Travis County Commissioners Court
September 19, 2006
Item 40
Let's call up the two sheriff's item, then. 40 is to take appropriate aption for two Texas, commission on the application for variances.
>> good morning, david blade, sheriff's office, corrections bureau. What I'm asking the court to approve and allow the judge to sign are two variance requests that will go before the Texas commission on jail standards at their next quarterly meeting scheduled for November 2. The last meeting of the year for the jail commission is always the meeting where variances are extended, approved or disapproved, for 12 months. It's routine for the jail standards commission to extend variances for 12 months. What we're asking for is a couple of things. One is we currently have 721 variance beds. The first request is to add an additional 140 beds to our current systems. It would add beds in buildings one, two, and four. Now, four is scheduled to be deconstructed sometimes next year, the exact date I really don't know. So even though I'm asking for beds right now, those would go away. We currently have some variance beds in building four, and this would add to that building. The other variance I'm asking is a classification variance to mix populations in the health services building. This was a variance that we had asked for in 2003 and was approved by the court and by the jail commission. It's just -- I let it slip last year. I forgot to go before them again and get another 12-month extension, but allowing all custody levels of inmates, whether minimum, medium or maximum to be mixed in the building is advantageous to us because we classify them more on need related to mental health as we do their custody status. Another agreement we had with jail standards is that we would not mix those populations within a cell, although they may be mixed within a unit. So the minimums would stay in their cells because we may have a maximum in the same unit but in a different cell, and when they were out co-mingling, it is a direct supervision situation with officers and so we should comfortable with that. Those are the two standards I'm asking you to approve to allow me to go before the commission in November to seek.
>> we think tht mixing of medical inmates in the unit is fairly commonplace?
>> it's actually -- and I probably misspoke, it's really not the medical inmates we do this with, we keep those separate, it's the inmates with mental health problems --
>> mental health?
>> yes, sir. And like I said, when we presented this to the jail commission in 2003, they fully understood and didn't have a problem with it. And we had it for 2003 and 204 and I didn't ask for it in 2005 and now I'm asking for it again.
>> move approval of that one. Based on the basically assurance that we can provide adequate security to protect inmates with mental health issues even if we mix them in the unit.
>> okay, thank you. The other one --
>> not done yet --
>> sorry.
>> not that easy. Answered that question yes, basically. We are sure we can protect inmates with mental health issues even if we mix them in the unit?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay, discussion of that motion? All those in favor, that passes by unanimous vote. Let me here the justification for requesting additional variance beds.
>> what we've run into this year, this month we had a population that exceeded 2800 on just a couple of occasions. Excuse me. And we've hovered around that 2800. Mark for most of the month of September. When we get past 2750 it becomes very, very difficult for us to manage our population because we have so many specialty units, a lot of inmates with special needs that don't always fill, you know, the capacity of that unit. So we have to look in other areas to di divert our populations to. We've only had a problem this month with our population. So the rest of the year, we've been fine and the 721 beds have served us well. The reason I'm asking for these additional bed social security to get -- additional beds is to get us through next year. We need additional beds in unit one and I've alerted standards that we've exceeded our capacity, our variance capacity in that building. But I've assured them and the most important thing to them as was your earlier concern, too, judge, was the safety and security. And I have assured them that we are not violating the 1:48 ratio. Although we are over in population we are still staffing it at the appropriate 1:48 to assure the safety of staff and inmates. So the additional variance beds probably won't even effect me this year because by the time I get them granted in November, hopefully our population will be lower. But next year, if our population does go up, this discuss a couple of things. One, creates 60 beds in one unit and when the building is taken down, I can convert these, and that decreases the need to go out of county if in fracture we needed to go out of county next year. It's just a best guesstimate. I don't know what the population is going to do next year. I'm very pleased, actually, with where we are today. I tholt that the population would be much higher at this time this year. Like I said, we've only had a couple of days over 2800. So we've been able to move our folks around and we didn't have to go out of county this year. That's what I'm trying to avoid with these beds for next year. These beds probably only serve us for August, September, October next year and that's what I'm really looking for.
>> how many beds would be take off line next year?
>> if this variance is approved, building four, will ea lip nate 144 beds -- eliminate 144 beds, and everything else will stay as is.
>> so this variance is basically supposed to cover the number of beds that go on off with building four?
>> not completely, and the reason I say that is the other 32 bed we are asking for is a maximum security unit, and the minimum inmates in building four would not be appropriate to go to those beds.
>> we are talking about adding another 140 beds --
>> yes, ma'am.
>> but in terms of what you just talked about in terms of when building four goes down if this variance is approved with the 24 we've already got and the 48 new ones, the reality is it's going to be a net 72 variance beds on top of where we are right now at whatever point that building four goes away. And some of the variance beds you're asking for is to deal with the fact that 144 beds net are going away with building four and to have the flexibility to move people around. Help me walk through the fact that we are -- I check it every morning -- hovering at 527 related to our population and even day we have about 3,000 approved beds including the variances. So what is the mex there in terms of why we can't use every available bed we've got and have to at times go out of county. Help all of us revisit that reason.
>> the biggest reason is what I kind of alluded to earlier. It's because of our specialty populations. The mental health population. We have a number of pregnant families that we isolate. We isolate all of our diabetics in the infirmary. I'm going blank. Our protective custody, we isolate, people normally charged with offenses that other inmates don't particularly --
>> so if we had beds that were one size fit all and you could put them anywhere and we couldn't have an issue with the variance beds you're asking for, but because we have to segregate out, you need to match the bed to the use and you need more than what is here --
>> yes, ma'am, that is very well put and that is correct.
>>
>> I'm just here to we be helpful.
>> and when we bring on the new beds I guess the concern is they will just replace the variance beds and we won't have any new capacity. The other thing is that if our goal is to advise people that work in the justice system that there is a finite number of beds and there are other measures that have worked in other areas, I mean, do we do that in we add another bed every time we need one or do we basically press for innovation and creativity, et cetera. And we have this discussion late every year looks like. I mean, I guess my own view is that if we are -- if we take a number of beds off line, then we ought to give people plenty of notice and effective a certain day, we'll only have a certain number of beds and we work in that direction. And the other thing is we've funded other programs that have nothing to do with the ser arrive's -- sheriff's office that are exposed to get people out of our custody. And do we really make them work if we are making it easy not to. The squeeze on us is we are running out of rooms at the inn. And what can we do to get some of the inmates out of our custody. In the mental health area we have four or five programs designed to get people out of our custody. And we are spending a pretty penny to do that in various places and we have other entities who have basically collaborated with us to pick the inmates up in the free world and try to help them. City of Austin housing and case management, some shelters along with the city of Austin -- so I guess I mean, why wouldn't be see this as a golden opportunity to pressure ourselves to see make this work? And I know if they don't come, you don't have this pressure, but others in the system I think should be not only given an opportunity to assist with this matter but also kind of put on notice that we ought to do this. I don't think we ought to spend millions of dollars on the front end and turn around and spend millions at the back end where the sheriff's office is. The millions on the front end are supposed to help us with the sheriff's office, and so I'm not sure it makes sense to me financially to bend on both ends. And this time last year I think we could say those programs really have thought been implemented yet. I don't know if we can say that now or over the next 12 months, and not to blame the sheriff's office, but my position on the variance bed social security let's give -- beds is let's give ours an opportunity to let the programs work on the front end and when I think of these programs I'm really 400,000 there and 350,000 there -- I mean, before you know it, you're up to a maland a-- to a millin and a half or two million right quick.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I'm not blaming the sheriff's office, because when they present, it's your responsibility to take them, and seems to me we ought to put ourselves nz a position where a little bit more pressure is applied on a the front end so that the number that ultimately arrives at the sheriff's office is smaller or at least stops increasing.
>> yes, sir. I fully understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with any of that. The justice system coordinating committee still meets regularly, and when our population went up we've had some emergency meetings to address the jail population. All of those entities are put on notice and they are doing, you know, a very good job, given the circumstances, and here is the circumstances. We track the number of arrests that come through central booking and have done so since we took over booking for all of travis county in 1988. Prior to this year, the number of arrests that exceeded 5,000 in a month only happened two or three times in the last, you know, 18 years or so. The last three months in a row there's been over 5,000 arrests each month in the last three months and that has significantly, of course, contributed to the increase in the jail population. And you're absolutely right. Every single person who is brought to our front door, we have a statutory obligation to tame them. I -- to take them. I understand there are a lot of diversionary programs out there, and hopefully they will kick in, but right now we're just being overwhelmed by the heresheer numbers of peope being brought in. And there is no relief. We set a record and then the next month we break that record. I commend the county attorney and the district attorney's office, they are setting records on the number of cases being filed with their offices, and the population is what it is. As I said earlier, I'm very surprised that it's not higher than it is now. So they have been put on notice. I routinely send out notices to these folks, letting them know where we are in our jail population and we tell them our breaking point is 2750, and they understand that. I think we've done a pretty good job, like I said, of maintaining that --
>> -- policy questions that as community we ought to get together and answer. This time last year we were all in agreement that certain offenders really should not be taken to central booking. They ought to be taken somewhere else to get help. If there are no beds at Travis County, I think the pressure not take individuals who should not go to central booking there is a whole lot greater. And if we simply take them if they show, which the sheriff may have an obligation to do, then that is too easy --
>> I don't disagree, around the point you made, it's a community issue, absolutely it's a community issue, and there are lot of times when jail is the only option. There are no other resources for these people to go unfortunately.
>> when is the deadline to get to the commission if we go in a timely manner?
>> I've already let them know that I'm going to seek the variance, and they just need it probably a week before the meeting. So I have, up until the last week of October to actually get them the final paperwork that is signed by you and the sheriff --
>> if I had to vote today, I would vote no.
>> okay.
>> I think we ought to take two weeks and figure out what policy decision do we need to make to really put a dent in this. Last time we requested for performance measures and county managers indicated they had not had an opportunity to implement and monitor, now that was back in January, wasn't it?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I don't that we should reasonably expect the same response today. So if we have two or three weeks maybe at our first meeting in October, before the 10th, we ought to give ourselves an opportunity to look at the innovative programs that we've funded. Now, if we need the variance beds, we need them, and if there are other things we were supposed to do to address the need for beds, period, seems to me we ought to give them an opportunity work and keep applying the pressure. Otherwise those investment we made I guaranty will not be good investments.
>> I agree with you wholeheartedly on that, but I guess looking at what guides us a lot is the budget and how much money we've got to work with within the constraints of our budget. And I guess I wanted to know how does pbo come up with this number? The jail population? How is that number derived and what I'm hearing is over that population and yet we are trying to squeeze something out of the -- can someone help me with that? How do we arie at this preliminary number for the jail population and then we hear all of this outside of that which kind of gets us in a lot hot water. Can someone talk to me about that?
>> yes, Commissioners, I will make a stab at it for sure.
>> thank you.
>> this year when the preliminary budget was filed, the population was much lower than it is right now and we were anticipating that the arrange daily population was going to be 2575 this year across all 12 months. There are months when the population will be below that, January, February, March and then months it will be above that, but across the year we believed about 2575. Right now that population projection with what we experienced in September, we expected about 2706 and we're at 2786 today I believe, something like that --
>> where today?
>> 2786. We were be going down. Last year on this same day, the population was 2782 and in '04 2550 or so. So there has been just a volume increase in the last two, three months that has started to edge the population above what was expected. The budget that we have today has an assumption of 2675 for the average daily population, the same that we assumed when we adopted the fy06 budget. So basically the custody staff and the costs related to food and utilities and all of this stuff is about the same as it was last year except for the fact that we have higher costs for many of these things. But the number of staff from the stand point of custody is effectively the same. The difference between this year and last year, though, is last year we did not have 3056 beds. We had some number less, about 140 less than that. So we assumed an out of county number because of that lower number was going to be about 300,000. That amount is also built into the reserve this year. The difference is we are going to lose at the point -- at the point where the population is highest, in the summer, the 96 bed nz building four. Those 96 beds will then go away from the 3056 and the number of beds we'll have available will be back to about the same number that was assumed in the fy06 budget. That means --
>> what is the bed capacity today?
>> 3056. Last year -- I'm doing this off of the top of my head, it was around 100 to 120 beds fewer at the point of the adoption of the fy06 budget. The capacity increased by jail standards in November or December subsequent to the budget adoption. Also, the first part of the fy06 budget adoption we had extraordinary population pressures because of hurricane katrina and rita.
>> I'm asking two weeks to give us a chance to do some reports. That is just one of us. Seems to me we ought to bring all of these issues together and not leave the sheriff's office with a whole lot of inmates out there on the island. It may be time for others of us to take some responsibility in that number, including those who arrest individuals and send them to us. I'm sitting here thinking of just various other innovative program, software, et cetera that we have funded and should have, but every time we funded a piece, we fund it had based on certain representations. And I don't recall the sheriff making these representations except maybe one. I think we ought to get with the managers in the next couple of weeks -- if we have to have the beds, we have to have them, but at the same time I'm not sure I would have cast an affirmative vote for the other things that represent fairly sizable financial investments if he had known we were not going to work them.
>> back to kimberly and the judge and i, the huge group that you went up to dallas to look at their mental health court, very interesting, and not a big bang impact on the numbers but it was interesting. And what I thought was most interesting was to have continued conversations up there that we need have on this court related to -- is it called the scram program? An electronic monitoring thing that is different in terms of just where are you. It can tell chemical changes in your body, and that is a system I think we have got to look at. This professional courtesy of two weeks could allow us to have some conversations there as to why are we not utilizing that more because I was able to hear how that is being put to much greater use in counties with similar issues to us with success. And when you talk about the monitoring costs compared to having people at the hilton ad I call it, we have got to bring everybody to the table. I know it's too soon to bring it to the agenda for the work session, but hopefully in the next two weeks we have got to get more innovative inside. I'm with you. We have to challenge ourselves to see see if we can do better.
>> I don't disagree, and I appreciate everybody trying to work on that, but if it doesn't work, I still have to get my population where it needs to be.
>> one week or two?
>> two is fine with us. Will that be automatic, judge, or do I need to something somewhere else up.
>> it will be automatic. We don't want it to be a distraction to you --
>> major, how much time do you need ask or go before jail standards? Do they meet more than quarterly? Once a month?
>> you missed the November getting in front of them, then you can't ask for a special consideration -- somebody can't give you that administratively? You have to go before them? And so if you miss November, whatwhere do you go?
>> I have to wait until February.
>> he already has a slot, and the question is that the one item or two or something in between in terms of a variance --
>> but October 3, we still have time --
>> oh, yeah.
>> ms. Pierce.
>> all I wanted to do was assure the court that our commit is meeting this Thursday at noon and all of the things you discussed are the first things on your agenda, and eye agree with you, there are no less than 10 to 15 jail diversion programs and we need to make sure we are all moving in the right direction. I just wanted to make sure I gave you that.
>> presently we have no one out of county --
>> that is correct.
>> because when we sent them out of county, that was -- some time this year we sent --
>> October, November, and December -- the first week or so --
>> okay.
>> -- that was due partially to the carry-over of '05 and the weather related issues --
>> that is the reason you have the 312 in the budget for --
>> there are two reasons we have 312 in the budget. One is the population is still projected to be the same as it was projected for the a6 budget and in actuality it could be somewhat higher than that. The second thing is there is an expectation that building four will go away before the end of may, and if it does, it will be necessary to have this reserve to accommodate the inmates that might be in building four. The budget assuming 85 inmates out for 92 days in fy07.
>> that is in the budget?
>> yes, sir, it absolutely is.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, and I would recommend two weeks.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:25 AM