Court Watch Program – The CJA provides information to citizens throughout Hampton on the roles of PTS and CCD at annual Court Watch Program sessions.

�� Media – Staff of the CJA were interviewed throughout the period by both television and print news for implications of budget reductions and drug abuse.

�� Seminars and Training – The CJA sponsored two seminar and training events open to area criminal justice and treatment stakeholders and providers; one on criminogenic tendencies and assessment, the other “Understanding Addiction – New Insights for the 21st Century”.

The ongoing training of staff continues to be a priority for the CJA. Only through training can CJA staff be prepared to deal with the number of issues encountered on a regular basis. Of particular note, staff participated in the following during FY2001 and FY2002:

�� LSI-R Training – Most staff were certified to use the LSI-R. �� SSI and ASI Training – These trainings were introduced to staff in FY2001 and continue to be

available to staff. �� “Thinking for a Change” – As a follow-up to the LSI-R certification, several staff attended a week-

long training on “Thinking for a Change”, a cognitive skills development program. The training was provided by the National Institute of Corrections and staff in attendance was certified to administer the program.

�� “Assessment, Placement, & Relapse Prevention” – A nationally recognized expert in the area of substance abuse assessment, placement, and relapse prevention came to the CJA for two days and provided training for CJA staff. We extended an invitation to area agencies to attend.

�� Pretrial Constitutional Issues – Pretrial management and investigation staff attended a seminar on pretrial constitutional issues featuring Judge Bruce Beaudin.

�� Round table discussions – The CJA implemented a series of round table discussions so staff could meet, discuss issues faced on a regular basis, and support each other with suggestions and ideas.

�� Video/audio training library – The CJA instituted a video/audio training library for use by staff on an individual or group basis. Resources on communication, speaking, and other similar topics are available for staff to use as needed.

�� CSAC Certification – Two staff began working towards becoming Certified Substance Abuse Counselors.


�� National and state training conferences attended by staff included: o The Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association Annual Training Conference o The Virginia Drug Court Association Training Conference o The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Community Oriented Justice

Conference o The International Community Corrections Association Training Conference o The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies Training Conference o The National Drug Court Association Training Conference

Partnerships & Community Involvement The CJA’s goals extend well beyond the provision of local community corrections/probation and pretrial supervision. Creating partnerships and engaging in efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the local criminal justice system are part of the CJA’s ongoing efforts. To help accomplish this goal, CJA management and staff participate on a number of specialty committees. During FY2001 and FY2002 CJA management and staff participated in the following:

�� Ongoing local efforts: o Christopher Newport University Criminal Justice Advisory Committee o CJA and Treatment Management Group o Domestic Violence Task Force, Hampton o Domestic Violence Task Force, Newport News o Drug Court Advisory Committee, Newport News o Fatality Review Committee, Newport News o HNNCCJB Adult Offender Issues Subcommittee o HNNCCJB Juvenile Subcommittee o Neighborhood Task Force, Hampton

�� Specialty projects: o Newport News City Prison Farm Review Panel o Hampton Drug Court Program Planning Team

�� State and national efforts: o National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies Conference Planning Committee o VCIN Regional Group o Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association Legislative Committee o Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association Membership Committee o Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association Public Relations Committee o Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association Training Committee

Of Special Note As this report demonstrates, the CJA stayed busy during FY2001 and FY2002. Other items of particular note for the period include:

�� 100% compliance with all VCIN audits – The Virginia State Police routinely audit agencies allowed access to the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) and the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). Violations of the regulations governing the use of could result in prosecution and/or loss of access, therefore the CJA does all things possible to ensure strict adherence to the regulations. The CJA underwent four audits during FY2001 and FY2002 and met each with 100% compliance.

�� Oath of Office – New for local community corrections/probation and pretrial services officers is an Oath of Office. The Oath of Office was added to the Code of Virginia as one step in recognizing the valuable part local community corrections/probation and pretrial services agencies play in public safety. The first Oath of Office for CJA staff was administered in a group session by the Honorable


William Andrews. Since then, several judges sitting in Hampton and Newport News participate in administering the Oath of Office to new staff.

�� CJA Committee – An internal committee was established to help plan special events and social activities. The committee also assists in the development and review of morale-related policies.

�� Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) – A review of the Agency’s SOPs revealed that revisions were necessary. Small groups organized and proposed various changes. As more information was presented by individuals and small groups, it became obvious that a complete rewrite of the SOPs is necessary. The rewrite will begin in FY2003.

�� Satisfaction Survey – In FY2002 a satisfaction survey was developed and sent to 117 stakeholders. Recipients included primarily judges, Commonwealth’s Attorneys and assistants, Sheriffs and deputies we work with, Chiefs of Police and officers we work with, and defense attorneys. Of the surveys, two were returned as undeliverable and 43 were returned completed (overall return rate of 36.5%). The CJA rated “Very Good” in all major areas including quality of reports, supervision, and service provision.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY Contact Information Tracey L. Jenkins Director 136 Kings Way Hampton, Virginia 23669 (757) 726-5400 Fax: (757) 728-2028 [email protected] Hampton Divisions Cecil Collier, Deputy Director [email protected] Hampton Community Corrections Division 136 Kings Way Hampton, Virginia 23669 (757) 726-5400 Fax: (757) 726-5401 Hampton Pretrial Services Division 236 N. King Street Hampton, Virginia 23669 (757) 726-6904 Fax: (757) 6556 Newport News Divisions Julie White, Deputy Director [email protected] Newport News Community Corrections Division 2600 Washington Ave., Suite 103 Newport News, Virginia 23607 (757) 926-6960 Fax: (757) 926-6956 Newport News Pretrial Services Division 2600 Washington Ave., Suite 102 Newport News, Virginia 23607 (757) 926-6964 Fax: (757) 926-6965 Planning & Evaluation Division 136 Kings Way Hampton, Virginia 23669 (757) 726-5401 fax William Andrew Warriner Data Management & Evaluation Analyst (757) 726-5431 Fax: (757) 728-2028 [email protected] Hampton-Newport News Community Criminal Justice Board (757) 726-5405 [email protected]

Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency

Documents

Transcript of Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency