Homeless Issues Committee - Regular Meeting

A garden here. Clark Bernhardt here. Here or McNamara here. Middleton here. Morgan here. Okazaki here. Listen.

Here.

Ozan here. Here's here.

Winter everyone is here great that's that's awesome 100%. So we have the minutes from our meeting that was held April 1st those were distributed with the agenda today. The motion on those. I move. Second seconds discussion about the minutes in corrections objections. Hearing no objections, we'll take these minutes as being unanimously approved. And we do have an action item.

Colleen. It's actually not mine, but I can speak to it. It was the county board. But since I heard it at the CJC executive meeting, I'll make the motion to direct staff to distribute Corp Council ethics training and track committee member compliance. And then if there's discussion, if there's a second, we can.

I'll second. And I would like to make a friendly amendment. Some of us are on other committees for the CJC or other committees that we've been requested to do that. And if we've done it already, please have it.

Just once.

Provide credit for this.

Is it a video or what? It's a 20-minute video.

Accessible through the link. There's a link?

Colleen will.

Sorry. Yeah. So then Tamarine, if the motion passes, then Tamarine will send it out to those who have not already replied to me. From the executive committee, as County Exec Agard just mentioned, and Public Defender Middleton has already completed his. So I will convey that to Tamarine. And for those who haven't completed, you will get a 20-minute video. And the request is that you send staff a note back that said you've watched it. And then we record it.

Okay. Any other questions, discussion? All in favor of doing this? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good. So Tamarine, you can distribute that. So a report to the committee is just an update on our work group for the APPR grant pretrial pathways, the work committees with Colleen and Shannon and James, myself and Tamreen staffing that. And we've been meeting pretty regularly with Jessica Ireland, our contact with APPR. And we've have set the scope for our first, you know, kind of a preliminary failure to appear analysis. We've reviewed the kind of historical failure to appear information and compared that current information with sort of past and kind of which sets the criteria we're going to use for determining failures to appear going forward. Just last week, we had kind of a longish 90 minutes or so meeting with The research group connected with Notre Dame, their initials are LEO. I can't remember exactly what it's called, but they're part of the grant. They're available to us for technical assistance for doing a research project with real data analysis. The role of this group at Notre Dame is to give technical assistance and support to organizations or entities like ours doing and actually do research to try to get not only some innovations completed, but to actually test them, test them for validity and effectiveness. And then in the longer term goal, even then disseminating that information widely and not just keeping it local. We've been working on a pretrial mapping process, which we did have a start with that, but we've refined some of it. And I think it's ongoing. I think DA is going to help somehow with some of those pieces.

Well, that is one piece that we haven't done yet. So what we've done is we were updating a previously established process map that's like 10 to 15 years old and then meeting with subject matter experts in different areas to look at the map. to see what needs to be updated or changed or revised. And we've met with people from law enforcement with Captain Splinter and with human services and the judges and got some other things in the pipeline for that. We haven't met yet with anybody from the DA's office to take a look at it and see if that's still accurate, if there's been changes since then. And so perhaps... if you have someone in your office who we could reach out to to have that meeting with them to take a look at what's already been established and what might need to change as part of the diagramming. Is there somebody who would be a good contact for that?

Because I'm familiar with IA processes.

Maybe you should send me what you have. person that probably worked on that may have just come back to the office not too long ago, so that might be the best person. But let me see what you have.

Sounds great. Yeah, and so we have ongoing scheduled meetings, and I think we're on track with the calendar proposed. Tamreen, do you want to add anything else or others on this work group? Colleen, Shannon, James, your thoughts? You've attended all of these?

No, I think there's some progress being made. I think the data that's been collected is valid, reasonable, and seeing further collaborations on what pretrial services will ultimately look like is something that is of significant benefit to not just those participating in the system, but to those who are impacted by it.

So while we've made progress, we're nowhere near finished. So there'll be a final report to this group and others, of course, but we're not there yet.

What's the timeline?

That's kind of like February-ish.

So the... The technical assistance part goes through the beginning of next year, right? But then if we do the academic, the partnership with the academic partner, that would likely be an effort that would start in 2027 and then extend beyond that.

We haven't, in this little work group, we should chat at some point about actual proposal we'd like for this research project. The research project is not directly part of what's been given to us through the assistance with APPR, but it's kind of an added piece, if you will, of kind of support. And it's to see like part of the goal of identifying where there's needs, where we can make some improvements. It's then actually later than testing those, not just recommending the changes and maybe even implementing them, but then seeing if we can find a difference. Things like even the manner in which we give notices to contractors. defendants and others about the next hearing and things like that as if we can find a more effective way to do that and thereby decreasing failures to appear testing that a little bit and and so on so

Judge, can I add one thing? I will give a shout out to Tamarine because she's been leading this project and has helped me move from the, if those involved in the system justice mapping will remember, there's about a six by six foot map. of our system that I've been toting around. Tamarine has now created that online. So as things are updated and we create more diversion, we can have that kind of as a living, breathing document. So it's a huge improvement. So I appreciate that.

Is that available for the public to have access to or is that an internal, is that on a CJC website or where does that look?

Once we're done, so that's why we want to check with all those subject matter experts, right? Because, for instance, the old map didn't have the community restorative court on it, right? And so I had handwritten it in. So all these changes should be reflected. And so that's why meeting with the district attorney, meeting with the sheriff's office and others has been so critical. So still in process, but we're getting closer.

Good, good questions. Anybody else? All right. Good. So we do have a presentation. And Jessica Ireland from APPR, I think is going to introduce that she's online. And she is again, our main contact and support person for this, this project we were just talking about, but this is related, but a little different. Jessica, you can go ahead.

Sure. Can you all hear me?

Yes.

All right, perfect. Well, good afternoon, County Executive and Pre-Trial Services Subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting me to your meeting today. I want to start by recognizing the members of the Pathway team who really, they have invested tremendous time and effort into this work. And I know Judge McNamara has named them, but I want to Really call them out again. Judge McNamara, Colleen, Tamarine, Shannon and James. They have been meeting regularly, reviewing information and asking thoughtful questions to help move this project forward. And honestly, their commitment and engagement is really what has made them or allowed them to make the progress that they have made to date. So the group has reached an important milestone in the Pathways to Pretrial Advancement Initiative, and they have completed their jail overview, and that's what Tamarine is going to share with you today. By taking a closer look at who is being booked into jail, how long people stay, and the characteristics of that population, you can begin to gain a clearer understanding of how the system functions in practice. When doing a jail overview, jurisdictions discover that data confirms some assumptions, it challenges others, and it raises new questions. That's what makes a jail overview so valuable. It gives you a factual starting point for future discussions and helps ensure that any improvements you decide to make are grounded in local data and not just anecdotes or perceptions. As the team continues working towards the goal that you've already heard them mention, reducing failures to appear, and strengthening the diversion continuum, understanding who is in the jail and why is critical to identifying the opportunities that will have the greatest impact. So I really appreciate the work that has gone into this. I know Tamarine has spent a lot of time looking at the data. And with that, I will turn it over to her to walk us through those findings, unless you have any questions for me.

Okay, Tamarine.

Oh, I think I'm on my mouse. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. So the goal of today's presentation is to show how the jail is part of the pretrial system and support these discussions about how to improve the system that are grounded in the strategic plan that the Community Justice Council has set out. Any time that we share information, that data sharing is made possible by the data sharing agreement signed by the data owners on the Community Justice Council. So I like to see that at the beginning of every time because it just shows how important that foundational work is. So thank you for the people who worked on that and to the Sheriff's Office for making the data available and to Michelle DeForest, whose work and time spent on making sure that the data is accurate and presented in an appropriate context is really critical. OK, so the first part, I'm going to show you some information about jail bookings. And then the second part will be about people, individuals. This chart shows the number of custodial jail bookings over the last couple years. The orange part, the dark orange part, is jail bookings that only have a new arrest on it. That's the only reason for entry. The light orange part is they have a new arrest and something else on it, most commonly a probation or parole violation. And then the gray part is... bookings that do not have a new arrest on it. Like, let's say, for example, they were booked into the jail to serve their sentence, or they were booked into jail on only a probation or parole violation. The dark and the light orange bookings are the ones that are the most relevant to the work that this subcommittee does because those involve a new arrest, and so those people could then become part of the pretrial system. You can see that the total number of bookings over the last couple of years took a big dive during the pandemic. Right. I mean, we've all seen we've seen like every single chart that exists basically as a big dive during the pandemic. Right. And then it has resumed. It has rebounded to really almost exactly the pre-pandemic levels. It's been pretty consistent. The orange part, so the bookings that have a new arrest that also went down during the pandemic, but then when it rebounded, it rebounded with a little extra, right? It's above pre-pandemic levels, the number of bookings with a new arrest. So before the pandemic, it was about half of these bookings had a new arrest. And after the pandemic, it's more like 60%. So what kind of offenses are on these new arrests? This is information that's been presented to the Community Justice Council in a variety of different ways. And sometimes it's slightly different years that we're looking at or a slightly different context or group of bookings. But regardless, the most common offense across all those is disorderly conduct. Around half of the new arrests included a disorderly conduct offense. Maybe something else in disorderly conduct, but a disorderly conduct. The second most common is battery. And then after that, felony and misdemeanor bail jumping, and then resisting and obstructing, rounding out the five most common offenses. Somebody asked me after a recent presentation, what is bail jumping? So bail jumping is when you violate the conditions of your pretrial release. So let's say that you are facing criminal charges, you're in jail, you are released on bail, bail or on a signature bond, you agree to a series of conditions. You might need to stay away from certain people or a certain place, and you always have to avoid new criminal activity. And then if you violate that, you can get a bail jumping offense. Another thing to note is that both disorderly conduct and battery can have an enhancer that indicates that domestic abuse is associated with it. So more than half of them have a domestic abuse enhancer. And so then that means a mandatory arrest for those offenses. Okay, so the next slide also shows offenses just in a slightly different way. So this shows offense combinations, right? Because perhaps it's disorderly conduct on something else, or might be battery in something else. So the most common combination is just a disorderly conduct, one disorderly conduct. So again, it's very common. The next most common is a disorderly conduct and a battery together. Combinations of an OWI, misdemeanor bail jumping, and a disorderly conduct combined with the criminal damage to property are also very common on new arrests for jail bookings. And again, the disorderly conduct and the battery, more than half of those have a domestic abuse modifier requiring a mandatory arrest. In terms of whether there's a felony for new arrests on jail bookings, 43% include a felony, 24% include a violent offense. And I did look at changes, potential changes over time and there weren't any. So this is not one of those pre post pandemic changes. In terms of how long people spend in the jail, if they come in on a new arrest only with no hold, then the typical number of overnights that they spend in jail, the median is one. Around a third of the bookings, people get in and out of jail on the same day without an overnight. And those are almost always misdemeanors. for bookings that have a new arrest, how do those bookings resolve? How does the individual get out of jail? Well, the two most common ways by far are either a signature bond or bail. And then there's some other ways that those people are released as well. Okay, now we're going to shift to looking at individuals rather than bookings. So this chart shows the population of the jail over since 2018 through the end of 2025. The thing about the jail, about any population, is it's just a snapshot in a moment and it changes from time to time, right? Like the number of people in the jail at 9 a.m. is different from the number of people in the jail at 10 a.m. So rather than focusing on a single number, it's good to just look at broad strokes. So in this chart, the dark orange part of the bar is people who have pre-arraignment or pre-trial judicial status. And the light orange is people who have pre-arraignment or pre-trial judicial status and have a hold. So those are the individuals who are the most relevant to the work that the pre-trial subcommittee is doing. And then the gray part of the bar is people who are in the jail who do not have a pre-arraignment or pretrial status. So you can see big dive during the pandemic, right? And then a climb back up, but not quite to pre-pandemic levels. If you look, you can see that on a typical day, the number of the people in the jail post-pandemic is a little lower than the number of people in the jail pre-pandemic. Overall, the total length of the bar. But if you look at the pre-arraignment and pre-trial population, the orange parts that took a dive during the pandemic climbed back up and then continued climbing back up and is now higher than it was before the pandemic. So more people in the jail. There are more people in the jail post-pandemic that have a pre-arraignment or pre-trial status than there were pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic, it was around a third. Post-pandemic, it's closer to half. And what do people look like who are in jail who have pre-arraignment or pretrial status? Again, this is not, this is an approximation because it changes, it fluctuates all the time, but this is an average over a series of snapshots. So it gives a general idea. So they are majority black with about a third being white and the remainder being other races. They are heavily male. and then most of them are in their 20s or 30s. So that's people who are in the jail who have pretrial or pre-arraignment status. That concludes the presentation. Are there any questions or thoughts about this or the larger project?

Mike Peter? Going back to your booking, I think the third slide, Just wondering, there's a certain group that when they go to initial appearances, sometimes they haven't been booked. And so they go over and get booked that day. Is that counted in here too?

No. So they are like, they process the paperwork essentially, and then are not really, they just essentially fill out the paperwork.

Well, they actually physically go over to the jail and get booked like everyone else.

Right. But I believe those are non-custodial bookings. Is that right?

They get booked in right away. They get a number, their charters are entered, and it's all come.

Is that a custodial booking?

Are you saying people who come into the jail aren't booked to go directly to a housing unit?

No, no, no, no. So in this number, there are people who do out of custody initial appearances. If they haven't been booked as part of the process, they sign their bond and then they go to the jail and get booked. So that's a new booking for them. And I'm just wondering if this number includes those people as well, or just the people who come. Yes.

That's right, yeah, that's right. That's what I thought, but.

That answers my question. Okay, great.

So on this slide, the gray group are like probation holds or violations?

Yes, for people who might be booked on a, that's right, on a probation violation or they're serving a sentence or.

Or in transit, a state person in transit coming in for a hearing or something.

For those that are on probation holds or in the process of revocation, how many of those end up having new charges come throughout that process at some point? Could you look at that?

So say this again.

So for the individuals who are on holds or in the process of revocation, Some of those individuals, their conduct will create new charges. Have you calculated in the number of new charges? Because right now it looks like those people don't create new charges or have no new arrests.

If the reason for entry was a probation hold, then they would be in the gray part.

Only a group. Yes, yes.

But your reality is that gray group will create new charges, some portion of them, and possibly 30%. So right now, your numbers don't necessarily look to calculate that in. Because those charges are going to come later because there's a different hold. So there's a time. So if you're arrested on Monday before 8 a.m., right, we're going to have to have a must go by Tuesday for charging. But if you come in on a probation hold, we don't have that must go because that's not the new charge is not what's holding them. What I'm I'm just saying is there's a factor of. or portion in that gray group that's going to create a new charge that you guys are not counting, at least in what you have there.

So I switched the slide because this may be, this is judicial status. So this is the individuals and the individual's judicial status can change throughout their stay in the jail. And that may be a different way and a better way of looking at it for that particular part. So because somebody may be in the jail and, you know, they may be brought into arrest, but then later they're serving their sentence. So their judicial status changed, but the booking didn't necessarily change.

I don't know if there's a way for me to know whether or not you've counted those people who create a new charge. Because it looks to me like your dark oranges are the arrests and we're charging. Right? There are new arrests. All I'm saying is you have a portion in that gray group that had we charged, you would look at that as a new arrest. Correct? Correct.

Yeah, so there's an entry into the jail, and then if it has a new arrest at the time of the entry, then it's in the orange. And if it's not, and that's categorized at the time of entry, then it would not be in there.

But there's a portion in there that basically are going to have new charges. And all I'm saying is I don't know that you are counting them or have accounted for them.

Okay, we'll tell you what. I'll take a look, and maybe we can follow up another time.

I just don't know if anything that happens right now within the way you're looking at the population will flag those people. And it's fine, because right now you're counting them in the jail as to what's holding them. All I'm saying is there's a portion of that gray that potentially would be counted in the orange... but for the initial hold because their time trigger for our charging decision is different when they're in on a hold versus in on the new charge. But here's the other problem, right? Because the community doesn't understand this. And the jail gets beat up and corrections gets beat up because there's a portion and they say, you are driving our jail population because you're holding people and there's no new offense. or you are revoking people with no new offense. And that's fine, but when you're looking at what's driving our jail population, you need to be able to account for potential new charges or new criminal violations within that gray group.

Right, which I think is why Jessica recommends that last graph shows why people, why they're there now. This just shows how people get started. And so you're absolutely correct. And it's a good point that some people will start their jail, get booked in with just a hold. But after further investigation, they get a new charge. But that's not going to be reflected in the booking because that's not how it started. But it would be reflected over time in that last graph why they're being held now. Here, this is the daily population. I mean, except for the few people that are still in the gray whom that's not grabbing, there hasn't yet been a new charge filed. But that just depends on what day you count it and so on.

Yeah, I get it. I get it. I'm just saying if we're going to be accurate, we should figure some of that out. Because some of those holds, they technically have an arrest. They are brought to the jail, but we haven't made a charging decision.

Yeah.

Right. But it looks like it's only probation and parole and corrections holding them.

Yeah.

And like there's no new offense associated with them.

Yeah, so I think the shift where you said holding them goes to this chart, starting how they got into the jail is the booking part. It is what they're counting as booking, but these are good, strong points.

I'm just saying when we really start looking at what drives our jail population. and how we can potentially make changes or decisions to affect it we just sort of have to yeah realize that and i'm not just i like what i'm seeing i like how it's being portrayed i'm just saying i think that we the gray part may be a little misleading yeah if we don't if we don't account for potential people within the gray that actually have new charges referred and or yeah follow

So I had a question.

Well, I just want to say thanks for the input, and I'll think about whether there's ways to depict that.

If it's still on this point, maybe we will go to...

It is on that point. Because you said new arrests on jail bookings, and you have the felony and violent offense. Are you using what's referred or what's actually charged?

The offense at the time of the booking, so not necessarily what's charged. Right.

So I think that that kind of gets to your point, too, is that they wouldn't be in the, whether or not they'd be in the gray area because they've been referred, even if you have a hold, you've been referred with a set of charges. And I don't know, to the DA's point, maybe you are capturing it if you're going off that referral and a hold.

If they were brought in. I think there are times, and that's the only reason I pointed out, I think there are times when law enforcement tags someone, calls corrections, corrections says put a hold on them, they take them on the hold to the jail. They haven't referred anything to us yet, so they actually haven't put PC on them in the jail for the new offense. And I'm just saying that that gray area doesn't accurately count those people that might actually have that happen.

Right. And I guess that's procedurally be interesting because in that case he's describing, we see that. which isn't well known that corrections, we have an administrative preliminary hearing. Just for your, like to parse out the numbers. And so what he's describing is where they just pick them up. You're on a hold from DOC. There may be, DOC has some allegations that may or may not be criminal. And when that happens, that triggers us triggers them to have the right to have a preliminary hearing within the jail so it's never part of this record out here does that make sense yeah how soon does that happen it's rare and so that's why i think it's interesting that the numbers would have because when we get them it's a quick turnaround so like within 72 hours we're in doing that preliminary hearing and then And they can range as far as like, it can be just like violations that will never be criminal to something actually criminal.

Okay.

And, but I have no idea. And that's what I'm asking. Like that, that would be interesting because I have no idea the numbers just anecdotally.

So part of this, if I could just editorialize, is that, One reason I think data has not been well collected in criminal justice is that it's so complicated. There's so many nuances. It's like you squeeze here and it comes out over there. And you're like, wait a minute, I was trying to get this. And it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But these are all strong points. I know the county exec had a question or comment.

Thank you to Jessica and Tamarine for this presentation and I appreciate the robust conversation in the room. I do feel like the approximate daily jail population slide, like that could be a PhD broken down into a lot of how is it, why is it, and I have like curious questions about, as you pointed out, the two orange sections are increasing from 30% to 40% to 50%. Are there guesses or facts as to what is causing that? If we took out the average daily stay of one people, so it was people that are there longer, how does this change? Because I do think that the People who we really need to be having conversations with are not the people that are in there for a hot second, would like to eliminate anyone being in there for a hot second. But, you know, how do we bring that population, the population down and get people through the system faster? And what are the causes? Why are we seeing that increase? the driver is increasing by more than 10% over the last less than 10 years.

Well, this is something that the work group had talked about because we reviewed this as well. And I don't think we really settled on an idea. Judge McNamara, you want to talk about? No. Yeah.

We have a theory or hypothesis about these ships.

Can I ask a question on this slide specifically? Is each one of the bars represent a month? Yes.

It's a snapshot on that month. That's right. Again, because it's a snapshot, it can vary a lot even during a day, let alone like during the month. So sort of like look at the broad outlines rather than a month to month change.

Yeah. And getting to the kind of trajectory of more folks. Yeah. I'm also wondering with pretrial supervision, if that increase has been seen in requests for pretrial supervision. That's similar trajectory from 2018, and I can't even recall when we created the department.

I mean, I would say that.

Was it before COVID? Yeah.

I mean, the use of the PSA would have been in 2015. And then, I mean, but our use of our tracking of data doesn't necessarily go back that far. I think that, I mean, I could certainly look at the numbers. There's been an increase definitely in the number, I believe, of referrals with equipment, whether that translates directly to an increase in the number of individuals referred to us. I'd have to break down further because we have I mean, limitations, obviously, as to like our capacity and workload. So even if we received an increase in the number of referrals, we're capped at a certain number, no matter what.

We have a question about the release for booking graph releases. And I'm almost certain I've probably talked to you about this, but I don't remember. I'm puzzled about the the 27% signature bond release, because we know from the report I did in 2018 and the work that you've updated as well, that counting cases, a much higher percentage of cases have a signature bond, 81% of all the cases. I'm puzzled that such a small number of the releases are on signature bond when we know 81% of the cases at some point in the life of the case get a signature bond.

That's what I was going to point out to you, at some point in the life, and this is just how they are stepping out the first time. So if someone pays, gets out on a misdemeanor, and then at their initial appearance bail is refunded, that would show up here as bail.

But even for particularly misdemeanors in criminal traffic, way a strong majority, like 70%, always only have a signature bond. So I mean, they've never had a cash bail. So where someone might start with a cash bail, but then after some time get that reviewed, You know, it would come in later than as a signature bond prep or start as a bail. But then so that wouldn't capture the change to the signature bond. But most of the cases only had a signature bond.

Well, I guess I would I would point to that. And then also it's a different time frame as well. I would have to do some additional exploration to figure out why that looks differently. But I can look into that.

Yeah, yeah. I'd be so for the years 2018 to 25. And yeah, you're right. I mean, my, my timeline was before that. We do see I see in cases a lot. And it's always confusing me on my calendars. My clerk notes it that people will pay cash based like on this schedule, the bond schedule. and get released, but then when they show up in IA, it becomes a signature bond and they get refunded whatever money they've paid. That might be part of what's going on there. I think, yeah. Yes.

Okay. So the majority of misdemeanors leave the jail. After paying cash.

On the schedule.

But then I get a signature bond.

Correct. Right. And that would show up as a. On CCAP, that looks like a signature bond. Because I don't see that. There's not a court data entry of a cash bail order. Because it was never a cash bail order. But they posted cash. And I can see that when it comes through sometimes. Because it says deposit. But there's no money there. Because it was refunded. All right. Other questions? Anyone? Looks like Jessica. Oh, yeah. Jessica, yeah. Your hand's up there, I guess.

Thank you. Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt. No, I just want to add, I mean, one thing that we couldn't directly tie to the jail overview and just bringing it back to the actual work that we're looking at is the failure to appears, right? Because if you're charged with failure to appear and you come in, Timmering, I always seemingly get this confused, it can be coded under bail jumping. And so with the work that the group is doing to reduce failure to appears, I do believe that that could help reduce some of your bookings, because if you implement different failure to appear procedures, you know, there's a lot that we need to look at. I do think you could see improvement because separately, Tamarine is tracking the number of failure to appears. We just don't have that all fleshed out yet. But it's hard to make that one on one comparison between the number of failure to appears that the court has issued. and then the number of people that are coming into jail and staying there just on a failure to appear. So I just wanted to throw that out there, that that is a lot of the part of the work that the group is going to continue to do.

Just to clarify, bail jumpings are typically not failure to appears.

But if you're able to get a bench warrant, how does that look when they come into the jail on a bench warrant? What is that coded as? It's coded as that.

Well, we can pull that it's a bench warrant, but we don't know why, right? I mean, it could be a warrant for something else.

Only failure to appear? Or perhaps a pretrial service violation?

Yeah, right. So it would be other things, yeah.

So that is going to be a gap, is that you're not going to know. Sorry if I said it bill jumping. It's the warrant. You're not going to know the numbers coming into your jail? No. purely on a failure to appear. So, I mean, I do wish that was something we could isolate, but we just haven't been able to do that.

Part of this bail jumping jargon for us is out of sync with perhaps a lot of other jurisdictions because it's Theoretically, at its root, it's for people who don't show up. That's bail jumping, literally. But it gets used in Wisconsin and in Dane County more for violations of conditions other than failing to appear. In fact, I don't know if I've ever really seen a bail jump charged as charged as the failure to appear. It's almost always some other violation, which is contrary to how that term's used in a lot of other places. I don't know if that's a conscious decision in the DA's office to not... When someone doesn't show up, you don't charge it as a bail jump?

No, usually when someone doesn't show up, the court issues the warrant, so there's no... the court is addressing the failure to appear. So, I mean, I guess technically we could, but we typically would not look to...

I'm not asking you to. No, I know.

I'm just saying I think the reason is because the court's addressing it and we know that the person will likely be held.

Yeah, yeah, that's reasonable. All right, well, good discussion.

Thank you very much for the work. Sure thing.

And Jessica, for your help in all of this too. So, Next about future.

Judge, can I just make one note on that? With Jessica here, I mean, I think one of the goals that I would have as a member of this committee, too, is like once we get the data down to the key pieces that this committee wants to track, how often, you know, is that we're looking at this on an annual basis, like pulling it into the CJC pretrial plan so that we are more regularly having these conversations. So the nuances around the data are more familiar to all of us, right? But I think that's going to be a key, hopefully with Jessica's help from her looking around the nation, like how people, how communities are really tracking and then bringing that to the forefront on a regular basis. Yeah, go ahead.

Right. Go ahead, Jessica.

No, I was going to say, I agree. And I think that's where whatever policy and practice changes you do implement, you would want to go back to some of what Tamarine even showed you. Like, are you seeing a change? Is your jail population changing? Are people staying shorter? Because if you're not seeing results that you want, right, then you need to go back and look at, were these the right policy and practice changes? So I would agree. Most places do monthly, if not quarterly, to be honest with you. So I think once you've really drilled down those data pieces, you want to hone in on that I agree, Colleen. It is something that you should continue to look at as a group.

Good, good. Thanks. We're kind of just starting here. So future discussions ahead on all of this. And then also about future, future meetings and dates. There's an announcement, I think, for one of our future meetings.

Sure. So on July 23rd at 1215 in hybrid fashion, per the usual, we will be having a very special session where Harvard Law School's professor from Access to Justice Lab, Jim Greiner is coming to Madison to give the presentation with one of his colleagues from Access to Justice about the multi-multi-year study we were with Jim around the safety assessment and pre-trial supervision kind of bundle. And so it's a joint meeting of the CJC pretrial and the CJC. So those lucky members who are on both, you get double starred for showing up. But We'll have a special session where Jim will present now the national findings. We were one county out of, I think, five that they studied. And just a good opportunity to hear what they have to say. And then I think think forward with pretrial and think forward. for future possibilities, even working with Harvard again. I will say all of our national partners have stated to me what a pleasure it is to work with dane county because of the curious stakeholders and because of the data rich environment that we have established here so um i just have to pass that kudos along to everybody who's um has any touch points with that but it should be a really interesting meeting so i'm looking forward to it july 23rd 12 15 with the big cjc good good

And then, yeah, go ahead.

I just, I don't know where this fits, but I think it would be interesting to track the bench warrants and even a raw number, but maybe there's a way we could pull out what are pre-trial violations and even then the judge still calling them in versus, you know, missed court and then there's a warrant issued.

Yeah, I mean, I can search on CCAP for bench warrant issued. um and returned um the it takes a lot more work to figure out why why it was issued and why it was returned because that's not just a code that's the narrative right but i think if we start there yeah i mean i have some questions about it and if there's a way to as i'm thinking about it or the way the data comes in yeah maybe there is something we can parse out

Because those are people who would spend a day in jail at least. Yeah, sometimes. Coming in on a bench warrant. Yeah. If they don't turn themselves in. Right.

Do we have a plan to set a date for just this subcommittee in the future? Is that already kind of circled?

We have an October meeting on the calendar. With the date? Yes. It's already been scheduled and everybody has it on their calendar. Okay. I don't know what it is right off the top of my head, but I can tell you in a minute.

Okay. Well, that's okay. It's just good that we have that so we'll have it in July. Do we have public comments not on the agenda? We do not. Okay. And other business that's allowed by law? Good. It's 1.05. Second. All right. We will adjourn. Thank you. Thank you.