Statement made by Marlene Pratto June 21, 2007

Guilford County is not the only county with a jail overcrowding problem. NC is not the only state and the US is not the only country. Governments all over the world are having to deal with jail and prison over crowding. The United Nations has a book on jail diversion; there are many books and brochures on jail diversion and alternative programs in the United States. From the US Department of Justice A Second Look at Jail Overcrowding: A Systems Perspective, I quote: ”Greater numbers of mentally ill persons, drug users, drunk drivers, and persons charged with or convicted of domestic violence are now held in local jails. Addressing the needs of these populations has required creativity and collaboration with other system and extra-system actors. Other developments such as mandatory sentencing laws, victims’ rights, the prosecution of juveniles as adults, and the emphasis on community safety have forced officials to make the most efficient use of limited jail space.”

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has a brochure on jail diversion.  Just reading can occupy all of anyone’s available time. I will just mention one or two references (I listed all of them here) that we are aware of, some of which we have read. We know that professionals in the county are aware of these documents also and perhaps you have read a few too. (Jail Diversion on the Internet)

Today in North Carolina we have a major problem: funding for mental health is cut and the need is greater today than yesterday. How are we to cope with fewer dollars and more persons that need assistance with mental health and substance abuse problems?

Now I want to speak specifically about alternatives and what we know and don’t know.

We are fortunate in many ways that the Kimme report looked at all the alternatives to incarceration; pre-trial, which is known in the literature as jail diversion, and post-trial which keeps some people with short sentences out of jail and others out of prison. The information is a little inconsistent and did not answer all the questions that the League had about how effective the programs were. We know that 49% of the people in jail at the time of the Kimme report had been in jail before or had tried an alternative previously so we asked if that number had changed since the Kimme report and were told that it was about the same percentage, 49%, as of yesterday, June 20.

In addition to the idea of alternatives and diversion programs, the League was very interested in evaluation of the types of diversion or alternative programs that we currently have. We read the report and also talked to people who operate various programs and we visited some of the programs. Not all committee members were able to visit every program, but some of us visited Malachi House, the Juvenile Detention Center (listed as a court alternative), Teen Court and we talked with the people in charge of other programs such as Outer Limits, Delancy Street, and the director of court alternatives. We talked extensively with George Coates of the Guilford County Substance Abuse Coalition on more than one occasion.

We asked about evaluation. Some programs have a success rate based on completion of the program. Some program last a very short time and even in the short programs the success rate is not 100%. But this is not the kind of evaluation we think is needed. We want to know if the people who were in a program are repeat offenders. DID THE PROGRAM really do what is needed? We know that recidivism for jail and prison are high so we would hope that diversion programs, getting to people earlier, would be more successful. Evidently it is hard to keep track of people who complete programs and the databases are not set up so that it is possible to learn if person A completing program 1 has a better chance of not being arrested again than person B completing program 2. We think an expert needs to really examine programs for ultimate success of the clients. A graduate student might want to take this on as a research project.

As an example, the director of Outer Limits, a service alternative for first offenders, reports an 85% success rate, based on completion of the program, but he does not know if the program kept the first offenders from being second offenders because he does not have access to that information.

Even with a variety of programs and options for people headed for trial or prison, not all persons will take advantage of the alternative options. The first quarter's report from the Community Liaisons who started work in January, 2007 shows that during the first quarter the Community Liaisons saw 261 inmates. Of those who were eligible for services (not being moved to prison or out of the county so we are talking alternatives not diversion, but the numbers are interesting) 22% had no clinical need for services, 36.5% accepted help, and 42 percent refused services. 42% (110 people) opt out of services! George Coates of the GC Substance Abuse Coalition told us, “In conversation with the Sheriff's Dept. staff, I've learned that these gentlemen (Community Liaison persons) are definitely meeting a need and delivering a valuable service.” 

Note you still have 64% or 167 of this group of 261 who will be headed for incarceration. The 110 who opt out of accepting help illustrate that the best efforts cannot force people to do what they choose not to do. In fact, several directors of diversion and alternative programs have told us that people have to want to change, to do the work of getting out of where they are in life.  Anyone who has tried to change a bad habit can relate to this much harder work of a major life change. 

We need to note at this point that diversion or alternative programs are not free. There is considerable cost involved. Right now many of these programs operate on small budgets with dedicated staff. We cannot assume all that we need will operate on a shoe string. The county should also institute auditing procedures to be certain funds are used as intended and for whom intended. As economists say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The problem of overcrowding remains. We need 30% reduction in the number of people in jail and enhancing or expanding alternatives is predicted to yield an 8% decrease. ( If the current Greensboro jail were brought up to the prevailing standards instead of the grandfathered standards then we would have to decrease the number of people who could be housed by a much larger amount.)  And we don’t really know what long term success the programs have. 

Past misunderstanding of the problems facing our community or the inability to fund or the opportunity to intervene has left us in this position. We need to enhance our alternatives, seek new ones that might have greater and more permanent success rates and build a new, up to standards, jail. Our jail should be safe and secure for people on both sides of the bars.