Download Richmond CCJB Biennial Plan FY2014-2015

CITY OF RICHMOND
COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-2015
RICHMOND COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
2013 MEMBERSHIP
CITIZEN APPOINTEE
Albertina R. Walker
CCJB Chair
COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY
Honorable Michael N. Herring, Esquire
CCJB Vice-Chair
City of Richmond
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
Susan D. Hansen, Esquire
Office of the Public Defender
City of Richmond
POLICE
Ray J. Tarasovic
Chief of Police
City of Richmond
SHERIFF
Honorable Clarence T. Woody, Jr.
Sheriff
Richmond City Jail
MAGISTRATE
Gary M. Wooldridge, Esquire
Chief Magistrate
City of Richmond
CITIZEN APPOINTEE
Krista Samuels, Esquire
CCJB Secretary
CIRCUIT COURT
Honorable Clarence N. Jenkins, Jr.
Judge
Richmond Circuit Court
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT
Honorable D. Eugene Cheek, Sr.
Judge
Richmond General District Court
Criminal Division
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISTRICT COURT
Honorable Richard B. Campbell
Judge
Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court
RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
Dr. Jack O. Lanier, MHA, FACHE
Chief Executive Officer
Richmond Behavioral Health Authority
CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Michelle R. Mosby
City Council Member
Richmond City Council 9th District
CITIZEN APPOINTEE
David A.C. Long, Esquire
CITIZEN APPOINTEE
Dr. Julie A. Molloy
CITY STAFF/PROGRAM STAFF:
David M. Hicks, Esquire
Interim Director
Department of Justice Services
Rufus Fleming
Deputy Director
Department of Justice Services
Dr. Rhonda A. Gilmer
Deputy Director
Department of Justice Services
Jennifer MacArthur
Program Manager
Division of Adult Programs
Department of Justice Services
Cecelia V. Garner
Criminal Justice Planner
Department of Justice Services
Thomas Okuda Fitzpatrick, Esquire
Criminal Justice Planner
Department of Justice Services
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
CCJB Role and Responsibility........................................................................................................ 4
Background of the Plan ................................................................................................................... 5
Process Review Committee ............................................................................................................ 5
Programs Review Committee ......................................................................................................... 6
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
System Overview ............................................................................................................................ 6
Richmond’s Criminal Justice System Interventions and Community-Based Sentences ................ 7
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Interventions and Programs ................................................. 8
Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) .......................................................................................... 8
Crisis Triage Center (CTC) ............................................................................................... 10
Mental Health Docket ....................................................................................................... 10
Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program ............................................................... 11
Substance Abuse Alternative Sentencing Project ............................................................. 11
Addressing the Overlap Between Homelessness, Criminal Justice, and Mental Illness . 12
Bond Reform and Pretrial Services............................................................................................... 13
Pretrial Risk Assessment and PRAXIS Report ................................................................. 14
Non Incarceration Sentence Options ............................................................................................ 16
Day Reporting Center (DRC) ........................................................................................... 16
Community Corrections/Local Probation ......................................................................... 17
Programs Dashboard ..................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A: Jail Population ......................................................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Pretrial Population in Jail ........................................................................................ 20
Appendix C: Pretrial Supervision ................................................................................................. 21
Appendix D: Sentenced Population at Jail.................................................................................... 22
Appendix E: Local Probation Supervision ................................................................................... 23
Appendix F: Mental Health at the Richmond City Jail................................................................. 24
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The opening of the new Justice Center marks a new approach for Richmond’s criminal
justice system that ensures public safety by strengthening defendants’ and offenders’ ties to the
community. The shift in city agencies’ policies and practices parallels a national movement
towards the adoption of evidence-based practices that combat recidivism and maintain safe and
strong communities.
The Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) provided a roadmap in the
FY2011-2012 biennial plan to implement evidenced-based practices, policies, and programs with
an eye towards reducing the jail census. This current plan builds upon the successful
implementation of many of the initiatives in the last biennial plan and charts a course towards
even greater adoption of practices and programs that are rooted in research. The research and
planning for these initiatives not only considered the current scholarly literature and program
successes in other localities, but also data collected from Richmond’s criminal justice and mental
health agencies.
With the goals of lowering the number of individuals incarcerated and reducing
recidivism in the city, the CCJB’s plan includes reforms in pretrial release and bail decisions,
greater utilization of community-based sentencing options, and treatment for individuals with
mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. A key focus of these initiatives is the
adoption of risk and needs assessments and screenings to ensure that participants are placed in
the most appropriate programs for their individual situations.
Building upon the recommendations provided in the FY2011-2012 biennial plan, the City
of Richmond (1) implemented a mental health docket in the General District Court to provide
particular case management and treatment for defendants with underlying mental illnesses; (2)
implemented a mental health alternative sentencing program to provide a specialized probation
sentence coupled with community-based treatment and support services; (3) received federal
grant awards for expanding emergency, permanent supportive and rapid supportive housing for
court-involved individuals; (4) expanded the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training for police
officers; (5) established a Crisis Triage Center (CTC), where law enforcement officers can
transfer custody of individuals in crisis to professionals of a secure assessment facility to receive
a clinical evaluation and linkage to appropriate care; and (6) expanded the electronic monitoring
program for certain defendants and offenders supervised in the community using Global
Position System (GPS) monitoring equipment.
A thorough review of the inmate population revealed that roughly a third of the inmates
on any given day were awaiting trial in a pretrial status and were held either without bail or were
incarcerated because they could not post a secured bond. To provide better information to
judicial officers that will assist in release decisions, the City of Richmond pretrial services
agency has adopted a revamped research-based risk assessment instrument to identify those
individuals who pose a likelihood of appearing for court and remaining crime-free.
To enhance community-based sentence options, a Day Reporting Center (DRC) will be
established to provide intensive intervention for offenders that would otherwise receive a jail
sentence.
Page 3
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
The initiatives described in this plan reflect a collective goal of the CCJB, criminal
justice agencies, and community partners to reduce the jail population in a sustainable fashion
while ensuring public safety. However, a sustainable reduction in recidivism requires attention to
improving quality of life through job readiness training, continuity of care of behavioral health,
and breaking the homelessness-to-jail cycle.
CCJB ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
The City of Richmond established the Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board
(CCJB) pursuant to The Comprehensive Community Corrections Act that requires jurisdictions
to establish local pretrial services or community-based probation programs to also establish local
CCJBs. 1 The board provides a direct link from state, federal and other local criminal justice
entities to the Richmond community.
In addition to advising on the operations of the local pretrial services and communitybased probation services, as provided for in the Virginia Code, the Richmond CCJB also serves
as a planning and advisory body to the city for developing, monitoring, and evaluating
community corrections programs that provide the judicial system with community-based
sentencing options for certain individuals. Membership is legislated to consist of judges from
Circuit Court, General District Court, and Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, the Chief
Magistrate, the Chief of Police, an attorney from the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney;
the Public Defender or a defense attorney; the Sheriff; a local educator; the Community Service
Board (CSB) administrator, a city council member, and citizen appointees.
The purpose of the Richmond Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) is: (1) to allow
the City Council of the City of Richmond greater flexibility and involvement in responding to
crime in the city; (2) to provide more effective protection to the citizens of the City of
Richmond; (3) to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of community criminal
justice; (4) to provide increased opportunities for adult offenders to make restitution through
financial reimbursement or the performance of community services; (5) to permit the City of
Richmond through this board, to establish policies that structure programs which will assist
judicial officers in discharging their duties and meet the needs of selected adult offenders; and
(6) to approve funding sources that support programs engaging in pre and post trial services.
Section 9.1-175 of the Code of Virginia requires that each CCJB must adopt and approve
a biennial plan of its objectives and goals, and the strategies for implementing the programs and
meeting the objectives and goals of the CCJB.
1
Virginia Code § 9.1-173, et seq.
Page 4
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN
In preparation for the opening of the Richmond City Justice Center, the City of
Richmond has adopted a comprehensive plan to reduce incarceration and recidivism. The city
has embarked on a multipronged approach that promotes public safety by providing appropriate
levels of intervention and responses based on risks to the community. Whereas the historical
paradigm assumed jail to be the default option for public safety for most defendants and
offenders, research published by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has informed the
formulation of new city policies and practices that presumes jail as the alternative placement or
sentencing option.2 This new paradigm of jail being the alternative is predicated on three main
tenants: treating individuals with mental illness or substance abuse in community-based
programs, early releases for lower risk defendants awaiting trial, and alternatives to incarceration
sentencing options for certain offenders.
The FY2011-2012 CCJB Biennial Plan outlined more than a dozen potential
programmatic and process changes for the city’s criminal justice agencies to consider.3 Most of
the initiatives have been either implemented or are slated to be established in the coming
biennium. This plan builds upon those proposals.
In addition to the work plan put forth by the CCJB, several workgroups and ad hoc
meetings of stakeholders were established to review how individuals are processed through the
criminal justice system, to assess the services provided and identify the programmatic needs that
still remain. Specifically, two working committees, the Process Review Committee and
Programs Review Committee, were formed to evaluate current sentencing and jail diversion
options; determine how current initiatives can be maximized; identify barriers in the criminal
justice system that may contribute to delays in pretrial release; and recommend policy changes in
case processing decisions.
PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Process Review Committee worked to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
Richmond’s criminal justice system by evaluating policies and procedures that impact the length
of stay in jail and jail admissions. The committee assessed how defendants are currently
processed through the system and recommended changes to case processing decisions and
agencies’ policies. The committee worked to establish a common understanding of risk-based
assessments and identified the need to implement an actuarial risk assessment tool to guide the
community-based sentence placement recommendations. The committee also reviewed the
pretrial release process and identified solutions to ensure that bail decisions are driven by
assessed risks and that conditions for release do not result in unnecessarily long jail stays. (See
Bond Reform Section).
2
Bennett, D.M. & Lattin, D., Jail Capacity Planning Guide, A Systems Approach (U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections 2009).
3
A copy of the FY2011-2012 biennial plan is available at
http://www.richmondgov.com/JusticeServices/documents/CommunityCriminalJusticeBoard2011-2012Plan.pdf
Page 5
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
PROGRAMS REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Programs Committee reviewed current sentencing options and jail diversion
programs to determine how existing initiatives can be better utilized. The committee has started
to review eligibility criteria for programs and will continue to identify changes that may be
needed to increase program utilization. In the coming year, the committee will also review and
implement evaluation criteria for the community-based sentencing programs and will develop
protocols for sharing data on program participants and outcomes.
DATA ANALYSIS
In 2010, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) conducted an assessment of
Richmond’s Jail and Justice System and recommended that policy decisions should be guided
with data collected from the local justice system.4 To better understand the nuances of the jail
population and the individuals processed through Richmond’s criminal justice system, the city’s
Criminal Justice Planners worked with staff from the Sherriff’s office, the Virginia Department
of Criminal Justice Services, and the Richmond Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney to
analyze Richmond specific data. These findings informed the planning and development of the
initiatives set forth in this biennial plan. An understanding that roughly one third of the jail
population are defendants awaiting trial and are not serving sentences informed the need to
concentrate on pretrial bond reforms. (See Appendix A). Likewise, a full understanding of the
population with mental illness at the jail has illustrated the need for the mental health docket and
other initiatives in the community for individuals with mental illness. (See Appendix F). As is
often the case, data sharing and robust data collection are needed to sustain and enhance these
initiatives.
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The following schematic map of Richmond’s criminal justice system illustrates the
processes by which justice-involved individuals are assessed and placed into community-based
treatment or supervision programs. The map is broadly divided into four categories and considers
interventions at key decision points in the criminal justice system. 5 These key points include
decisions on arrest, pretrial status, charges, plea determinations, sentencing, community-based
programs, jail release, violation response, and discharge from the criminal justice system.
4
City of Richmond Jail and Justice System Assessment TA #10J1074, (National Institute of Corrections NIC: August
9, 2012), available at
http://www.richmondgov.com/Sheriff/documents/NIC_TA_Assessment_Report_Final_August_2010.pdf
5
These decision points roughly follow the framework published in A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision
Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems (Center for Effective Public Policy, Pretrial Justice Institute, Justice
Management Institute, and the Carey Group: 2010).
Page 6
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
RICHMOND’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
INTERVENTIONS AND COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES
Page 7
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INTERVENTIONS AND PROGRAMS
In 2009, the Mental Health Sub-Committee of the CCJB hosted a two-day Mental Health
and Criminal Justice Cross System Mapping workshop to improve services and support for
individuals in the criminal justice system with serious mental illness and co-occurring mental
illness and substance use disorders. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, the participants
developed a comprehensive understanding of how people with mental illness and co-occurring
disorders process through the Richmond criminal justice system along five distinct intercept
points: 1) Law Enforcement and Emergency Services, 2) Initial Detention/Initial Court Hearings,
3) Jails and Courts, 4) Re-entry, and 5) Community Corrections/Community Support. The
workshop identified gaps, opportunities and resources to prevent unnecessary engagement of
Richmond residents with mental illness and co-occurring mental illness and substance use
disorders with the criminal justice system. This workshop laid the groundwork for the
development of the mental health strategies in the FY2011-2012 biennial plan and the initiatives
described in this plan.
Richmond is not unique in the number of individuals with mental illness that are involved
in the criminal justice system.6 The efforts to address individuals with mental health and cooccurring disorders have resulted in a concerted effort to provide appropriate community-based
treatment to individuals who can be safely managed in the community. These efforts start at the
initial contact with law enforcement officers, all of whom will be required to be trained in the
Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model. CIT trained officers understand the unique needs of
individuals experiencing mental health crises and respond compassionately to de-escalate the
situation. When appropriate, the officers bring individuals to the Crisis Triage Center (CTC)
rather than to the jail, to be assessed by dedicated crisis staff clinicians from the Richmond
Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA) and connected to treatment.
For those individuals who are taken to jail, clinical assessments are made to determine
eligibility to a special Mental Health Docket. This docket adjudicates misdemeanor cases with a
focus towards providing appropriate community-based treatment to individuals. A team
comprised of pretrial and probation officers, clinicians, defense attorneys, and prosecutors meet
to discuss each case and a General District Court Judge monitors participants’ treatment
progress. The Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Project provides an alternative to
incarceration with participants receiving treatment and community-based support services as a
condition of their probation sentence. These initiatives are described with detail in the next few
pages.
CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CIT)
In 2008, Richmond began the process of implementing the Crisis Intervention Team
(CIT) model to equip officers with the skills necessary to more effectively communicate with
and understand the particular needs of individuals with mental illnesses. Integral to the CIT
program is specialized training on how to compassionately de-escalate situations involving
6
National Alliance on Mental Illness Virginia, Fact Sheet: Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System,
available at http://namivirginia.org/assets/pdfs/MIandCriminalJusticeSystem.pdf
Page 8
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
persons with mental illness. This allows officers to reduce the potential for misunderstanding and
respond safely and quickly to individuals in crisis.
During the course of their regular patrol duties, police officers routinely encounter
individuals with mental illness who exhibit symptoms or behaviors that may appear to be
inappropriate, violent or dangerous. Additionally, the statutory structure of Virginia’s civil
commitment process requires police officers to routinely interact with individuals in crisis
situations that may have mental illness or behavior health disorders.7 Proper training helps
police officers to properly identify these individuals and intervene more effectively.
Richmond’s CIT program is part of a state-wide expansion of CIT provided for in the
Virginia Code.8 The goals of the CIT programs as outlined in the Virginia Code include:
1. Providing immediate response by specially trained law-enforcement officers;
2. Reducing the amount of time officers spend out of service awaiting assessment and
disposition;
3. Affording persons with mental illness, substance abuse problems, or both, a sense of
dignity in crisis situations;
4. Reducing the likelihood of physical confrontation;
5. Decreasing arrests and use of force;
6. Identifying underserved populations with mental illness, substance abuse problems,
or both, and linking them to appropriate care;
7. Providing support and assistance for mental health treatment professionals;
8. Decreasing the use of arrest and detention of persons experiencing mental health
and/or substance abuse crises by providing better access to timely treatment;
9. Providing a therapeutic location or protocol for officers to bring individuals in crisis
for assessment that is not a law-enforcement or jail facility;
10. Increasing public recognition and appreciation for the mental health needs of a
community;
11. Decreasing injuries to law-enforcement officers during crisis events;
12. Reducing inappropriate arrests of individuals with mental illness in crisis situations;
and
13. Decreasing the need for mental health treatment in jail.
The CIT program is modeled after a program originally developed by the Memphis,
Tennessee Police Department. The police-based specialized response program also provides
officers with specialized mental health training and on various procedures guiding decisions
related to disposition, transportation, custodial transfer, and diversion to appropriate treatment of
individuals with mental illness experiencing crisis. This forty-hour intensive training is coinstructed with clinicians from RBHA and dedicated trainers from the Richmond Police
Department. In April 2010, the Richmond Police Department participated in the first 40-hour
training session for CIT and now regularly conducts training for not only the Richmond Police,
but also staff from the Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department, the Richmond
Sheriff’s Office and neighboring localities. As of December 2013, more than two hundred sworn
Richmond police officers have been trained in CIT. The goal of the Richmond Police
Department is to train the entire department.
7
8
Code of Virginia, §37.2-800 et. seq.
Code of Virginia, §9.1-187 et. seq.
Page 9
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
CRISIS TRIAGE CENTER (CTC)
As part of the second step in the CIT program,9 the Richmond Behavioral Health
Authority and Richmond Police Department established the Crisis Triage Center (CTC) to serve
as a secure assessment center where specially-trained police officers respond to calls involving
people experiencing a serious mental health issue. Located at HCA-Chippenham Hospital in
partnership with Chesterfield Community Service Board, the multijurisdictional center combines
medical, psychiatric, law enforcement, and emergency mental health resources in one convenient
and accessible location. The CTC allows officers to transfer custody of individuals in crisis to an
on-site CIT trained officer and return to their duties while the center’s staff provides
comprehensive medical and psychiatric assessments and link the individual to treatment if
necessary.
The CTC helps prevent the criminalization of people with mental illness by providing a
secure place for police officers to bring individuals with mental illness in lieu of jail. It also
improves the efficiently and timely delivery of services to individuals in crisis by screening for
hospitalization in one location. In addition to the voluntary admissions that currently take place
at HCA-Chippenham Hospital; the CTC clinicians are able to evaluate the individual's need for
acute inpatient psychiatric hospitalization on a temporary detainment order (TDO). The CTC is
currently staffed for ten hours a day during the peak hours of crisis, from 2 p.m. to midnight.
With additional resources, the goal is to expand the CTC to twenty-four hour coverage and
eventually establish a second CTC north of the river.
MENTAL HEALTH DOCKET
The City of Richmond implemented the Mental Health Pretrial Docket in May 2011 to
provide case management of alleged offenders with underlying mental illnesses. Participants are
assessed for clinical diagnoses and their risks and needs as part of a mental health treatment plan.
The docket adjudicates misdemeanor cases with a focus towards providing appropriate treatment
to individuals. A team comprised of pretrial and probation officers, clinicians, defense attorneys,
and prosecutors meet to discuss each case and a General District Court judge monitors
participants’ treatment progress. The Mental Health Pretrial Docket is not a substitute for
criminal dockets in the General District Courts; instead, it is intended to identify defendants who
may be suitable for management in the community, rather than detention at the Richmond City
Jail.
Any defendant currently under the jurisdiction of the General District Court for pending
charges may be assessed for eligibility, regardless of the nature or grade of offense. Placement of
a case on the docket ensures only that the case will be managed with consideration for the
defendant’s mental illness. It does not guarantee a particular disposition or outcome. All inmates
in the jail are initially screened for mental illnesses as part of their intake medical screening. A
mental health clinician and the Region IV Jail Team (a collaborative effort between RBHA, area
9
Essential Elements for the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Crisis Intervention Team Programs (CIT):
CIT Program Development Guidance 2011. available at http://vacitcoalition.org/essential_elements_of_virginia_cit
Page 10
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
Community Services Boards and Central State Hospital) conduct assessments on individuals
identified as potential candidates for the docket.
For a defendant who is deemed eligible, the mental health clinician makes one of the
following recommendations:
o The defendant’s illness requires inpatient services at an appropriate facility;
o The defendant’s illness cannot be safely managed in the community; or
o The defendant’s illness can be safely managed in an outpatient setting in the
community with appropriate resources.
Individuals who are managed in the community and have had no new arrests, are actively
progressing with their treatment plans, do not test for illicit substances, and comply with pretrial
are be deemed successful. Successful completion may result in a motion from the
Commonwealth’s Attorney for removal from pretrial supervision, dismissal of relevant charges,
or a specific sentence of suspended jail time.
In FY2013, 125 defendants were placed on the Mental Health Docket, a majority of
whom were diverted from the jail and received care in the community.
MENTAL HEALTH ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROGRAM
The Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Project dovetails the Mental Health Docket
and provides a non-incarceration sentence for participants receiving treatment and communitybased support services as a condition of their probation sentence. Comprised of the same
collaborative partners as the Mental Health Docket, this sentencing program allows for an
uninterrupted continuum of care for adjudicated and sentenced individuals. Participants’
progress is monitored by the collaborative partners and the presiding judge of the Mental Health
Docket. Successful completion of the program typically results in the dismissal of case. In
FY2013, 40 individuals were sentenced to the Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program
SUBSTANCE ABUSE ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROJECT
The Substance Abuse Alternative Sentencing Project is a collaborative effort between the
Richmond Behavior Health Authority (RBHA) and the Department of Justice Services (DJS) to
provide a comprehensive substance use program as a community-based sentence. The program
provides clinical assessments of defendants and develop individualized service plans based on
identified problems, strengths and needs; group-based substance use disorder educational or
therapeutic treatment services (motivational enhancement, relapse prevention, psychoeducational health, wellness and recovery groups) and purchase other substance use disorder
treatment services, if and when needed, as appropriate for each defendant, including but not
limited to methadone or other medication-assisted therapies, detoxification services, residential
substance use disorder treatment services, residential recovery support services or additional
outpatient services. Thirty two individuals entered treatment through the Substance Abuse
Alternative Sentencing Project in FY2013.
Page 11
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
ADDRESSING THE OVERLAP BETWEEN HOMELESSNESS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND
MENTAL ILLNESS
In Richmond, as elsewhere, a small group with complex needs drives escalating
corrections and other emergency costs. These frequent users alternate between incarceration,
hospitals, detoxification centers, and homelessness. The Richmond 2013 annual point in time
survey found that 76.7% of homeless adults disclosed jail history.10 In 2012, Homeward, the
region’s homeless coordinating agency, conducted a local study to better understand linkages
between homelessness and contact with the criminal justice system.11 The study identified 2,685
individuals in both systems; 13% had touched both jail and shelter systems more than four times
over five years. A majority of this group suffers from mental illness, contributing to their
cyclical behavior. This data suggests existing interventions are insufficient.
The partnership, called the Richmond Frequent Users System Engagement (FUSE),
includes the Department of Justice Services, Department of Social Services, Sheriff’s Office,
Homeward, and RBHA. FUSE builds on interagency collaborations and pubic investments to
provide comprehensive mental health, substance use, and other support services with affordable
housing to ensure housing stability and increase opportunities for employment and self
sufficiency for frequent users in Richmond. Recently, the City of Richmond received two grants
from The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide housing
assistance to individuals participating in the Mental Health Docket and Alternative Sentencing
Program. One of the grants provides twenty individuals with short to mid-term rental assistance
who have the ability to maintain housing. The other provides permanent supportive housing to
participants who have significant jail and homelessness experiences and require wrap around
case management services. The goal is to reduce the costs of homelessness and incarceration of
mentally ill offenders who are chronically homeless and who have been in jail and in shelters and
who with moderate support could sustain themselves in private housing. A FUSE case manager
will coordinate wrap around care in conjunction with the Mental Health Docket and Mental
Health Alternative Sentencing Program collaborative.
Eligibility criteria for the short to mid-term assistance are mental illness, homelessness,
and a history of incarceration. The permanent supportive housing assistance is reserved for
individuals in the Mental Health Docket and Mental Health Alternative Sentencing Program with
mental illness and chronic homelessness with at least four stays in jail in the last five years. The
FUSE case manager will work with a contracted housing locator to guide the client through
housing searches and leasing. FUSE is consumer-centered, with 24-hour crisis response that
provides tenants with hands-on assistance and to ensure housing stability.
10
January 2013 Snapshot of Ex-Offenders Experiencing Homelessness in the Richmond Region, Homeward,
available at http://www.homewardva.org/sftp-homeward/January%202013%20exoffender%20snapshot.pdf
11
Ackermann, M., The Relationship between Incarceration in the Richmond City Jail and Stays in Local Homeless.
Homeward (2010).
Page 12
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
BOND REFORM AND PRETRIAL SERVICES
Roughly a third of the jail population on a given day is awaiting trial and not serving a
sentence. Further, data reveals that misdemeanor defendants incarcerated prior to trial averaged
about five days in jail before being released, while defendants charged with non-violent felonies
stayed in jail an average of 23 days and defendants charged with drug felonies averaged 34 days.
Many of these individuals are eventually released to the community prior to their trial; however,
before they are released they must either pay the full amount of their secured bond or pay a bail
bondsman. For lower risk defendants, these stays in the jail can amount to unnecessary jail
stays.
The FY2011-2012 Biennial Plan recognized the need to increase utilization of an
actuarial risk assessment to identify those individuals that pose a likelihood of appearing for
court and remaining crime-free, and releasing them from the jail in a timely manner. To this end,
the city has adopted a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) led initiative
called Praxis that bases pretrial release recommendations on defendants’ assessed risk levels and
current charges to keep high-risk defendants in jail and allow lower risk defendants to await their
trial in the community. This DCJS initiative is part of a research project to validate a new risk
assessment tool that builds upon the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument. (See Pretrial
Risk Assessment & PRAXIS Report section).
In order to guide the courts in their bail decisions, pretrial investigators conduct
interviews with defendants soon after they are committed to the Sheriff’s custody by the
magistrates, verify relevant information, and complete the risk assessment report on the
defendant’s likelihood to appear for court and remain crime free if released. These reports are
used by the prosecutors in making bond recommendations to the court and used by the courts as
part of their bail decisions. The bail decisions are made at the earliest feasible point to allow
defendants to timely return to their families and structured lives. Ideally these reports are used by
the courts at the arraignment hearing the next business day after the individuals has been
committed or at a bond hearing requested by the defendant.
For individuals that are assessed to be of low risk to the community, recommendations
are made to the court to allow the defendants to be released on their own recognizance. When
deemed necessary, defendants are released on bond and supervised by pretrial officers to assure
court appearances and community safety. The goal of pretrial supervision is to ensure that the
defendant returns to court and remains crime-free while under supervision. While on supervision,
defendants must meet regularly with their pretrial officer. Defendants may also be required to
submit to drug and alcohol testing when ordered by the court as a bail condition. Certain
defendants are also monitored with a Global Positioning System (GPS) embedded ankle bracelet.
The use of Pretrial Supervision has increased in the last several years, with a precipitous increase
in FY2012. (See Appendix C). The number of individuals placed onto pretrial supervision
increased by about 45% from FY2011 to FY 2012, with about 500 more placements for
defendants facing felony charges.
Historically, the City of Richmond has relied on secured bonds to assure court
appearances and safety in the community during the pretrial stage. Secured bonds require
defendants to either pay the full amount before being released, or pay a bail bondsman a fee
(usually set at 10% of the bond amount). In turn, the bail bondsman provides surety to the court
that the individual will appear for court. Unsecured bonds, on the other hand, allow for a
Page 13
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
defendant to be released upon the promise to return to court and payment of the bond amount
only if the defendant fails to appear. Least restrictive are recognizance bonds which allow for
defendants’ release upon their promise to return to court and do not set a monetary bond amount.
Recent research in the field of pretrial release reveals that secured bonds do not provide
increased public safety compared to unsecured bonds, when defendants are released from jail.
Research by the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) reveals that for “defendants who were lower,
moderate, or higher risk…unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving public safety…[and] are
as effective at achieving court appearance as secured bonds.”12 A 2011 study in Virginia
similarly found that defendants released on pretrial supervision with unsecured bonds had higher
appearance rates and lower rearrest rates when compared to defendants released to pretrial
supervision with secure bonds.13
The PJI study also found that secured bonds are “associated with more pretrial jail bed
use but not increased court appearance rates.”14 This higher bed rate use is associated with
"fewer secured bond defendants being released and when they are released, taking more time to
do so...”15 Over reliance on secured bonds disproportionately incarcerates poor defendants and is
a primary cause of incarceration for low risk individuals who do not pose a significant risk of
committing a crime or failing to appear for court.16 Too often poor defendants “remain in
custody because they cannot afford to post the financial bail set by a court.”17
This research has informed the city’s bond reform efforts, the increased use of pretrial
risk assessment instruments, and the increased use of pretrial supervision. The results of
Richmond’s use of the risk assessment instruments will be analyzed as part of a state-wide
research study on pretrial risk assessments and supervision being conducted by the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services.
PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT & PRAXIS REPORT
The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) is an objective and researchbased risk assessment tool used to determine the risk of flight and danger to the community
posed by pretrial defendants. Pretrial investigators interview defendants committed to the city
jail and verify information with references to produce VPRAI reports prior to arraignments. The
pretrial investigators examine the following eight risk factors to assign one of five risk level
indicating the likelihood of pretrial failure:
1. Current Charge is a Felony. The report factors whether the most serious charge for the
arrest event is a misdemeanor or a felony.
12
Jones, M.R. Unsecured Bonds: The As Effective and Most Efficient Pretrial Release Option, Washington, D.C.,
Pretrial Justice Institute (2013), 3.
13
VanNostrand, M., Rose, K.J., & Weibrecht, K., State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and
Supervision, Pretrial Justice Institute (2011).
14
Jones, M.R., Unsecured Bond, 3
15
Ibid, 21.
16
Dresssel, W.F. & Mohoney, B, Pretrial Justice in Criminal Cases: Judges’ Perspectives on Key Issues, The
National Judicial College (2013), 12.
17
Ibid, 12.
Page 14
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
2. Pending Charges at the Time of Arrest. Pending charges require that the defendant was
previously arrested for one or more charges for jailable offenses and has been arrested for
a new crime that was allegedly committed while released on bail pending trial.
3. Adult Criminal History. A conviction as an adult for a jailable offense is counted as a
prior criminal history. A charge with a deferred disposition is not counted as a conviction.
4. Two or More Failures to Appear (FTA). An arrest for failure to appear, bail jumping,
or contempt of court that was a result of failing to appear is counted.
5. Two or More Violent Convictions. Violent convictions are defined for the purposes of
risk assessment to include the following: murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, abduction,
malicious wounding, robbery, carjacking, arson, assault (simple assault or assault &
battery/misdemeanor or felony), and sex offenses (rape, sexual assault/battery, carnal
knowledge of a child, forcible sodomy). Convictions for burglary and possession or
brandishing of a firearm are not counted as violent convictions. A conviction for attempt
or being an accessory before the fact to commit any of the offenses is counted.
6. Length at Current Residence Less than One Year. A residence is where the defendant
currently lives and does not include non-residences such as a jail, prison, halfway house,
hospital, or shelter.
7. Not Employed/Primary Caregiver for Previous Two Years. Employment includes part
time or full time work performed regularly and consistently for a minimum of 20 hours
per week. A defendant is considered a primary caregiver if he or she is responsible for,
and consistently cares for, at least one dependent child or disabled or elderly family
member, living with the defendant at the time of the arrest.
8. History of Drug Abuse. Drug abuse includes illegal or prescription drugs and does not
include alcohol. Consideration is given to the information provided by the defendant,
criminal history, supervision records, and information provided by references.
One of five risk levels (low, below average, average, above average, and high) is
assigned to the defendant based on the risk factors, with each risk factor increasing the risk level
by one step (except for the failure to appear factor, which increases the risk level by two steps).
The PRAXIS recommendation grid matches the VPRAI risk level with the current
charges to generate a recommendation to the court reflecting the least restrictive terms and
conditions of release that will reasonably assure a defendant will appear for court and not present
a danger to the community during the pretrial stage. The report makes one of three
recommendations. For individuals who can be safely managed in the community, the PRAXIS
will recommend a recognizance or unsecured bonds. For defendants that cannot be safely
managed in the community, the PRAXIS will recommend that the defendant be held without
bond. And for those individuals who can be managed in the community but may need additional
assurances to mitigate the risk of release, Pretrial Supervision will be recommended. After being
court ordered to Pretrial Supervision, defendants are placed on a differentiated supervision level
based on their risk level and the current charges. The supervision level is administered by the
pretrial office and determines the frequency with which the defendants must meet with their
pretrial officer.
The PRAXIS report does not include information contained in the police report and does
not reflect the circumstances of the alleged offense. It remains merely a tool to be used by the
courts in considering bail decisions. Additional information from the Commonwealth, defense
attorneys, and police reports are also considered by the courts in the bail decision.
Page 15
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
NON INCARCERATION SENTENCE OPTIONS
The National Institute of Corrections report on Richmond’s justice system recommended
a shift in perspective to view incarceration at the jail as the alternative, rather than the expected
default sanctioning option. Rather than calling community-based programs “jail alternatives,” the
NIC report suggested a change in nomenclature to accompany this change in outlook. To stem
overcrowding at the jail, the report suggested that city officials should “…view the communitybased programs and services as the first choice or preferred, and the jail as the option to be used
only when these options are contraindicated...”18 Underlying this paradigm shift is an
assumption that jail sentences should be reserved for those individuals who truly pose a danger
to the community and that interventions that target the criminogenic factors that lead to crime
can be successful when provided for in community-based programs. The sentencing options
available to the courts provide a spectrum of sanction possibilities, depending on the severity of
the crime and the needs of the defendant. Risk and needs assessments are conducted on
defendants to determine appropriate placement and treatment dosages for participants
DAY REPORTING CENTER (DRC)
The Day Reporting Center (DRC) will provide a one-stop community-based sentencing
option. Slated to open in early 2014 at 501 North Ninth Street in the Richmond Public Safety
Building, the program provides participants with evidence-based intervention principles proven
to change criminal behavior. Up to 150 participants, who have been screened for appropriate
placement into the program, will remain in the community in lieu of a jail sentence and will
initially report to the center on a daily basis. They will receive structured support and classes to
address unhealthy behaviors, substance abuse, anger management, education, job readiness, and
life skills. Additional programming may include relapse prevention, mental health assessments,
and family counseling.
The DRC will monitor participants with daily check-ins, regular drug and alcohol testing,
and intensive case management. Participants will also be required to perform community labor as
a condition of participation. In addition to serving as a non-incarceration sanction, the DRC’s
goal is to help offenders gain structure and stability in their lives and change the way they think
and behave. Participants will learn and practice the skills necessary to live responsible lives and
will be ready to obtain gainful employment.
18
City of Richmond Jail and Justice System Assessment TA #10J1074, (National Institute of Corrections NIC:
August 9, 2012.
Page 16
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS / LOCAL PROBATION
The Department of Justice Services Division of Adult Programs (DAP) continues to
provide local probation supervision as a community-based sentence for persons convicted of
certain misdemeanors or non-violent felonies for which jail sentences would be 12 months or
less. Established pursuant to the 1995 Comprehensive Community Corrections Act (CCCA,
§9.1-173 COV), local probation provides a continuum of punitive sanctions and treatment
services. Local probation officers utilize risk assessments to target criminogenic risk factors and
employ strategies to encourage behavioral change. Participants are also regularly screened for
substance use and are provided with treatment options when necessary. DAP also provides
electronic monitoring using GPS technology for certain court-ordered individuals.
Page 17
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
PROGRAMS DASHBOARD
In order to sustain the use of community-based sentence options, the city is developing a
computer dashboard to provide up-to-date information about sentence programs to judges,
defense attorneys, prosecutors, court personnel, and probation officers. These community-based
sentencing programs may be conditions of criminal sentences or part of the probation
obligations.
Phase one of the secured web-based application will provide an easy to use interface for
users to check the capacity for new placements and enrollments before a referral to a program is
made. In addition to providing current enrollment numbers, the dashboard will also provide to
users placement criteria, targeted populations, and detailed information about the programs. The
dashboard will provide timely reports on the capacity and utilization of the programs.
Information from the dashboard will be used to help increase utilization of the different
programs.
Future plans for the dashboard include a centralized screening for defendants and the
ability to electronically refer individuals to programs. This second phase of the dashboard will
also include the ability for service providers to report to probation officers and to the courts on
the progress individuals are making in the programs.
Page 18
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX A: JAIL POPULATION
Three Year Comparison Average Daily Population (ADP) Richmond City Jail
Source: Richmond City Sheriff’s Office
Richmond City Jail Subpopulation by Confinement Status CY2012
Source: Data from Compensation Board LIDS Average Daily Population Information Report (Formally the Tuesday
Report). Analysis by Richmond DJS.
*The values represented in the graph are averages of the twelve monthly point-in-time snap shot reports rather than
aggregate monthly averages as reported by the Sheriff’s Office.
** State Responsible Sentenced Inmates are individuals convicted of one or more felony offenses with sentences of
more than one year. Local Responsible Sentenced Inmates are individuals convicted of one or more felony offences
with effective sentences of less than one year.
***This graph does not include the average 1.5 federal inmates per month.
Page 19
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX B: PRETRIAL POPULATION IN JAIL
Average Length of Stay (LOS) to Date, for Pretrial Inmates
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent Fel
Violent Misd
Drug Misd
2009
53.2
29.8
21.4
4.7
8.4
Nonviolent
Misd
4.1
2010
55.8
26.8
21.4
5.6
5.4
3.9
2011
67.3
33.7
23.1
5.3
5.1
3.9
2012
67.7
33.9
23.1
5.5
4.8
4.7
Pretrial Average Daily Population
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent Fel
Violent Misd
Drug Misd
2009
153.4
95.6
71.0
12.3
2.5
Nonviolent
Misd
41.7
2010
168.9
81.2
72.2
15.5
2.5
41.7
2011
193.2
84.5
74.4
13.8
1.6
39.6
2012
182.6
81.9
72.6
13.0
1.5
37.0
Count of Pretrial Inmates in Richmond City Jail
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent Fel
Violent Misd
Drug Misd
2009
261.8
221.3
204.7
104.5
14.8
Nonviolent
Misd
365.4
2010
281.0
199.3
206.8
110.5
14.9
366.7
2011
296.3
182.8
204.0
100.1
12.6
356.9
2012
283.2
179.2
208.7
91.8
12.1
316.8
Source: Data from Compensation Boards LIDS data and PMON Report. Analysis by Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and City of Richmond DJS.
*In some cases, a pretrial inmate's confinement status may be overwritten. Analysis here includes inmates who were
in the pretrial category (Category G in LIDS) during the monthly PMON report.
**For inmates still confined at the end of the month, LOS-to-Date = Last Day of the Month - Commitment Date. For
those released during the month, LOS-to-Date = Release Date - Commitment Date.
Page 20
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX C: PRETRIAL SUPERVISION
The Department of Justice Services Division of Adult Programs provides supervision and
services to defendants awaiting trial that have been released on bond and ordered to pretrial
supervision by the courts. The goal of pretrial supervision is to ensure that the defendant returns
to court and remains crime-free while under supervision. While on supervision, defendants must
meet regularly with their pretrial officer. Defendants may also be required to submit to drug and
alcohol testing when ordered by the court as a bail condition.
Number of Defendants Placed on Pretrial Supervision
Source: DJS, PTCC Database
*Defendants charged with both misdemeanors and felonies are counted as felony defendants.
Average Length of Pretrial Supervision
Source: DJS, PTCC Database
Page 21
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX D: SENTENCED POPULATION AT JAIL
Average Length of Stay (LOS)* by Most Serious Committing Offense (Days)
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent
Fel
Violent
Misd
Drug Misd
Nonviolent
Misd
Ordinance
2009
105.8
83.0
80.1
33.1
24.2
31.0
9.0
2010
108.3
85.5
95.6
34.5
21.7
24.8
13.7
2011
91.3
78.2
84.8
32.3
13.1
24.1
4.5
2012
104.3
68.2
70.7
36.0
11.0
23.3
8.2
Count by Most Serious Committing Offense (Number of Individuals Released)
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent
Fel
Violent
Misd
Drug Misd
Nonviolent
Misd
Ordinance
2009
179
505
355
170
86
1,690
1
2010
2011
183
196
404
355
314
325
161
196
124
124
1,621
1,751
8
7
2012
179
369
327
143
130
1,323
4
Jail Bed Days by Most Serious Committing Offense
Year
Violent Fel
Drug Fel
Nonviolent
Fel
Violent
Misd
Drug Misd
Nonviolent
Misd
Ordinance
2009
18,872
42,169
29,021
5,781
2,036
49,967
9
2010
19,778
34,844
30,754
5,538
2,749
39,795
216
2011
18,014
27,606
26,235
6,232
1,529
41,983
77
2012
18,604
25,272
22,801
5,091
1,354
30,392
196
Source: Data from Compensation Boards LIDS data and PMON Report. Analysis by Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and City of Richmond DJS.
Page 22
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX E: LOCAL PROBATION SUPERVISION
The Division of Adult Programs provides probation supervision as a community-based
sentence for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors or non-violent felonies for which jail
sentences would be 12 months or less. The tables below represent the number of offenders
supervised on local probation and the average length of probation supervision. These offenders have
been convicted of misdemeanant and non-violent felony offenses for which the court imposes a jail
sentence but requires less than institutional custody.
Number of Offenders Placed on Probation Supervision
Source: Richmond DJS, PTCC Database
Average Length of Probation Supervision
Source: Richmond DJS, PTCC Database
Page 23
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
APPENDIX F: MENTAL HEALTH AT THE RICHMOND CITY JAIL
Data from Annual One Month Snap Shots (July)
Number & Diagnoses of Inmate Mental Illness in Jails
2013
2012
2011
2010
Schizophrenia
or Delusional
Disorder
52
99
69
6
Bipolar or
Major
Depressive
41
26
103
11
Mild
Depression
Anxiety
Disorders
PTSD
14
34
16
12
17
17
2
5
26
19
-
Other
Mental
Illness
44
0
2
2
Mentally Ill
with no
Diagnosis
1
19
0
30
Total Mental
Illness
Population
195
228
192
66
Source: 2013, 2012 & 2011 Appendix C; 2010 Appendix B
Most Serious Offense of Inmates with Mental Illness in Jails
2013
2012
2011
2010
Most Serious
Offense
Reported as
Felony
170
124
165
42
Most Serious
Offense
Reported as
Misdemeanor
29
104
27
24
Most Serious
Offense
Reported as
Drug
47
82
27
8
Most Serious
Offense
Reported as
Violent
86
38
96
20
Most Serious
Offense
Reported as
Non-Violent
66
108
69
38
Total Inmates
Reported
199
228
192
66
Source: 2013, 2012 & 2011 Appendix D; 2010 Appendix C
Data Excerpted from the Mental Illness in Jails Reports, published by the Compensation Board. The 2013 report is
available at http://www.scb.virginia.gov/docs/2013mentalhealthreport.pdf. The data reflects information gathered
for the month of July as reported to the Compensation Board by the local and regional jails in their annual mental
health surveys.
Page 24
RICHMOND CCJB BIENNIAL PLAN FY2014-FY2015
Richmond City Jail Health Services Statistical Report
CY2012
Total # of New Patients seen by
Psychiatric Provider
Total # of follow up Visits by
Psychiatric Provider
Total # Positive Mental Health
Screens from Intake
Total # of Visits provided by
Mental Health Team
Total # of Visits provided to
Inmates on Special Needs list
during the month
Total # of Segregation Visits
performed by Mental Health Team
during the month
Total # of Inmates being followed
for Special Mental Health needs
Total # of requests for Mental
Health Services received during
the month
Total # of Inmates on Mental
Health Medication(s)
Avg
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
44
52
37
51
38
39
42
55
44
27
54
31
61
63
74
80
75
62
62
48
74
62
60
58
45
61
118
91
101
90
66
103
140
157
160
139
137
118
109
87
51
55
73
67
86
91
78
90
95
129
108
115
61
61
53
61
66
68
59
59
37
63
65
71
68
340
403
405
379
383
377
370
289
180
289
361
348
296
83
80
75
81
74
78
73
79
84
80
92
100
100
226
138
190
181
167
214
231
254
335
265
291
245
201
212
192
192
212
211
220
242
241
225
192
209
208
205
CY2013
Total # of New Patients seen by
Psychiatric Provider
Total # of follow up visits by
Psychiatric Provider
Total # Positive Mental Health
Screens from Intake
Total # of Visits provided by
Mental Health Team
Total # of Visits provided to
Inmates on Special Needs list
during the month
Total # of Segregation Visits
performed by Mental Health
Team during the month
Total # of Inmates being followed
for Special Mental Health needs
Total # of requests for Mental
Health Services received during
the month
Total # of Inmates on Mental
Health Medication(s)
Source: Richmond City Jail
Page 25
Avg
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
49
56
46
59
48
50
45
57
32
59
44
46
51
54
51
48
58
40
50
51
62
58
69
49
49
67
152
132
122
170
164
179
139
165
138
153
182
136
144
143
127
151
172
162
147
168
168
140
126
132
116
111
68
61
72
67
60
68
66
68
68
71
72
76
69
404
408
280
285
514
354
478
434
448
484
514
346
305
91
99
101
99
82
95
90
80
89
83
91
91
87
281
235
238
310
305
316
293
316
275
275
321
243
249
205
217
207
211
207
228
208
203
205
203
203
194
183
CITY OF RICHMOND
COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
BIENNIAL PLAN
FY2014-2015
CONTACT INFORMATION:
CECELIA V. GARNER, MSAJS, MA
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES
730 EAST BROAD STREET, 8TH FLOOR
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(804) 646-2966
EMAIL: [email protected]