SPOKANE COUNTY CORRECTIONS
NEEDS ASSESSMENT MASTER PLAN DRAFT

Prepared For:

Spokane County Sheriff’s Office
Detention Services Project
1100 W. Mallon
Spokane, WA. 99260

Prepared By:

10 S. Cedar Street
Spokane, WA 99201
In association with:
David Bennett Consulting
2940 American Saddler Drive
Park City, UT 84060
and
Donna Lattin Consulting
3124 Southwood Drive
Philomath, OR 97370
February 14, 2008

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Executive Summary
 
 
In 2007, Spokane County hired Integrus Architecture to plan for new correctional 
facilities. David Bennett Consulting was retained to conduct a broad assessment 
of the local criminal justice system to lay the groundwork for long‐term facility 
and system planning.   
 
The approach taken was based on the philosophy that detention planning should 
be based on a systems approach.  
 
This approach acknowledges that new beds alone cannot solve a county’s 
overcrowding problem. Available beds in any correctional facility have a 
tendency to become filled.  Build It and They Will Come.  However, assessing the 
efficiency of the criminal justice system first, as part of facility planning, can 
result in more comprehensive and lasting solutions.  
 
The approach taken for this study puts system data collection up front.  We 
collected jail data, case processing data, reviewed the availability of alternative 
programs, and produced jail forecast scenarios.  In addition to the data collection, 
we observed local criminal justice operations, met with key stakeholder and 
practitioners, reviewed local policies and procedures, and initiated discussions 
regarding some fundamental system changes.      
 
This Report finds that Spokane County has taken some important steps in 
developing innovative initiatives.  We commend the following:  
 
ƒ Drug Court 
ƒ Court Monitoring of Domestic Violence cases 
ƒ Therapeutic Mental Health Court 
ƒ Specialized Probation Caseloads 
ƒ DUI Intensive Supervision Program 
ƒ Jail Discharge Planning 
  
On the other hand the data collected points to significant system issues that merit 
attention.  
 

 
Executive Summary
Page 2

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Fragmented Adjudication 
ƒ

ƒ

 
The lack of a consolidated adjudication services contributes to system 
inefficiencies and added costs.  It can be seen in the time to case 
disposition and the high number of court appearances: 
   
Lack of streamlined processing: 63% of cases in Superior Court have 4 + 
appearances between arraignment and disposition 

 
ƒ

Case processing delays:  The average time from booking to filing of 
charges in Superior Court for out‐of‐custody cases is 70 days, more than 
double the time of those who remain in custody pending filing. 

ƒ

Significant case processing delays for out‐of‐custody cases: The average 
time from booking to sentencing in Superior Court is 135 days for in‐
custody case and 219 days for out of custody 

ƒ

A high percentage of post‐trial inmates exit the jail ‘time served’ (73% of 
misdemeanants and 42% of felons) 

 

 

 

Delays in Time to Filing 
ƒ

 
The  average  time  from  Booking  to  Case  Filing  in  Superior  Court  is  57 
days.   

ƒ

For out‐of‐custody cases the time to filing is more than 70 days  

 
 

High rates of Case Attrition 
ƒ

 
A high percentage of pre‐trial inmates exit the jail with no charges filed 
(27% of felony inmates) resulting in unnecessary failures‐to‐appear and 
subsequent arrests and booking when charges are filed 

 
ƒ

High attrition rates: District Court has a 32% not guilty of which almost all 
(97%) are cases dismissed.   The majority of dismissals (61%) are domestic 
violence cases.   

ƒ

High attrition rates: Felony filing rate for Superior Court is 69%; 31% cases 
not filed 

 

Executive Summary
Page 3

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 

High Pre‐Trial Failure Rates 
ƒ

ƒ

 
At 29 percent, the felony re‐arrest rate in Superior Court is 2 times the 
national average 
 
Relationship between case processing delays and pre‐trial failure: Of those 
defendants with a FTA out of Superior Court 35% had 2+ failures to 
appear 
 

Lack of Validated Risk Assessment to Guide Decisions 
 
No apparent relationship between defendant risk and type of pre‐trial 
release: Little difference in prior bookings and release to own 
recognizance or surety  
  

Jail Impacted by Narcotic Offenses  
 
Large impact from Narcotics offenses: At booking, the greatest percentage 
of felony charges were for Narcotics (43%); the greatest percentage of 
misdemeanor charges were Domestic Violence charges (37%) 
 

Jail has a Large Number of Inmates in ‘Hold’ status 
 
In the Spokane County Jail, 38 percent of inmates are in ‘hold’ status 
(federal holds, DOC, bench warrants, etc.).  39 percent of these cases also 
have local charges pending 
 

Heavy Reliance on Jail as a Sentencing Option 
 
77 percent of District Court cases and 71 percent of Superior Court cases 
were sentenced to jail 
 

Underutilization of Jail Step‐Down Alternatives 
 
There were only 26 inmates on work release at last count  

 
Executive Summary
Page 4

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Issues of Treatment Access and Quality 
 
There are issues of program underutilization, lack of subsidized 
treatment, and concern with program quality  
 

Redundant Supervision Services 
 
ƒ

ƒ

The bifurcation of misdemeanor probation services represents system 
inefficiency and unnecessary cost.  
 
Heavy reliance on jail as a sentence option: 77% of District Court and 71% 
of Superior Court sentences are to jail 

 
Implementing the key concepts advanced in the Master Plan is central to the 
long‐term management of the jail population and should be the cornerstone of 
the jail facility planning effort.   
 
The key to the long‐term management of a jail is the implementation of a System 
Master Plan: an approach that allows a county to not just react to change, but to 
shape that change.  Key areas recommended for Spokane County to address in a 
Master Plan include:  
 
¾ Establish a full‐service Pre‐Trial Services Program 
¾ File the majority of felony cases within 72 hours 
¾ Reduce high ‘No File’ rates 
¾ Implement an Expedited Case Resolution program 
¾ Develop a case management plan 
¾ Consolidate prosecution as well as defense services at the 
district/municipal court level 
¾ Shift Geiger to a program‐based Re‐entry model 
¾ Build continuum of programs from Jail to Community 
¾ Strengthen Mental Health services 
¾ Consolidate Misdemeanor Probation services 
¾ Improve supervision and program quality 
¾ Adopt and validate objective risk and need tools 
¾ Subsidize treatment for higher risk offenders 
¾ Formalize system data collection & analysis   
 
Executive Summary
Page 5

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

 
Key Steps in the Analysis 
 
Data collected for the Spokane County project included the following:  

 
Jail Snapshot 
A Jail ‘snapshot’ was developed to provide a detailed profile of the in‐custody 
population.  The snapshot methodology that was developed will allow the 
county to monitor changes in the inmate population over time.   
 

Case Processing Analysis 
A sample of defendants booked into the Spokane County Jail was identified and
tracked through the criminal justice system. The sample included the first 143
misdemeanor bookings and the first 140 felony bookings from each of the 2007
dates identified below.
Each booking that was identified for the sample was new, fresh, local arrests.
They did not include any bench warrants, out of county cases, or probation
violations only arrests. The sample dates, over 2007, were:
• 3 January
• 10 April
• 23 July
• 16 October
 

Jail Alternative Program Analysis 
The analysis also included a review of alternative to jail programs.  We reviewed 
available data, met with providers, and observed operations.  

 
Jail Forecast Scenarios 
Long‐term jail forecasts were developed based on an analysis of historical data 
for the Jail and Geiger and a study of county population trends.   

 
General System Assessment 
Finally, over the course of multiple visits to the county, time was spent meeting 
with key officials, reviewing system policies, and observing the operations of the 
system.  All this has resulted in this Report, which provides the reader with jail 
and system date, and concludes with recommendations for system change.  
Executive Summary
Page 6

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Summary of Findings 
 

I. Criminal Justice System Case Processing 
 
The system is impacted by high pre‐trial failure rates 
Felony pre‐trial re‐arrest rates (29%) are significantly higher than the national 
average.   
 
Pre‐Trial failure rates reflect the lack of a comprehensive Pre‐Trial program that 
screens all defendants, the absence of objective risk screening, an over‐reliance on 
surety release, and the lack of a pre‐trial supervision, monitoring and tracking 
services.  
The failure‐to‐appear rate for defendants released out of District Court was 23 
percent; the FTA rate out of Superior Court was 32 percent.   
 
System case processing times and failure rates are related   
The time from booking to disposition is more than two times as long for 
misdemeanor defendants who fail to appear for a court hearing than for those 
who make their appearances.  
 
The Jail is impacted by case processing times  
The lack of timely disposition of cases results in higher failure rates. For 
felony cases, the average time from jail release to a failure‐to‐appear was 174 
days; 55% of all FTA’s occurred 4 months or more after release. 
 
Case attrition takes a toll on the system 
The felony ‘no filing’ rate in Spokane County is 31 percent.    
 
 

II. Jail Population  
 
A Jail ‘snapshot’ methodology was developed to capture and describe, in some 
detail, the profile of the inmates in the Spokane County Jail on a daily basis.  This 
methodology uses a hierarchy to determine the most significant charge for which 
a defendant is being held and from that determines their status.  The snapshot is 
recorded each night at midnight and a monthly composite is prepared at the end 
of the month.  The data presented in the Master Plan Report is a composite of 
April through June 2007.    
Executive Summary
Page 7

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 
Highlights of the Jail Snapshot: 
 
• The average age is 34 years 
• 84 percent  male and 15 percent  female 
• 63 percent unemployed at the time of booking 
• 81 percent Caucasian, 11 percent African American, and 8 percent are 
an other race or ethnicity  
• 34 percent are pre‐trial defendants; 28 percent post‐trial, and 28 
percent are in ‘hold’ status 
• 57 percent of defendants booked into the Spokane County Jail on a 
misdemeanor charge had previously been booked into the local jail; 
64% of defendants booked on a felony charge had previous bookings. 
 
The Jail is impacted by repeat offenders 
Misdemeanor defendants had an average of 6 prior bookings into the Jail; 
felons had an average 7 prior bookings. 
 
The Jail is impacted by a high number of defendants on ‘Hold’ status 
Of the Jail’s average daily population, 39% are in ‘hold’ status.  A high 
number are bench warrant cases, the majority of which are failure‐to‐appear 
warrants, further evidence of the impact of failure rates on the jail. The 
other point to note about the ‘hold’ population is that overall one‐third of 
these cases also have local charges, making the case for quick resolution of 
local charges.   
 
The Jail is impacted by the percentage of offenders who receive Jail time as their 
sentence  
 71 percent of felony offenders received a jail sentence, higher than the 
national average of 28%. 

 
 
III. Jail Alternatives 
 
The analysis of Spokane County’s alternative programs was challenged, in many 
cases, by the lack of program and outcome data.       
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 8

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The system lacks basic in‐custody treatment programs 
Neither the Jail nor Geiger have the basic programs necessary to promote 
offender change and to address mental health issues. 
 
Not all treatment programs are operating at capacity 
As an example, the contracted Day Reporting program that can accommodate 
100 clients had only 20 when we checked.   
 
There is uneven access to programs 
Municipal misdemeanor cases do not have access to the county funded day 
treatment program. 
 
Validated Risk and Needs assessments do not guide resource allocation 
Objective risk and need tools are not formally integrated into supervision and 
treatment decision‐making. 
 
There is no subsidized treatment for high risk offenders 
There is no subsidized domestic violence treatment; some DV cases are only in 
anger management; and there are high drop‐out rates for some programs. 
 
Supervision caseload sizes prevent meaningful intervention 
Caseload sizes do not conform to national guidelines, and at up to 750 clients per 
caseload, do not allow meaningful interactions. 
 
The Drug Court program has a high rate of clients found not eligible or refusing service 
High refusal rates reflect the lack of comprehensive front‐end screening, 
imperfect system incentives to attract participation, and other factors that merit 
review.  

 

IV. Jail Capacity Forecast 
 
Forecasting future jail population size should be a policy‐based exercise.  The 
changes that have occurred in jail populations during the last twenty‐five years 
provide considerable evidence that shifts in local policies can bring about 
dramatic increases or decreases in jail populations.  For example: There is no 
relationship between crime and jail size.  The size of a jail is determined, to a large 
extent, by the policy choices made the system and the availability of alternatives.   
 
Executive Summary
Page 9

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The formulation of the forecast is based on an analysis of historical rates of 
admission and average daily population as well as trends in county population.  
Incarceration rate comparisons provide a reference point. In the end, the 
selection of a particular forecast scenario depends upon a county’s ability to 
implement strategies to help manage the jail population.  
 
Jail capacity forecasts must depend in large part on information made available
to forecasters by a county. The forecasts contained in this report are no
exception. Historical information exists on the way the Spokane County Jail and
Geiger Correctional Facility has been used during the past 9 years. Jail
admissions, average length of stay, and average daily population figures are
available from 1999 to the present.
While we have 2 additional years of jail data, without having corresponding
Geiger data only tells half the story. Attempts to obtain reliable, consistent older
data, however, proved impossible — the records simply do not exist or are not
reliable. An estimate of the forecast of county population was received from the
County Division of Building and Planning to the year 2035.
 
A forecast analysis tracks trends in jail usage and county population over time.  
Findings from this analysis in Spokane County include:  
ƒ The average daily detention population (Jail and Geiger) has increased 16 
percent since 1999 (from 953 to 1,108) 
ƒ Some dramatic fluctuation in admissions over the period and an 8% 
overall increase over the period (20,801 admissions in 2007); little or no 
change in admission rate 
ƒ Significant fluctuations in average length of stay over the period, and an 
overall 8% increase in ALOS (19.4 ALOS in 2007) 
ƒ Incarceration rate is virtually the same as the national average but slightly 
higher than state and regional average   
 
By 2035 it is estimated that 687,349 persons will be living in Spokane County.  
 
The Report presents jail forecast scenarios that apply different assumptions 
regarding admission rates, average length of stay, and peaking and classification 
factors (the latter pertains to the extra capacity added to a forecast to reflect 
periods of peak population as well as the added capacity needed to provide 
flexibility to accommodate a range of classification needs). 
 
By 2035, the forecasted need ranges from 1753 to 2603 beds.  
Executive Summary
Page 10

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Recommendations 
 
This  Report  highlights  key  recommendations  for  adoption  as  part  of  a 
Corrections  Master  Plan.  The  recommendations  advanced  represent  a  ‘systems 
approach’  to  jail  management.  To  best  respond  to  changing  circumstances 
counties  must  have  good  data,  proven  management  tools,  and  the  flexibility  to 
make modifications as conditions dictate.  
 
In the end, the key to responding to changing system dynamics is a strategic Jail 
Master  Plan.    This  includes  short‐term  strategies  for  implementing  and  fine‐
tuning  system  changes,  and  longer‐term  strategies  for  building  additional 
detention, work release, and program capacity. 
 
The jail population is a function of two factors: the number of admissions and the 
length  of  stay.    Factors  that  influence  the  number  of  admissions  to  jail  include: 
county population, availability of pre‐booking alternatives, pre‐trial failure rate, 
supervision  violation  rate,  and  program  effectiveness.    The  number  of  police 
officers on the street also significantly impacts the number of jail admissions.  
 
Recommendations advanced for reducing local jail admissions include: 
 
Reduce Jail Admissions 
 
• Establish comprehensive 24/7 Pre‐Trial Services Program: effective front‐
end assessment for All cases, bail review, and a supervision, monitoring, 
and tracking unit to reduce pre‐trial failure 
 
• Implement procedures associated with reducing pre‐trial FTA rate (court 
date notification, etc.) 
 
• Implement supervision procedures associated with reducing re‐arrest rate 
(supervision, drug testing, etc.) 
 
• Fund Full‐Service Crisis Triage Center  
 
• Expand Drug Court  
 
• Develop  expanded  diversion  options  for  mentally  ill  and  expand 
Therapeutic Mental Health Court  
Executive Summary
Page 11

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 
•

Build  core  jail  programs,  including  those  specific  to  the  mentally  ill,  to 
facilitate success upon release 

 
•

Improve supervision with use of validated risk instruments 

•

Improve program effectiveness  

•

Subsidize treatment for higher risk offenders  who cannot afford services 

•

Review  practice  of  suspensions  for  domestic  violence  cases  without 
treatment 

 
 
 

 
Factors that affect the length of stay in jail include: the availability of pre‐trial 
release  options,  case  processing  times,  and  sentence  alternatives.  
Recommendations for reducing length of stay in the local jail include:  
 
Reduce Time in Custody 
 
• Establish Comprehensive 24/7 Pre‐Trial Services Program: Reduce time to 
pre‐trial release 
 
• Add clinical staff in booking area for quick identification and screening of 
mental health issues 
 
• Institute Early Case Resolution Program 
 
•  Ensure early appointment of counsel through expanded pre‐trial services 
 
•

Establish routine bail review of in‐custody pre‐trial population  

•
 
•

Provide early pre‐trial identification of diversion candidates 

•

Structure  Geiger  as  a  program‐based  Community  Corrections 
Center/Work Release Facility geared toward moving inmates out on work 
release 

 

Increase simultaneous resolution of ‘holds’ and new charges 

 

 
Executive Summary
Page 12

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
•

Shift low  risk  inmates on  work crew  out of Geiger to home‐based report 
for work option 

•

Assess all Inmates for Jail Step‐Down options  

•

Plan a Community Corrections Center facility 

 
 
 
 
Improve System Efficiency 
 
• Consolidate Prosecution Services 
 
• Consolidate Public Defender Services 
 
•
 

Consolidate Misdemeanor Probation  

 

Key Recommendations 
 
The following recommendations are highlighted as priority measures because of 
their  potential  to  reduce  demands  on  the  jail  and  create  a  more  cohesive  local 
system.  

 
™ Early Case Resolution Program 
 
An  Early  Case  Resolution  (ECR)  Program results  in  increased  system  efficiency 
and helps reduce jail crowding. It is a central management tool for the criminal 
justice  system.  The  program  involves  early  case  screening  and  timely  case 
resolution.    And,  it  depends  on  the  availability  of  timely  and  accurate 
information  on  each  case,  information  best  supplied  by  a  Pre‐Trial  Services 
Program. 
 
The lack of expedited case processing is Spokane County can be seen in a system 
with built‐in delays and a cumbersome bifurcated process.  
 
 

Executive Summary
Page 13

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Some of the hallmarks of an Early Case Resolution programs are: Immediate case 
review; a mechanism for early entry and negotiation of pleas; assignment of 
experienced prosecutors and defense counsel to the ECR team; policies regarding 
quick resolution of specified cases; and improved information sharing.   
 
An ECR program will address many of the issues associated with less than 
efficient case processing in the Spokane County system:  
 
The benefits of an ECR Program are many and include:  
•
Relieves Crowded Dockets 
•
Reduces Case Processing Times 
•
Reduces Number of Pre‐trial Defendants 
•
Reduces Average Length of Stay 
•
Frees up More Time for More Serious Cases 
•
Reduces Jail Impact 
 
 

™ Reduce Time to Filing 
 
An important pre‐condition for a quality ECR program is a reduction in the time 
to filing. At present, this time is exceeding long.   
 
The average time from booking to case filing in Superior Court is 57 days.  
 
To  bring the time to  filing  down to  an  acceptable  level will require  a concerted 
effort.  To begin with the Prosecutor’s Office will need to set new time standards 
for filing, and expect staff to adhere to them.  The goal should be to file all but 
the most complex cases within 72 hours of booking. 
 
At  the  same  time,  there  needs  to  be  a  strict  expectation  for  law  enforcement  to 
submit their reports in a timely fashion.  This issue should be reviewed to ensure 
that time standards for report submission are in place and followed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 14

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

™ Comprehensive Pre‐Trial Services Program 
 
Pre‐Trial  Programs  are  an  indispensable  component  of  an  efficient  criminal 
justice  system.    They  supply  the  system  with  accurate  information  about  the 
defendant to inform decision making; support the early appointment of defense 
counsel; identify diversion candidates; monitor pre‐trial jail inmates and facilitate 
bail reviews; and monitor, track and supervise pre‐trial defendants.   
 
The  Report  recommends  establishing  a  24/7  Pre‐Trial  Services  program, 
providing centralized intake and screening for the system.  At this time Spokane 
County  does  not  screen  all  defendants  booked  into  the  jail,  does  not  provide 
uniform  indigency  screening,  has  no  routine  bail  review,  and  does  not  provide 
supervision,  monitoring  and  tracking  services.    The  absence  of  these  services 
contributes to high pre‐trial failure rates.   
 
Pre‐Trial  services  are  also  fundamental  to  expedited  case  processing:  providing 
quick criminal history reviews to support swift case resolution.  
 
The development of a full‐service Pre‐Trial program is an essential first step in a 
move toward a more unified ‘systems approach’ to case management.  
 
A  comprehensive  Pre‐Trial  program  would  end  the  bifurcated  approach  to 
screening misdemeanor and felony pre‐trial defendants and help move Spokane 
County toward a more coordinated system of services.  This not only represents 
‘good  practice’  but  is  a  necessary  pre‐condition  for  other  recommended  system 
reforms.  
 
Jail population size and jail overcrowding has been directly linked to the hours of 
operation of Pre‐Trial programs: the more coverage the less crowded the jail.  Pre‐
Trial programs that provide the most extensive coverage have been shown to be 
the  least  likely  to  be  located  in  a  jurisdiction  with  a  jail  that  exceeds  its  rated 
capacity.    
 
A  well‐managed  jail  is,  however,  not  only  associated  with  access  to  Pre‐Trial 
Services,  but  to  the  timeliness  of  those  services.    It  has  been  shown  that 
jurisdictions with Pre‐Trial programs which interview defendants prior to the initial 
court appearance are less likely to have a jail that exceeds its rated capacity.  
 

Executive Summary
Page 15

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
In  addition,  the  adoption  of  an  objective  pre‐trial  risk  assessment  is  also  linked  to 
jail  management.    Pre‐Trial  programs  that  rely  exclusively  on  subjective 
determinations of risk are more than twice as likely to have a jail that exceeds its 
rated  capacity  than  those  programs  that  use  an  objective  risk  assessment 
instrument.  
 
Note: Pre‐Trial Services and an ECR program should be viewed as two parts of 
the same program. Pre‐Trial intake services are fundamental to the success of an 
ECR program.  Pre‐Trial provides the immediate and validated information that 
is a prerequisite for accelerated decision‐making and swift case resolution.  The 
two go hand in hand.  

 
™ Consolidate Adjudication and Supervision Services 
 
Early Case Resolution depends upon a new kind of teamwork.  The value of a 
coordinated and a more streamlined approach to case management cannot be 
underestimated: a reduction in system costs, better outcomes, improved system 
integrity, and more.  The bifurcated adjudication system in this jurisdiction 
makes this coordination all the more challenging. 
 
As Spokane County considers implementing an ECR program it should assess 
the benefits of doing so within the context of fundamental organizational reform: 
reform that would consolidate city and county prosecution offices, and 
municipal and county defense. 
 
The offender population is not categorized by neat or discreet categories.  That so 
many cases overlap jurisdictional boundaries makes a compelling argument for 
streamlining the process.   
      
In Spokane County, case management is challenged by a bifurcated system that 
contributes to redundancy and delay.  As such, the adoption of an Early Case 
Resolution program should be pursued within a new organizational model: one 
that consolidates the prosecution and defense across jurisdictional boundaries.  
The goal should be the creation of a seamless system of adjudication.  
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 16

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The costs of the existing fragmented system are clear: 
 
ƒ Extended Times to Case Resolution 
ƒ High Number of  Court Hearings 
ƒ High Rates of ‘Time Served’  
ƒ Redundancy of Effort 
 
This fragmented structure works against the timely resolution of cases. 
Fragmentation and the lack of system incentives to move a case has resulted in 
an institutional habit of continuances and delay. 
 
The jurisdictional boundaries that shape the adjudication of cases in Spokane 
County do not reflect an offender population defined by such distinctions.  By 
some estimates, around 30% of offenders coming before District Court have 
both city and county warrants.  The degree of overlap of these populations is 
an argument for streamlining the process.  
 
This level of overlap also has real cost implications. A judge in District Court 
working an afternoon felony docket can expect to see many of the same 
defendants seen earlier in the day on a misdemeanor docket.  A more 
streamlined, consolidated process allows the resolution of all charges at the 
first hearing. This saves the entire system time and money.  
 
As an example, a defendant may be approved for pre‐trial release on their ‘own 
recognizance’ for a misdemeanor charge, but then held in jail for an 
accompanying felony charge.  This is a charge driven, not a case driven 
approach.  This makes no sense.  It is a burden to the whole system.  And the 
defendant is caught in between: the defendant in this example may not get 
released or credit for time served.    
 
 

™ Consolidate Misdemeanor Probation Services 
 
Consolidation of prosecution and defense services should set the stage for 
consolidation of municipal and county probation services.  Only by service 
consolidation can this jurisdiction achieve a unified and cost‐effective approach 
to case management.   
 
Executive Summary
Page 17

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Often government redundancy is hidden in dry reports and obscure statistics.  
In Spokane County one need only walk into the reception are of Adult 
Probation.  There, behind a single counter two receptionists sit shoulder to 
shoulder: One serves Municipal offenders and the other serves County 
offenders.   
 
Although there is no discernible difference between their respective clients, 
each receptionist can only serve those clients from their respective jurisdiction.  
They cannot cross an invisible line that separates paperwork and personnel.  
 
This results in the spectacle of two receptionists, two fax machines, and two 
paper shredders sharing the same space.   
 
As one moves beyond the lobby the separation becomes less apparent. To their 
credit, the staff has developed a good relationship in working side by side.  But 
behind the scenes the cost of the division is easily apparent.  For example, the 
City will be acquiring new automated case management software.  The only 
problem: it is not the same one used by the County.  
 
No business model would justify this level of duplication.  
 
 

™ A Community Corrections Center 
 
Spokane  County  should  take  advantage  of  the  Geiger  facility  to  develop  a 
program‐based Re‐entry/Community Corrections Center.  
 
The  Community  Corrections  Center  (CCC)  concept  shifts  the  emphasis  from 
simply  minimum  custody  detention  to  community  transition.    A  CCC  is 
designed to promote successful transition by preparing inmates for community‐
based  alternatives  and  then  moving  them  along  a  continuum  of  services.    The 
goal is to promote the notion that a sentence can be a time of productive activity 
in  which  the  offender  retains  or  secures  employment  while  addressing 
underlying issues such as addiction. 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 18

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The principal goal is to facilitate a successful transition back to the community.  
Individual  case  plans  are  designed  to  address  conditions  of  supervision,  court 
orders,  treatment  needs,  community  safety,  victim  restitution,  and  successful 
transition  back  to  the  community.    Issues  addressed  include  employment, 
cognitive programming and substance abuse. 
 
Inmates transferred to the CCC will have an orientation period, participate in job 
readiness activities, and then begin a structured job search.  Low risk offenders 
will move along the continuum to a work crew option that has them reporting 
for crew work while living at home; higher risk inmates will work in the 
community and return to the facility at the end of the day.  
 
A range of services are built in to address criminal risk.  These may include:  
 
• Substance abuse treatment 
• Mental health evaluation and services 
• Cognitive skills classes 
• Employment testing and job search assistance 
• GED and literacy classes 
• Life skills: nutrition, parenting, money management, computer skills 
 
The Department of Corrections Justice Center offers a good example of the kind 
of evidence based programs one would expect to incorporate into the design.  
 
The Jail and Community Corrections Center should be planned together.  The 
two should be considered as part of a single continuum of custody to community 
resources.  Having both facilities provides a jurisdiction with increased flexibility 
to manage its inmate population, while providing the offender a graduated re‐
entry to the community.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 19

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

™ Evidence Based Practices 
 
To  address issues  of program quality,  the  county should adopt  a  validated  risk 
and needs assessment tool, as well as evidence‐based performance standards.  
 
Evidence based practices target higher risk offenders and deliver tested services 
in a manner designed to yield the best outcomes.  Recent research demonstrates 
the  cumulative  benefit  of  evidence‐based  practices.    It  is  recommended  that 
Spokane  County  should  develop  quality  control  assessment  protocols  to 
implement and measure these practices.  
 
Based on this research the following recommendations were advanced: 
 
ƒ Target the Higher Risk Offender 
ƒ Ensure Minimum Time in Treatment of 90 Days 
ƒ Use Objective Risk Assessment Instrument 
ƒ Vary Treatment Intensity by Risk Level 
ƒ Expedite Entry into Treatment 
ƒ Ensure Treatment Continuity 
ƒ Make Cognitive Curricula the Centerpiece of Jail Programs 
ƒ Review Cognitive Curricula Used Across Programs 
ƒ Ensure Swift Sanctions 
 
The average reduction in the expected recidivism rate for alternative programs is 
approximately 10%.  However, programs that are of the highest quality, in terms 
of best practices, have been shown to reduce the expected recidivism rate by up 
to 30%. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary
Page 20

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

™ Expansion of Specialty Court Programs 
 
Drug  Court  programs  and  Therapeutic  Mental  Health  Court  programs  have 
proven to be a cost‐effective alternative to traditional prosecution.  
 
A  recent  analysis  of  the  Multnomah  County  Drug  Court  (the  second  oldest 
program  in  the  nation)  demonstrates  this.    A  study  tracked  11,000  drug  court 
eligible  offenders  over  a  10‐year  period.  Results  included  significantly  reduced 
recidivism  for  drug  court  participants  up  to  14  years  after  program  entry 
compared  to  eligible  offenders  who  did  not  participate.    The  incidence  of  re‐
arrest was reduced by nearly 30% for drug court participants.  
 
This Report recommends expansion of the Drug Court program criteria.  It also 
recommends making mental health court available to felony defendants.  
 

™ Integrate System Data into Planning 
 
The Criminal Justice System should routinely track summary data from each 
component of the system.  This summary information, provided on a quarterly 
basis, will allow the on‐going assessment of system workload, trends, and 
outcomes.  
 
The information presented in this Report provides baseline data for the Jail and 
the system.  Routine review of this kind of information is recommended to track 
changes in population make‐up, demands on the system, and improvements in 
case processing efficiency.  
 

Conclusion 
 
Some of the recommendations require an investment in both time and money, 
but can be viewed as a ‘pay me now or pay me later’ proposition.  This is because 
the implementation of these recommendations will result in the more efficient 
management of existing resources, thereby delaying the day when the county 
needs to start planning again for more jail beds.    
 
Taken together, these measures form a strategic Corrections Master Plan for 
Spokane County.   
 
Executive Summary
Page 21

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

The Report Outline 
 
The Spokane County Master Plan provides a conceptual framework to inform 
and guide the next stages of facility and system planning.  It is not meant to be a 
static document.  The jail and system baseline data should continue to be 
collected and analyzed. The recommendations are only a starting point for larger 
system discussions.  
 
The Report is organized in four chapters. The first two chapters provide jail and 
system case processing data; chapter three presents jail forecast scenarios based 
on an historical analysis of local detention data and county trends; and the final 
chapter provides study findings and system recommendations.   
 
Chapter 1: Criminal Justice System Data 
 
Chapter 2: Jail Population Breakdown 
 
Chapter 3: Jail Capacity Forecasts 
 
Chapter 4: Jail Population Management  
 
 

Executive Summary
Page 22

Spokane County
Corrections Master Plan

Chapter One
Criminal Justice System Data

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter One
Criminal Justice System Data
Table of Contents
A. Demographics ............................................................................. 6
1.
2.
3.
4.

Age ............................................................................................6
Gender ......................................................................................7
Race...........................................................................................8
Residence ................................................................................. 9
a. Overall ............................................................................ 9
b. Place of Birth.................................................................. 10
5. Employed ................................................................................. 11
6. Education ................................................................................. 12
7. Prior Criminal History ............................................................13
a. Spokane County Jail Stays............................................ 13
b. Geiger Correctional Center Stays ................................14
c. Prior Arrests ................................................................... 15

B. Booking Data ............................................................................... 16

1. Assigned Court ........................................................................ 16
2. Charge at Booking ................................................................... 17
a. Category ......................................................................... 17
b. Number of Charges .......................................................18
3. Arresting Agency..................................................................... 19
4. Bond Amount........................................................................... 20
5. Release From Custody.............................................................21
a. Pre-Trial.......................................................................... 21
b. Post Trial ........................................................................ 23
6. Time from Booking to Release............................................... 24
a. Overall ............................................................................ 24
b. Over 10 Days ................................................................. 25
c. Pre-Trial Release Type ..................................................26
d. Post Trial Release Type................................................. 27

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 2

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

C. District Court................................................................................ 28

1. Attorney Type.......................................................................... 28
2. Disposition ................................................................................ 29
a. Overall ............................................................................ 29
b. Guilty Verdicts...............................................................30
c. Not Guilty Verdicts........................................................31
d. Dismissals....................................................................... 32
3. Attrition....................................................................................33
a. Number........................................................................... 33
b. Rate ................................................................................. 34
4. Sentencing................................................................................ 35
a. Overall ............................................................................ 35
b. Jail Sentence Length .....................................................36
5. Failure-to-Appear .................................................................... 38
a. Overall ............................................................................ 38
b. Number........................................................................... 39
c. Release Type................................................................... 40
6. Process Times........................................................................... 41
a. Number of Appearances............................................... 41
b. Overall ............................................................................ 42
c. Arraignment to Disposition.......................................... 43

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 3

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

D. Superior Court ............................................................................. 44

1. Attorney Type.......................................................................... 44
2. Prosecutor Filing ..................................................................... 45
a. Overall ............................................................................ 45
b. Charge Category Filed ..................................................46
c. Charge Category for Not-Filed Cases...........................47
3. Disposition ............................................................................... 48
a. Overall ............................................................................ 48
b. Guilty Verdicts...............................................................49
c. Charge Class ................................................................... 50
d. Charge Category............................................................51
f. Not Guilty Verdicts ........................................................54
4. Case Attrition........................................................................... 55
a. Booking to Disposition..................................................55
b. Case Filing Rate .............................................................56
c. Conviction Rate from Filing ......................................... 57
d. Conviction Rate from Booking..................................... 58
5. Sentencing................................................................................ 59
a. Type ................................................................................ 59
b. Sentence Length ............................................................60
6. Process Times........................................................................... 62
a. Number of Appearances............................................... 62
b. Incremental.................................................................... 63
c. Overall............................................................................. 64
d. Booking to Disposition ................................................. 65
7. Failure-to-Appear .................................................................... 66
a. Overall ............................................................................ 66
b. Number........................................................................... 67
c. Release Type................................................................... 68
d. Time to FTA ................................................................... 69
e. Disposition Time............................................................71
8. Failure-to-Cooperate ...............................................................72
9. Re-Arrest...................................................................................73
a. Overall ............................................................................ 73
b. Release Type .................................................................. 74

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 4

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter One
Criminal Justice System Data
Introduction
A sample of defendants Booked into the Spokane County Jail was
identified and tracked through the criminal justice system.

The sample

included the first 143 misdemeanor bookings and the first 140 felony bookings
from each of the 2007 dates identified below.
Each booking that was identified for the sample was new, fresh, local
arrests. They did not include any bench warrants, out of county cases, or
probation violations only arrests. Excluded were failure-to-appear bench
warrants, contempt of court, sentenced prisoners, fugitives from justice, holds
from other counties, child support, ICE or other federal prisoners, prisoners
booked on only probation violation charges. If there was a probation violation
along with a new charge, the new charge qualified.
The sample dates were:
• 3 January
• 10 April
• 23 July
• 16 October
The graphic contained in this chapter were produced as a result of the
analysis of the data. The demographic information is self-reported by the
defendant at the time of booking—it has not been verified. The “n” varies on
each graphic depending upon the number of cases for which there was
complete data for the variables being analyzed.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 5

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
A. Demographics
1. Age
The first graphic examines the age of the defendants in the sample.

Twenty-six percent of the misdemeanants and 29 percent of the felons
were between the ages of 17 to 24. Twenty-eight percent of the misdemeanants
and 24 percent of the felons were between the ages of 25 to 34; and 27 percent
of the misdemeanants and 25 percent of the felons were between the ages of 35
to 44. The remaining 20 percent of the misdemeanants and 13 percent of the
felons were older than 44.
The average age of the misdemeanants was 34.2 and of the felons 31.9
years old.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 6

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Gender
The next graphic examines the gender of the offenders in the sample.

Seventy-eight percent of the misdemeanants and 79 percent of the felons
were male.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 7

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Race
The next graphic shows the race of the defendants in the sample.

Eighty-six percent of the misdemeanants and 89 percent of the felons
were Caucasian. Seven percent of the misdemeanants and 3 percent of the
felons were African American. The remaining 7 percent of the misdemeanants
and 8 percent of the felons were of other races.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 8

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Residence
a. Overall
The next graphic shows whether the defendants in the sample
were residents of the State of Washington.

Ninety-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 98 percent of the felons
were residents.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 9

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Place of Birth
The next graphic shows the place of birth for the defendants.

Fifty-one percent of both the misdemeanants and the felons were born in
Washington. Twenty-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 28 percent of
the felons were born in another western state and 15 percent of the
misdemeanants and 17 percent of the felons were born in another state. The
remaining 7 percent of the misdemeanants and 4 percent of the felons were
born outside the country.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 10

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
5. Employed
The next graphic shows whether the defendant reported that they
were employed at the time of booking.

Sixty-one percent of the misdemeanants and 37 percent of the felons
reported that they were employed.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 11

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
6. Education
The next graphic shows whether the defendants in the sample
graduated high school or had received a GED.

Sixty-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 74 percent of the felons
had either graduated high school or received a GED.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 12

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
7. Prior Criminal History
a. Spokane County Jail Stays
The next graphic examines the number of prior stays in the
Spokane County Jail.

Twenty-four percent of the misdemeanants and 18 percent of the felons
had never been in the jail. Thirty-two percent of the misdemeanants and 26
percent of the felons had one to three previous stays; and 24 percent of the
misdemeanants and 27 percent of the felons had four to eight prior stays. The
remaining 20 percent of the misdemeanants and 29 percent of the felons had
between nine and thirty-five prior stays.
The average number of prior stays in the jail for the misdemeanants was
5.1 and for the felons was 6.4.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 13

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Geiger Correctional Center Stays
The next graphic examines the number of prior stays in the
Geiger Correctional Center.

Sixty-four percent of the misdemeanants and 57 percent of the felons had
never been in the Center. Twenty-three percent of the misdemeanants and a
quarter of the felons had between one and three previous stays; and 11 percent
of the misdemeanants and 17 percent of the felons had four to eight prior stays.
The remaining 3 percent of the misdemeanants and 2 percent of the felons had
between nine and seventeen prior stays.
The average number of prior stays in the Center for the misdemeanants
was 1.4 and for the felons was 1.5.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 14

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Prior Arrests
The next graphic examines the prior arrests for the defendants in
the sample.

Thirty-eight percent of the misdemeanants and 24 percent of the felons
had never been arrested. Twenty-two percent of the misdemeanants and 21
percent of the felons had between one and two previous arrest; 29 percent of
the misdemeanants and 35 percent of the felons had three to ten prior arrests;
and 8 percent of the misdemeanants and 16 percent of the felons had between
eleven and twenty prior arrests.

The remaining 3 percent of the

misdemeanants and 4 percent of the felons had between twenty-one and thirtysix prior arrests.
The average number of prior arrests for the misdemeanants was 3.8 and
for the felons was 5.8.
Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 15

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
B. Booking Data
1. Assigned Court
The next graphic shows the assigned court.

Fifty-five percent of the misdemeanants were assigned to the municipal
court. Forty-five percent of the misdemeanants and 79 percent of the felons
were initially assigned to the district court.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 16

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Charge at Booking
a. Category
The next graphic examines the charge category at booking.

Thirty-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 10 percent of the felons
were arrested for domestic violence. Five percent of the misdemeanants and 13
percent of the felons were arrested for another person crime. Three percent of
the misdemeanants and 26 percent of the felons were arrested for a property
offense; 4 percent of the misdemeanants and 43 percent of the felons were
arrested for a narcotics offense; twenty-eight percent of the misdemeanants
were arrested for drunk driving; and 13 percent of the misdemeanants and 5
percent of the felons were arrested for a public order offense. The remaining 9
percent of the misdemeanants and 3 percent of the felons were arrested for a
traffic offense.
Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 17

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Number of Charges
The next graphic displays the number of charges at booking

Seventy-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 67 percent of the felons
had only 1 charge at booking. Nineteen percent of both the misdemeanants
and the felons had 2 charges; and 3 percent of the misdemeanants and 8
percent of the felons had 3 charges.

The remaining 1 percent of the

misdemeanants and 6 percent of the felons had 4 or more charges.
The average number of charges for the misdemeanants was 1.3 and for
the felons was 1.4.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 18

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Arresting Agency
The next graphic shows the arresting agency.

The Sheriff arrested 16 percent of the misdemeanants and 19 percent of
the felons. Fifty-three percent of the misdemeanants and 60 percent of the
felons were arrested by the Spokane Police Department; the Washington State
Police arrested 12 percent of the misdemeanants and 4 percent of the felons;
and 13 percent of the misdemeanants and 11 percent of the felons were
arrested by Spokane Valley Police Department. The remaining 6 percent of
both the misdemeanants and the felons was arrested by other agencies.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 19

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Bond Amount
The next graphic examines the amount of the bond set for each
defendant in the sample.

Twenty-eight percent of the misdemeanants and 24 percent of the felons
did not have bond set. Forty-one percent of the misdemeanants and 1 percent
of the felons had bond set at $500 or less; 22 percent of the misdemeanants and
25 percent of the felons had bond set at between $501 and $5,000; and 8 percent
of the misdemeanants and 29 percent of the felons had bond set between $5,001
and $25,000. The remaining 1 percent of the misdemeanants and 21 percent of
the felons had bond set over $25,000.
The average bond for the misdemeanants was $2,200 and for the felons
was $39,000.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 20

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
5. Release From Custody
a. Pre-Trial
(1) Type
The next graphic shows the type of pre-trial release for the
persons in the sample.

Thirty-seven percent of the misdemeanants and 19 percent of the felons
were released on recognizance. Nine percent of the misdemeanants posted a
cash bond; thirty-two percent of the misdemeanants and 25 percent of the
felons posted a surety bond; and five percent of the misdemeanants and 27
percent of the felons were released when no charges were filed. The remaining
16 percent of the misdemeanants and 28 percent of the felons were not released
from jail prior to trial.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 21

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Prior Bookings
The next graphic shows the average number of prior stays by
how defendants were released from jail prior to trial.

The overall number of prior bookings for the misdemeanants was 5.1 and
for the felons was 6.4.

Misdemeanants released on recog had 4.4 prior

bookings; 4.4 released on cash; 4.4 released on surety; 5.2 released no charges
filed; and 8.4 not released from jail prior to trial.
Felons released on recog had 5.8 priors; 3 released on cash (2 cases); 5.2
released on surety; 6.6 released no charges filed; and 7.9 not released from jail
prior to trial.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 22

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Post Trial
The next graphic examines how the 93 misdemeanants and 156
felons who were not released from jail prior to trial were released.

Eighteen percent of the misdemeanants 6 percent of the felons were
released post trial after all charges were dismissed. Seventy-three percent of
the misdemeanants and 42 percent of the felons were released after serving a
jail sentence. A quarter of the felons were released to the state prison. The
remaining 9 percent of the misdemeanants and 26 percent of the felons were
released to another agency.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 23

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
6. Time from Booking to Release
a. Overall
The next graphic examines the length of time between booking
and release.

Forty-three percent of the misdemeanants and 7 percent of the felons
were released the same day they were booked.

A quarter of the

misdemeanants and 17 percent of the felons were released after one day; 9
percent of the misdemeanants and 15 percent of the felons were released
between two and three days; and 7 percent of the misdemeanants and 27
percent of the felons were released between four and ten days. The remaining
16 percent of the misdemeanants and 34 percent of the felons stayed in jail
longer than 10 days. The average length of time from booking to release was
9.8 days for the misdemeanants and 32.2 days for the felons.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 24

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Over 10 Days
The next graphic shows the time from booking to release for the
93 misdemeanants and 189 felons who stayed in jail longer than ten days.

Fifty-three percent of the misdemeanants and 27 percent of the felons
who stayed in jail longer than 10 days were there between 12 and 30 days.
Thirty percent of the misdemeanants and 33 percent of the felons stayed in jail
between 31 and 90 days; and 12 percent of the misdemeanants and 29 percent
of the felons between 91 and 180 days.

The remaining 5 percent of the

misdemeanants and 11 percent of the felons stayed in jail between six month
and a year.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 25

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Pre-Trial Release Type
The next graphic details the time from booking to release for
those persons released from jail prior to trial by the type of release.

Overall, defendants released from jail prior to trial were released in an
average 2.9 days for misdemeanants and 9.7 days for felons.

Defendants

released on recognizance were released in an average 3.4 days for
misdemeanants and 9.2 days for felons; cash bail releases in less than a day for
the misdemeanants and 2 days for the felons; and for those released after
posting a surety bond in 3.3 days for misdemeanants and 11.1 days for felons.
Defendants released when no charges were filed were released in 1.1 days for
the misdemeanants and 8.9 days for the felons.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 26

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Post Trial Release Type
The next graphic shows the type of release for those defendants
released post trial.

Overall, defendants released from jail post trial stayed an average 40.7
days for the misdemeanants and 92.9 days for the felons. Defendants released
when all charges were dismissed were released in an average 15.4 days for
misdemeanants and 58.4 days for felons; defendants released time served were
released in an average 47.5 days for the misdemeanants and 102.9 for the
felons; and felons sent to prison stayed an average 143.8 days. Defendants
released to another agency were released in an average 39 days for the
misdemeanants and 24.5 days for the felons.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 27

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
C. District Court
This section examines the adjudication process for the misdemeanors in
the sample.
1. Attorney Type
The first graphic displays the type of attorney.

Sixty-eight percent of the misdemeanants were represented by the public
defender. Nineteen percent retained private counsel and the remaining 13
percent did not have an attorney.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 28

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Disposition
a. Overall
The next graphic shows the district court dispositions for the
misdemeanants.

Half of the misdemeanants were convicted in district court.

Sixteen

percent entered into a diversion program and 32 percent had their cases
dismissed. The remaining 2 percent of the cases were still pending.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 29

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Guilty Verdicts
The next graphic shows the type of guilty verdicts.

Only 3 cases (1 percent) were found guilty. All of the other convicted
cases pled guilty.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 30

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Not Guilty Verdicts
The next graphic shows the type of not-guilty verdicts.

Ninety-seven percent of the defendants not convicted had their cases
dismissed. Only 5 (3 percent) were found not guilty following trial.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 31

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Dismissals
The next graphic details the charge category for the dismissals.

Sixty-one percent of the dismissed cases in district court were domestic
violence cases. Five percent of the dismissals were other person crimes; 10
percent property crimes; 1 percent narcotics cases; 2 percent drunk driving and
13 percent public order offenses. The remaining 8 percent were traffic offenses.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 32

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Attrition
a. Number
The next graphic shows the number of cases by charge category
at booking, prosecutor filing, and disposition.

The largest reduction in cases was for the charge category domestic
violence. There were 213 domestic violence cases at booking, 222 at filing, and
106 at disposition. The next largest reduction was drunk driving cases where
there were 163 at booking, 148 at case filing, and then 98 at disposition.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 33

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Rate
The next graphic displays the conviction rate from filing to
disposition.

Overall, 66 percent of the misdemeanor cases resulted in a conviction.
Forty-eight percent of the domestic violence cases were convicted; 67 percent of
the other person crimes; 54 percent of the property crimes; 64 percent of the
narcotics offenses; 66 percent of the drunk driving cases; and 59 percent of the
public order offenses. Traffic offenses experienced a 148 percent conviction
rate as many drunk driving cases were resolved as simple traffic offenses.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 34

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Sentencing
a. Overall
The next graphic shows the type of sentence the 286 convicted
offenders received. Most of the offenders received multiple sentence sanctions.
This graphic counts each sentence once using the hierarchy contained in the
legend. While most defendants received multiple sentence types, for the
purposes of this graphic they are only counted once, using the hierarchy in the
legend.

Seventy-seven percent of the misdemeanants were sentenced to jail. Nine
percent received a probation sentence and 14 percent were fined.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 35

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Jail Sentence Length
(1) Overall
The next graphic shows the length of the jail sentences.
Neither good time nor suspended time was counted, only the required amount
of time to serve ordered by the court.

Twenty-seven percent of the jail sentences were for 1 day.

Fourteen

percent were for 2 to 3 days; 19 percent for 4 to 15 days; and 18 percent for
between 16 and 30 days. The remaining 22 percent were sentenced to jail for
longer than 30 days.
The average jail sentence was for 29.4 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 36

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Over 30 Days
The next graphic details the jail sentence length of the 47
offenders who received a sentence longer than 30 days.

Fifteen percent of the jail sentences longer than 30 days were for between
31 and 45 days. Fifteen percent were for 46 to 60 days; 38 percent for between
61 and 90 days; and 19 percent for between 91 and 180 days. The remaining 13
percent received a jail sentence between six months and a year.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 37

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
5. Failure-to-Appear
a. Overall
The next graphic shows whether the misdemeanants in the
sample failed to appear for a district court appearance.

Twenty-three percent of the defendants failed-to-appear for a court
appearance.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 38

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Number
The next graphic shows the number of failures-to-appear.

Sixty-five percent of the persons who failed-to-appear only did so one
time. Eighteen percent failed-to-appear twice and 17 percent three times. The
average number of failures-to-appear was 1.6.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 39

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Release Type
The next graphic shows the failure-to-appear rate by the type of
release.

Overall, the failure-to-appear rate was 23 percent. Defendants released
on recognizance failed-to-appear at a 29 percent rate and cash bail releases
failed at a 20 percent rate. Persons released on a surety bond failed-to-appear
at an 11 percent rate.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 40

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
6. Process Times
a. Number of Appearances
The next graphic shows the number of court appearances
between arraignment and disposition.

Only 10 percent of the cases were resolved with 1 court appearance.
Forty percent took 2 appearances; and 33 percent took 3 appearances. The
remaining 17 percent took four or more appearances.
The average number of appearances was 2.6.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 41

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Overall
The

next

graphic

displays

the

process

times

for

the

misdemeanants in district court overall, for those who remained in-custody,
and for those released from jail prior to trial.

The length of time from booking to first appearance took an average 1.3
days. Persons who remained in jail took 1 day and those released 1.4 days.
The length of time between first appearance and arraignment took an average
13.9 days overall, 4.1 days for persons who remained in-custody and 16.3 days
for those released from jail. The overall average time from arraignment to
disposition took 71.7 days, 19 days for those who remained in-custody, and
84.3 days for those released. Finally, the time from booking to disposition took
85.6 days, 23.9 days for those who remained in-custody, and 100.3 days for
those released.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 42

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Arraignment to Disposition
The next graphic details the length of time between arraignment
and disposition broken down by whether the defendant remained in custody.

Thirty-six percent of the defendants who remained in-custody and 17
percent who were released were resolved within 2 days. One percent of both
the defendants who remained in-custody and those released took between 3
and 5 days; 45 percent of those remaining in-custody and 14 percent of those
released took between 6 and 30 days; and 16 percent of the in-custody cases
and a third of those not released took between 31 and 90 days. The remaining
2 percent of the in-custody cases and 35 percent of the out-of-custody cases
took 91 days or longer. The average number of days from arraignment to
disposition to resolve a case took 19 days for in-custody cases and 84 days for
out-of-custody cases.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 43

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
D. Superior Court
1. Attorney Type
The next graphic shows the type of attorney for the felonies in
superior court.

Three-fourths of the defendants were represented by the public defender.
The conflict counsel represented six percent of the cases and 17 percent
retained counsel. The remaining 1 percent did not have an attorney.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 44

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Prosecutor Filing
a. Overall
The next graphic shows whether the prosecutor filed a charge
against the defendant. It should be noted that the not filed cases can be filed
within 3-years of arrest.

Sixty-nine percent of the defendants arrested for felonies had cases filed.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 45

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Charge Category Filed
The next graphic shows the charged file category.

Eleven percent of the defendants were charged with domestic violence.
Thirteen percent were charged with another person crime; 28 percent with a
property offense; and 40 percent with a narcotics offense. The remaining 8
percent were charged with a public order offense.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 46

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Charge Category for Not-Filed Cases
The next graphic shows the charge category for the cases not
filed.

Eleven percent of the not-filed cases were domestic violence. Six percent
of the not filed cases were other person offenses; 30 percent were property
offenses; 48 percent narcotics offenses; and 3 percent drunk driving.
remaining 2 percent were public order offenses.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 47

The

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Disposition
a. Overall
The next graphic shows the type of disposition.

Seventy-two percent of the cases filed in superior resulted in a conviction.
Two percent of the defendants entered a diversion program and 11 percent
resulted in a not guilty verdict. The remaining 15 percent of the cases were still
pending.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 48

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Guilty Verdicts
The next graphic shows the type of guilty verdict.

Only 7 percent of the guilty verdicts were as a result of a trial. The rest of
the defendants pled guilty.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 49

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Charge Class
The next graphic shows the disposition charge class.

Ninety-eight percent of the cases were resolved as a felony.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 50

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Charge Category
(1) Convictions
The next graphic shows the disposition charge category for
defendants who were convicted.

Eleven percent of the defendants were convicted domestic violence.
Fourteen percent were convicted of another person crime; 28 percent with a
property offense; and 35 percent with a narcotics offense. The remaining 11
percent were charged with a public order offense.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 51

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Dismissed
The next graphic shows the charge category for the dismissed
cases.

Twenty percent of the defendants whose cases were dismissed were
charged with domestic violence.

Ten percent were charged with another

person crime; 15 percent with a property offense; and 48 percent with a
narcotics offense. The remaining 8 percent were charged with a public order
offense.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 52

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(3) Pending
The next graphic shows the charge category for the
defendants whose cases were still pending.

Seven percent of the defendants whose cases were still pending were
charged with a person crime. Thirty-two percent of the defendants whose
cases were still pending were charged with a property offense; and 57 percent
with a narcotics offense. The remaining 4 percent were charged with a public
order offense.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 53

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
f. Not Guilty Verdicts
The next graphic displays the type of not guilty verdict.

Ninety-three percent of the defendants whose were not convicted had
their cases dismissed. The remaining 7 percent were found not guilty.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 54

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Case Attrition
a. Booking to Disposition
The next graphic displays the number of felony cases by charge
category at booking, prosecutor filing, and disposition.

There were 54 domestic violence cases at booking, 42 at filing, and 30 at
disposition. There were 72 other person cases at booking, 52 at filing, and 40 at
disposition. There were 148 property cases at booking, 107 at filing and 79 at
disposition. There were 29 public order offenses at booking, 33 at filing, and 30
at disposition.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 55

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Case Filing Rate
The next graphic shows the case-filing rate.

Overall, 69 percent of the defendants arrested on a felony charge were
charged in superior court. Seventy-eight percent of the persons arrested on a
domestic violence charge were filed in superior court; 72 other person crime; 72
percent property crime; 64 percent narcotics; and 114 percent of public order
charges. Only 6 percent of persons arrested for felony traffic were filed on as a
felony.
It should be noted that the public order offenses showing a higher than
100 percent filing rate is due to other arrest charges from booking being
changed to public order at filing.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 56

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Conviction Rate from Filing
The next graphic shows the conviction rate from filing.

Overall, 72 percent of the defendants who had cases filed were convicted.
Seventy-one percent of the domestic violence filings resulted in a conviction; 77
percent of other person crimes; 74 percent of property crimes; 64 percent of
narcotics cases and 91 percent of public order offenses. All of the traffic cases
resulted in a conviction.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 57

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Conviction Rate from Booking
The graphic displays the conviction rate from booking.

Half of all felony bookings resulted in a conviction. Fifty-six percent of
the domestic violence bookings resulted in a conviction; 56 percent of other
person crimes; 53 percent of property crimes; 41 percent of narcotics cases and
103 percent of public order cases. Only 6 percent of the traffic cases resulted in
a conviction.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 58

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
5. Sentencing
a. Type
The next graphic shows the sentence type for the 271 convicted
defendants. While most defendants received multiple sentence types, for the
purposes of this graphic they are only counted once, using the hierarchy in the
legend.

Twenty-eight percent of the convicted felons were sentenced to prison.
Seventy-one percent received a jail sentence and only 1 percent received only a
probation sentence.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 59

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Sentence Length
(1) Jail
The next graphic shows the sentence length of the defendants
sentenced to jail. Neither good time nor suspended time is counted in this
calculation.

Twenty percent of the defendants sentenced to jail received a sentence of
20 days or less. Twenty-eight percent were sentenced to between 21 and 60
days; 15 percent between 60 and 90 days; and 14 percent between 91 and 180
days. The remaining 24 percent were sentenced between 6 months and a year.
The average jail sentence was 99 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 60

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Prison
The next graphic shows the prison sentence length.

A third of the superior court sentences were to prison. Thirty-six percent
were sentenced to between 13 and 24 months; and 16 percent to between 25 to
36 months. The remaining 16 percent were sentenced to 36 months of longer.
The average prison sentence was 23.9 months.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 61

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
6. Process Times
a. Number of Appearances
The next graphic shows the number of court appearances
between arraignment and disposition.

One percent of the cases required no additional appearances. Thirty-six
percent had between 1 and 3 other appearances; 26 percent had 4 appearances;
and 29 percent had between 5 and 8 appearances. The remaining 8 percent had
between 9 and 16 appearances.
The average number of appearances between arraignment and
disposition was 4.5.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 62

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Incremental
The next graphic shows some of the incremental process times
broken down by the overall population, those who remained in-custody, and
those released from custody.

The overall process times from booking to superior court filing was 57
days; in-custody cases 34 days; and out of custody cases 70 days. The overall
length of time from superior court filing to first appearance was 19 days; incustody cases 14 days and out of custody cases 22 days. The overall length of
time from first appearance to arraignment took 9 days; in-custody cases 8 days;
and out of custody cases 10 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 63

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Overall
The next graphic shows the process times for the overall
population, those who remained in-custody, and those released from custody.

The overall length of time from superior court arraignment to disposition
as 112 days; in-custody cases took 82 days; and out of custody cases took 128
days. The overall length of time from booking to disposition was 190 days; incustody cases took 135 days; and out of custody cases took 219 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 64

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Booking to Disposition
The next graphic shows the frequencies for the time from
booking to disposition, broken down by custody status.

Thirty-eight percent of the in-custody cases and 14 percent of the out of
custody cases took 90 days or less from booking to disposition.

Eighteen

percent of the in-custody cases and 9 percent of the out of custody cases took
between 91 and 120 days; twenty percent of the in-custody cases and 22
percent of the out of custody cases took between 121 and 180 days; and 21
percent of the in-custody cases and 43 percent of the out of custody cases took
between 181 to 365 days. The remaining 3 percent of the in-custody cases and
12 percent of the out of custody cases took 365 days or longer.
The in-custody cases took an average 135 days and the out of custody
cases took an average 219 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 65

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
7. Failure-to-Appear
a. Overall
The next graphic shows whether the defendants who were
released from custody prior to trial failed-to-appear for a court appearance.

Thirty-two percent of the defendants failed-to-appear.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 66

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Number
The next graphic shows the number of failures to appear.

Eighty percent of the persons who failed-to-appear did so only once.
Sixteen percent failed-to-appear twice and 4 percent three times. The average
number of times was 1.2.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 67

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Release Type
The next graphic shows the failure-to-appear rate by type of
release.

Overall, 32 percent of the defendants failed-to-appear. Thirty percent of
the persons released on recognizance failed to appear; and 28 percent released
after posting a surety bond. Thirty-seven percent of the defendants released
because no charges were filed failed-to-appear.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 68

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Time to FTA
(1) Misdemeanors
The next graphic shows the length of time from release to
failure-to-appear for misdemeanants.

Twenty-two percent of the misdemeanants who failed-to-appear did so in
10 days or less. Nineteen percent failed-to-appear between 11 and 20 days; 20
percent in 21 to 40 days; and 15% in 41 to 80 days. The remaining 24 percent
who failed-to-appear did so in 81 to 292 days.
The average length of time from release to failure-to-appear was 54 days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 69

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Felonies
The next graphic shows the length of time from release to
failure-to-appear for the felons.

A quarter of the felons who failed-to-appear did so during the first 90
days. Twenty percent failed-to-appear between 91 and 120 days; 20 percent in
120 to 180 days; and 25% in 181 to 360 days. The remaining 10 percent of the
felons who failed-to-appear did so between 361 and 573 days.
The average length of time from release to failure-to-appear was 174
days.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 70

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
e. Disposition Time
The final graphic showing the impact of the problem of failureto-appear shows the overall disposition time for defendants released from
custody prior to trial, from booking to disposition by whether the defendant
failed-to-appear.

For misdemeanants, the overall average processing time was 98 days. In
cases where the defendant did not fail-to-appear, it took an average 77 days
compared to 181 days where there was a failure-to-appear.
For felons, the overall average processing time was 219 days. In cases
where the defendant did not fail-to-appear, it took an average 199 days
compared to 275 days where there was a failure-to-appear.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 71

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
8. Failure-to-Cooperate
The next graphic shows whether the defendants released from
custody prior to trial failed to comply with the court’s release conditions.

Seventeen percent of the released defendants failed-to-cooperate.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 72

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
9. Re-Arrest
a. Overall
The next graphic shows the overall re-arrest rate for the
defendants in the sample who were released from jail prior to trial.

Twenty-one percent of the misdemeanants and 29 percent of the felons
were re-arrested for a new criminal offense prior to disposition of the case that
was part of this sample.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 73

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Release Type
The last graphic shows the re-arrest rate by the type of release.

Overall, 21 percent of the misdemeanants and 29 percent of the felons
were re-arrested. Twenty-two percent of the misdemeanants and 23 percent of
the felons released on recognizance were re-arrested. Eight percent of the
misdemeanants and half of the felons released after posting a cash bond were
re-arrested. Twenty-four percent of both the misdemeanants and the felons
released after posting a surety bond were re-arrested. Thirty-seven percent of
the felons released from custody when no charges were filed were
subsequently re-arrested for a new criminal offense.

Criminal Justice System Data
Chapter One
Page 74

Spokane County
Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Two
Jail Population Breakdown

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Two
Jail Population Breakdown
Table of Contents
A. Prisoner Status ............................................................................ 4

1. Overall ......................................................................................4
2. Pre-Trial Prisoners .................................................................. 5
a. Charge Class ................................................................... 5
b. Charge Category............................................................6
3. Post Trial Prisoners ................................................................. 10
a. Charge Class ................................................................... 10
b. Charge Category............................................................11
4. Holds.........................................................................................15
a. Type ................................................................................ 15
b. Local Charges................................................................. 18
5. Demographics.......................................................................... 21
a. Arresting Agency ...........................................................21
b. Age ..................................................................................22
c. Gender ............................................................................ 23
d. Race/Ethnicity ...............................................................24
e. Education........................................................................ 25
f. Employment.................................................................... 26

B. Time in Custody........................................................................... 27

1. Status ........................................................................................27
2. Pre-Trial Prisoners .................................................................. 28
a. Charge Class ................................................................... 28
b. Charge Category............................................................29
3. Post Trial Prisoners ................................................................. 31
a. Charge Class ................................................................... 31
b. Charge Category............................................................32
4. Holds.........................................................................................34
a. Overall ............................................................................ 34
b. Department of Corrections Holds ...............................35
c. Bench Warrants..............................................................36

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 2

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Two
Jail Population Breakdown
Introduction
William Flatt from the Spokane Police Department developed the
routines to complete a daily snapshot of every prisoner in custody.

The

snapshot methodology uses a hierarchy to determine the most significant
charge for which a defendant is being held and from that determines their
status.

The snapshot is recorded each night at midnight and a monthly

composite is prepared at the end of the month.
The data presented in this chapter was taken from monthly composites
from April through December 2007. It is presented in two sections: the first
section details the number of prisoners in each category and the second shows
how long they have been in custody.

Time in custody is a different

measurement then Length of Stay. Time in custody is the average length of
time each prisoner in the specific category has been in custody as opposed to
average length of stay, which captures all of the prisoners in jail during a given
period of time.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 3

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
A. Prisoner Status
1. Overall
The first graphic shows the status of the average 1,178 prisoners in
custody.

Thirty-four percent of the jail population was there awaiting trial.
Twenty-eight percent was serving a sentence and the remaining 38 percent
were in jail on holds.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 4

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Pre-Trial Prisoners
a. Charge Class
The next graphic displays the charge class for the 386 pre-trial
prisoners.

Forty percent of the pre-trial prisoners were awaiting trial on a
misdemeanor and the remaining on a felony charge.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 5

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Charge Category
(1) Misdemeanors
(a) Overall
The next graphic shows the charge category for the pretrial misdemeanors.

Twenty-seven percent of the pre-trial misdemeanors were in jail awaiting
trial for a crime against person.

Seven percent were awaiting trial on a

property charge; 3% for a narcotics offense; 48 percent for drunk driving; and
6% for a public order offense. The remaining 9 percent were in jail for a traffic
offense.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 6

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(b) Person Crimes
The next graphic examines the 41 person crimes in
greater detail.

Seventy-six percent of the misdemeanants charged with person crimes
were charged with domestic violence. The remaining 24 percent were charged
with “other” person offenses.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 7

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Felonies
(a) Overall
The next graphic shows the charge category for the 233
pre-trial felons.

Forty-three percent of the post trial felons were in jail awaiting trial for a
crime against person. Twenty-eight percent were awaiting trial on a property
charge; and 18% for a narcotics offense; and 9 percent for a public order
offense. The remaining 1 percent was in jail for a traffic offense.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 8

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(b) Person Crimes
The next graphic provides additional detail for the 101
pre-trial felons charged with person crimes.

Twenty percent of the felons charged with person crimes were charged
with domestic violence. The remaining 80 percent were charged with “other”
person offenses.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 9

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Post Trial Prisoners
a. Charge Class
The next graphic shows the charge class for the 324 post trial
prisoners.

Twenty percent of the post trial prisoners were serving a sentence for a
misdemeanor charge and the remaining had been convicted of a felony offense.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 10

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Charge Category
(1) Misdemeanors
(a) Overall
The next graphic shows the charge category for the 64
sentenced misdemeanants.

Forty-one percent of the misdemeanants had been convicted of a crime
against person. Eight percent had been convicted of a property offense; 5% for
a narcotics offense; 31% for drunk driving; and 9 percent for a public order
offense. The remaining 6% had been convicted of a traffic offense.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 11

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(b) Person Crimes
The next graphic details the type of person crime for the
26 offenders.

Eighty-one percent of the sentenced misdemeanants charged with person
crimes were convicted domestic violence.
convicted of “other” person offenses.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 12

The remaining 19 percent were

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Felonies
(a) Overall
The next graphic shows the charge category for the 260
sentenced felons.

Forty-one percent of the felons had been convicted of a crime against
person. A third been convicted of a property offense; 19% for a narcotics
offense; and 5 percent for a public order offense. The remaining 1% had been
convicted of a traffic offense.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 13

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(b) Person Crimes
The next graphic details the type of person crime for the
125 offenders.

Twenty-four percent of the sentenced felons charged with person crimes
were convicted domestic violence. The remaining 76 percent were convicted of
“other” person offenses.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 14

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Holds
a. Type
(1) Overall
The next graphic displays the “hold” type.

Thirty-one percent of the holds were federal prisoners. Forty percent
were for Washington Department of Corrections (DOC); 3 percent were for
other counties; and 25 percent were locally issued bench warrants.
remaining 1% were “other” holds.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 15

The

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Washington Department of Corrections
The next graphic details the type of holds for Washington
Department of Corrections.

Eighty percent of the DOC holds were for probations violations and 2
percent was for parole violations. The remaining 18% of the holds were for the
state prison.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 16

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(3) Bench Warrants
The next graphic shows the court of jurisdiction for the 110
offenders in-custody on bench warrants, issued primarily for the defendant’s
failure-to-appear.

The municipal court issued 57 percent of the warrants. Thirty-six percent
were issued by the district court and the remaining 6 percent were issued by
the superior court.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 17

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Local Charges
(1) Overall
The next graphic looks at the hold prisoners to determine if
they also had local charges.

Overall, 39 percent of the holds also had local charges pending. Ten
percent of the federal prisoners had local charges; 65 percent of the DOC holds;
and 59 percent of the holds for other counties.

Sixty-three percent of the

prisoners being held on bench warrants had local charges pending.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 18

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Washington Department of Corrections
The next graphic details the DOC prisoners and the presence
of local charges.

Overall, the CDC prisoners had local charges in addition to the hold in 65
percent of the cases. Probation hold prisoners had local charges in 62 percent
of the cases; and parole holds in 39 percent of the cases. The prison holds all
had local charges pending in 77 percent of the cases.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 19

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(3) Bench Warrants
The next graphic examines the presence of local charges for
the prisoners being held on bench warrants.

Overall, 63 percent of the prisoners being held on bench warrants also
had local charges. Sixty-eight percent of the municipal court prisoners had
local charges and 58 percent of the district court prisoners had local charges.
Fifty-three percent of the superior court bench warrant cases had local charges.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 20

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
5. Demographics
a. Arresting Agency
The next graphic shows the arresting agency.

The Sheriff arrested 12% of the prisoners. Spokane Police Department
arrested 42 percent of the prisoners; and Washington State Police booked 4
percent.

The remaining 41 percent were arrested by other police agencies.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 21

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Age
The next graphic shows the age of the prisoners in custody.

Twenty-two percent of the prisoners were younger than 25 years old.
Thirty-four percent were between the ages of 25 to 34; and 27% between 35 to
44. The remaining 17% were 45 or older.
The average age was 33.8 years old.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 22

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Gender
The next graphic shows the gender of the prisoners

Sixteen percent were female.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 23

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
d. Race/Ethnicity
The next graphic shows the race of the prisoners.

Eighty-one percent were Caucasian and 11 percent were African
American. The remaining 8 percent were “other”.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 24

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
e. Education
The next graphic shows the education level attained.

Twenty-four percent of the offenders in custody did not complete high
school or attain a GED.

Sixty-seven percent had attained a high school

diploma or GED and 1 percent had completed college. The education level of
the remaining 7 percent is unknown.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 25

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
f. Employment
The next graphic shows whether the defendants were employed
at the time of booking.

Thirty-seven percent of the prisoners reported that they were employed
when they were booked. This information is not verified.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 26

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
B. Time in Custody
1. Status
The next graphic shows the overall time in custody.

The overall average time in custody was 69 days. Pre-Trial prisoners had
been in jail for an average 76 days and post trial prisoners 65 days. Holds had
been in custody an average 66 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 27

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
2. Pre-Trial Prisoners
a. Charge Class
The next graphic shows the time in custody for the pre-trial
prisoners.

The pre-trial prisoners had been in custody an average 76 days. Pre-Trial
misdemeanants had been custody an average 54 days and felons an average 92
days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 28

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Charge Category
(1) Misdemeanors
The next graphic shows the average time in custody for the
pre-trial misdemeanants by charge category.

The overall average time in custody for pre-trial misdemeanors was 54
days. Prisoners awaiting trial for domestic violence had been in custody 54
days; other person crimes an average of 66 days; property crime offenders had
been in jail an average 55 days; narcotics offenders 51 days; drunk drivers 57
days; and public order offenders 43 days. The traffic offenders had been in
custody an average 30 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 29

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Felonies
The next graphic shows the average time in custody for the
pre-trial felons by charge category.

The overall time in custody for pre-trial felons was 92 days. Prisoners
awaiting trial for domestic violence had been in custody 79 days; other person
crimes an average of 135 days property crime offenders had been in jail an
average 66 days; narcotics offenders 62 days; DUI offenders 3 days; and public
order offenders 81 days. The traffic offenders had been in custody an average
53 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 30

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
3. Post Trial Prisoners
a. Charge Class
The next graphic shows the time in custody for post trial
prisoners.

The overall time in custody for post trial prisoners was 65 days. Post trial
misdemeanants had been in custody an average 26 days and post trial felons an
average 75 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 31

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Charge Category
(1) Misdemeanors
The next graphic shows the time in custody by charge
category for the sentenced misdemeanants.

The overall time in custody for post trial misdemeanants was 26 days.
Prisoners serving a sentence for domestic violence had been in custody 11
days; other person crimes an average of 16 days; property crime offenders had
been in jail an average 39 days; narcotics offenders 13 days; drunk drivers 50
days; and public order offenders 13 days. The traffic offenders had been in
custody an average 8 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 32

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
(2) Felonies
The next graphic shows the time in custody by charge
category for the sentenced felons.

The overall average time in custody for post trial felons was 75 days.
Prisoners serving a sentence for domestic violence had been in custody 63
days; other person crimes an average of 125 days; property crime offenders had
been in jail an average 53 days; narcotics offenders 46 days; drunk drivers 22
days; and public order offenders 36 days. The traffic offenders had been in
custody an average 99 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 33

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
4. Holds
a. Overall
The next graphic shows the average time in custody for the holds
by the type of hold.

The holds had been in custody an average 66 days. Federal prisoners had
been in custody an average 115 days; DOC prisoners an average 42 days; holds
for other counties 48 days and bench warrants for 50 days. “Other” holds had
been jail an average 28 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 34

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
b. Department of Corrections Holds
The next graphic shows the average time in custody for the DOC
holds.

The overall average length of time in custody for DOC holds was 42 days.
Probation holds had been in custody 28 days and parole holds 60 days. Prison
holds had been in custody 103 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 35

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
c. Bench Warrants
The final graphic examines the time in custody for the prisoners
being held on bench warrants.

The overall average time in custody for prisoners with bench warrants
was 44 days. Municipal bench warrant cases had been in jail 49 days and
district court cases 39 days.
average 20 days.

Jail Population Breakdown
Chapter Two
Page 36

The superior court cases had been in jail an

Spokane County
Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Three
Jail Capacity Forecasts

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Three
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Table of Contents
A. Admissions................................................................ 5
B. Average Length of Stay............................................ 6
C. Average Daily Population....................................... 7
D. County Population: Actual and Forecasted —
1999-2035 .......................................................................... 8
1. County Population: Actual — 1999-2007 .......................................8
2. County Population: Forecasted — 2010-2035 ...............................9

E. Rates .......................................................................... 10
1. Admissions....................................................................................... 10
2. Incarceration .................................................................................... 11

F. Jail Capacity Forecasts............................................ 13
1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 13
2. Adjustments: Peaking and Classification Factors ....................... 14
3. The Forecasts for 2035..................................................................... 16

G. Conclusion............................................................... 18
1. Types of Beds ................................................................................... 18
2. Summary .......................................................................................... 19

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 2

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Three
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Forecasting future jail population sizes is, or should be, a policy-based
task. The changes that have occurred in United States jail populations during
the last twenty-five years provide considerable evidence that shifts in local
policies can bring about dramatic increases or decreases in jail populations
within a county. Few planners who did jail population forecasts during the
1970s or 1980s were able to foresee the nation-wide policy-shift trends that
would lead to dramatic growth in jail populations in the 1980s and 1990s. They
were unable to foresee, for example, the greater focus on persons convicted of
drunk driving. In the 1990s, the offenses that impacted most jails in the United
States were domestic violence and all of the narcotics and drug-related crime.
Because of this failure of foresight, even those counties that built new jails
during the latter half of the 1980s found that space that was supposed to be
sufficient until the year 2000 was filled by the early 1990s. In many cases, the
decision-makers responsible for the policy shifts at issue had been on hand
when the forecasting studies were done; they were no more able than the
forecasters to predict where policy emphases would fall during the coming
decade.
Too much jail forecasting work done in recent years has assumed that
criminal justice system policies in a county will remain the same over the
forecast period. In reality, this is rarely the case. When forecasters make their
predictions based on the assumption that county decision-makers will make no
changes in criminal justice system policy, they doom their predictions to
failure. No county criminal justice system today can afford not to anticipate
change. For better or for worse, all county systems will have to change, with
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 3

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

increasing frequency, in the years to come. The question is not whether but how
a particular set of policies can be expected to change. Jail forecasters must
learn to take the likelihood of such changes into account and try to foresee the
various possibilities. As the drunk-driving and domestic violence examples
illustrate, forecasters cannot do this without the close cooperation of county
decision-makers.

Ultimately, the decision-makers are the ones who must

decide where the emphasis will fall in the years to come.
Jail capacity forecasts must depend in large part on information made
available to forecasters by a county. The forecasts contained in this report are
no exception. Historical information exists on the way the Spokane County Jail
and Geiger Correctional Facility has been used during the past 9 years. Jail
admissions, average length of stay, and average daily population figures are
available from 1999 to the present.
While we have 2 additional years of jail data, without having
corresponding Geiger data only tells half the story. Attempts to obtain reliable,
consistent older data, however, proved impossible — the records simply do not
exist or are not reliable. An estimate of the forecast of county population was
received from the County Information Systems—GIS Division to the year 2035.
As useful as these numbers may be in constructing a picture of what is to
come, they will not aid the county unless a consensus regarding criminal
justice system policy for the next twenty-five years is reached. The text, tables,
and graphs that follow illustrate several possible population scenarios,
scenarios that suggest what the county might expect in terms of Jail bed
demand given several possible policy scenarios. No one-policy scenario is the
“right” scenario. It will be up to the county decision-makers to select the view
of the future that best represents what they believe to be the most likely
direction of county decision-makers, and then plan for jail space on that basis.
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 4

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

The data contained in this section combines the County Jail and Geiger
Correctional Facility data.
A. Admissions
The first graphic presents the total admissions per year for the years 1999
to 2007.

In 1999, the Spokane County Jail admitted a total of 19,349 persons. The
number of admissions dropped slightly or remained flat until 2006 and then
increased dramatically to 22,893 in 2005. In 2007, admissions dropped to 20,801,
representing an 8 percent increase over the period.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 5

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

B. Average Length of Stay
The next graphic shows the average length of stay for 1999 to 2007.

The average length of stay has seen some dramatic changes from a low of
18 days in both 1999 and 2006 and a high of 22.2 days in 2005. The average
length of stay in 1999 was 18 days and in 2007 it was 19.7 days, making for an 8
percent increase over the period.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 6

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

C. Average Daily Population
The next graphic presents the historic average daily population
(ADP) for the Spokane County Jail and Geiger Correctional Facility over the
period 1999 to 2007.

The average daily population was 953 in 1999. The average daily
population increased steadily for 3 years before virtually flattening for the last
6 years. In 2007, the average daily population was 1,108, making for a 16
percent increase over the period.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 7

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

D. County Population: Actual and Forecasted — 1999-2035
1. County Population: Actual — 1999-2007
The next graphic shows the actual county population for each year
between 1999 and 2007.

In 199, 416,713 persons resided in the county. Since then, the population
has risen steadily and it is estimated that 451,200 persons lived in the county in
2007, an 8 percent increase over the period.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 8

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

2. County Population: Forecasted — 2010-2035
The next graphic shows the forecasted county population from 2010
to 2035 as provided by the County Division of Building and Planning.

The county population in 2010 is expected to be 525,065. Population is
expected to grow to 687,349 persons by 2035, a 31 percent increase.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 9

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

E. Rates
1. Admissions
The next graphic shows the rate of admissions to the Spokane
County Jail per 100,000 population from 1999 to 2007.

In 1999, the admission rate into the Spokane County Jail was 4,643 per
100,000 population; by 2007, the rate had dropped to 4,610 per 100,000
population, a 1 percent decrease.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 10

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

2. Incarceration
a. Spokane County
The incarceration rate per 100,000 of the population is shown in
the graphic below for the years 1999 to 2007.

The incarceration rate rose from 229 per 100,000 population in 1999 to 246
per 100,000 population in 2007, a 7 percent increase.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 11

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

b. United States
The next graphic shows the incarceration rates for the United
States, Western US, and State of Washington for the years 1993, 1999, and 2005
(Spokane data was only available for 1999 and 2005). The national and state
data is taken from the Census of Jails from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The
national data is only collected every 5 or 6 years.

The national incarceration rate has risen from 178 persons per 100,000
population in 1993 to 252 in 2005. The western United States has risen from
187 to 235. The state of Washington has increased from 142 to 202. Spokane
County’s incarceration rate has increased from 229 per 100,000 population in
1999 to 258 in 2005 which is which is virtually the same as the national average
and slightly higher than the state and regional averages.

If the federal

prisoners are factored out of the rate, it reduces it to about 235 persons per
100,000 population.
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 12

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

F. Jail Capacity Forecasts
1. Introduction
A simple method of forecasting the number of Jail beds needed
would be to use average daily population increases over the 9-year study
period as a predictive base. During that 9-year period, the Jail population
increased on average by 17.2 persons each year. Using the above method, one
might predict that the average daily population would be 1,590 Jail beds for the
year 2035. However, this forecast assumes that the Jail is being appropriately
utilized today (that no additional pre- or post trial intermediate sanctions exist
that could impact the Jail population) and that the Jail will continue to be used
at the same rate over the next 28 years as it has over the past 9 years. Neither
of these assumptions is likely to be true. However, a more detailed approach is
recommended to be used to develop Jail population forecasts — one in which
county officials can help select specific scenarios for the future on which such
forecasts can be based.
The average length of stay has not changed significantly over the study
period. The average length of stay over the last 9 years averaged 20.3 days;
and over the last 5 years 20.4 days. In 2005, the average length of stay was 22.2
days; in 2006 it was 18 days and in 2007 it was 19.4 days. For the purposes of
these forecasts, three estimated average lengths of stay have been used for the
year 2035: 18, 20, and 22 days.
Admissions have been relatively flat over the study period. The number
of persons booked into the jail in 2007 is 8 percent higher than in 1988;
however, there have been some swings over the last couple of years. The
admissions rate averaged 4,225 over the last 20 years.

The admissions rates

averaged 4,533 per 100,000 persons over the last 11 years and 4,544 over the last
five years. The admissions rate in 2005, was 4,239; for 2006, it was 5,158; and for
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 13

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

2007 was 4,610. Three different admissions rates are used for these forecasts:
4,500, 5,000, and 5,500 per 100,000 population.
2. Adjustments: Peaking and Classification Factors
The expected average daily population for each of the forecast
scenarios does not mean that the county will only need this number of beds.
Since these are daily averages, the county’s plans should include allowances
for those days (in a given year) when the population surges above the average
because of normal fluctuations in admissions and releases.
This situation is similar to a storm drain system. A storm drain sits
empty most of the year; however, it needs to be large enough to handle the
peak run-off from a summer thundershower or melting snow from the
mountains.

Jail populations are very similar.

During peak periods —

traditionally weekends, the end of the month, and the summer months — jail
populations climb. A jail needs to be large enough to handle the peak periods.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 14

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

The next graphic shows the peaking factor for Spokane County. The Jail
and Geiger Correctional Facility provided the three highest population days
each month for each of the years 2005-2007.

Each month’s average peak population was determined and then
compared with the average daily population to develop the peaking factor. In
part, the peaks have evened out, artificially, because of overcrowding. The jail
is continuously operating at capacity with adjustments made to the inmate
population when it would be seeing normal peak populations; however, the
three-year average was 13 percent.
A second factor, classification, was used to allow for the daily need, in
any jail, to have a few open beds available for new inmates within each
classification category.

In a jail of this size, an appropriate classification

adjustment factor would be seven beds for each of the four primary
classification categories. That is, the county should increase its estimate for
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 15

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

each year by 28 beds to come to a final figure of what will be needed for each of
the years in this planning cycle.
3. The Forecasts for 2035
The next set of graphics gives figures for the year 2035 based on an
average length of stay of 18 days, 20 days and 22 days.
The tables below show (1) the average daily population, (2) beds
necessary to handle peak periods, and (3) beds necessary for classification
purposes. These figures are given for each of the three possible admissions
rates. Each table then gives the incarceration rate per 100,000 population for
each of the three possible admissions rates per 100,000 population: 4500, 5000,
& 5500.
By 2035, it is estimated that 687,349 persons will be living in the county;
this figure provides the baseline for the tables.

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 16

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Year 2035
Average Length of Stay of 18 Days
Admissions
Total Beds
Incarceration
Rate per
Average
Necessary
Total Beds
Rate per
100,000
Daily
for the Peak Necessary for
100,000
Population Population Populations Classification Population

4500
5000
5500

1525
1695
1864

1724
1915
2107

1752
1943
2135

220
250
270

Average Length of Stay of 20 Days
Admissions
Total Beds
Incarceration
Rate per
Average
Necessary
Total Beds
Rate per
100,000
Daily
for the Peak Necessary for
100,000
Population Population Populations Classification Population

4500
5000
5500

1695
1883
2071

1915
2128
2341

1943
2156
2369

250
270
300

Average Length of Stay of 22 Days
Admissions
Total Beds
Incarceration
Rate per
Average
Necessary
Total Beds
Rate per
100,000
Daily
for the Peak Necessary for
100,000
Population Population Populations Classification Population

4500
5000
5500

Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 17

1864
2071
2279

2107
2341
2575

2135
2369
2603

270
300
330

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

G. Conclusion
1. Types of Beds
Spokane County has a rich history in the use of alternative
correctional space. Geiger Correctional Facility was intended to function as a
Community Corrections Center (CCC)––designed to provide programs to
address sentenced prisoners needs and to transition offenders back into the
community. Overcrowding at the main jail has changed the facility’s mission.
While it does provide some programs and services, it functions as an annex to
the county jail, holding those prisoners for whom the jail has no room.
The data in Chapter Two documents the breakdown of the prisoners
being held in the county’s correctional system. On an average day from April
through December 2007, there were 149 post trial prisoners who were classified
minimum security. In addition, there were 115 medium security post trial
prisoners, many of which would be qualified for a CCC. The exact number can
be determined through the administration of a Risk/Needs Assessment such as
COMPAS by Northpointe Institute or the LSI-R instrument.
During that month, the jail also held an average 152 prisoners charged
with probation violations, 62 percent of who also had local charges. If there
had been sufficient space at Geiger, not only could many of these offenders
been held at Geiger upon entering the jail with a probation violation, but some
of the offenders could have been sanctioned with time at Geiger prior to being
charged with either a violation or the commission of a new crime.
In addition, 138 of the prisoners with holds were classified as minimum
security, many of who could be held in a CCC.
The analysis suggests that the construction of at a minimum a 300-bed
Community Corrections Center should be considered as part of the county’s
future correctional bed system.
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 18

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

2. Summary
The forecasts presented in this report are just starting points. The
projections are, at best, estimates of what is likely to occur in the coming
twenty-seven years. Should the county decision-makers wish to alter any of
the scenarios, they can do so by adjusting the key indices of jail use — county
population, admissions rate, expected average lengths of stay, the peaking
factor, and the classification factor. By adjusting these factors, the decisionmakers will obtain different estimates of the required number of jail beds.
There is no guarantee that criminal justice system policy will not change
and push jail populations higher or lower than these numbers indicate. The
forecasters of the 1980s did not foresee the dramatic rise in jail populations that
took place during the 1990s early 2000s. No one was able to estimate those
changes accurately.
Spokane County officials must analyze the data contained in this report
and adopt a plan for the future of their criminal justice system. Policy shifts
that could change the amount of jail space available are detailed in this report.
If the necessary changes recommended in this report do not occur, then more
beds than those predicted in this report will be necessary. Left uncontrolled,
the present correctional populations will continue to grow, filling and
overfilling whatever facilities are constructed in response to such growth, and
leaving Spokane County with no alternatives for managing the jail population
other than simply building new facilities every few years in response to
renewed overcrowding. An approach that emphasizes active management, on
the other hand, may make it possible to prolong the sufficiency of new
correctional space for a longer period — giving Spokane County time to explore
and try out the many viable alternatives to construction that have become
available in recent years and are recommended in the next chapter.
Jail Capacity Forecasts
Chapter Three
Page 19

Spokane County
Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Four
Jail Population Management

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Four
Jail Population Management
Table of Contents
I. Pre-Trial Services ........................................................ 3
II. Adjudication ............................................................ 14
III. Alternative Facility: Community Corrections
Center ............................................................................. 28
IV. The Jail..................................................................... 36
V. Mental Health Services ......................................... 39
VI. Community Supervision and Treatment
Programs ........................................................................ 44
VII. Information Systems ........................................... 59
VIII. Conclusion ........................................................... 60

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 2

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Chapter Four
Jail Population Management
Based on the data findings and system assessment this Chapter presents
system recommendations which, taken as a whole, represent a Master
Plan for system reform in Spokane County.

I. Pre-Trial Services
 Establish a Consolidated, Full-Service Pre-Trial Program
Pre-Trial Services acts as a gatekeeper for the criminal justice system. A
comprehensive Pre-Trial Services Program is an indispensable component
of a criminal justice system whose benefits are realized in community
safety, system integrity, and reduced system costs.
Spokane County lacks essential elements of a comprehensive Pre-Trial Services
program.
Spokane County Pre-Trial is respected for its work with felony case
screening, but as currently operated this program provides only a partial
service. Missing elements include:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Universal front-end screening and verification
Validated risk assessment
Indigent screening for attorney assignment for all defendants
Universal victim contact in cases of violence
Universal Diversion screening
Routine review of jail pre-trial population/bail review
Comprehensive supervision and monitoring
Court date notification
Comprehensive tracking (failure-to-appear returns to court)
24/7 hour operations

The development of a full-service Pre-Trial program is an essential first
step in a move toward a more unified ‘systems approach’ to case
management.
A comprehensive Pre-Trial program would end the bifurcated approach
to screening misdemeanor and felony pre-trial defendants and help move
Spokane County toward a more coordinated system of services. This not
only represents ‘good practice’ but is a necessary pre-condition for other
recommended system reforms.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 3

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
84% of Misdemeanors and 72% of Felony defendants in Spokane County District
Court were released from jail prior to trial. (Spokane case processing study)
The pre-trial release rate for felons in Spokane County is higher than the
national pre-trial release rate (62%).1 Although high release rates are
consistent with a ‘presumption of release’ these release rates are in most
instances accompanied by high pre-trial failure rates.
High pre-trial failure rates reflect the lack of universal pre-trial screening,
and the lack of comprehensive supervision, monitoring or tracking.
37% of Pre-Trial Misdemeanor defendants are Released on their own
Recognizance.
A review of pre-trial release types reveals the lack of any middle ground
when it comes to supervision options: a defendant is either released with
no supervision (own recognizance) or released based on a financial surety
arrangement or cash. Unlike other jurisdictions which offer a nonfinancial conditional release, in which a Pre-Trial program offers
supervision and tracking, this option does not now exist in Spokane
County.
Type of Pre-Trial Release (District Ct)
Misdemeanor
Own Recognizance
Cash
Surety
No Charges Filed
Not Released

37%
9
32
5
16%

Felony
19%
0
25
27
28%

The pre-trial failure-to-appear rate (FTA) for defendants out of Spokane County
District Court is 23%; the FTA rate in Superior Court is 32%. (Spokane County
case processing study)
At 32%, the Superior Court failure-to-appear rate is significantly higher
than the national average. These ‘no-shows’ represent a real cost to the
system. Each missed court date requires an extra effort in terms of
rescheduling hearings, issuing warrants, and dispatching law
enforcement.
In District Court, the impact of failure-to-appear rates is evident in the
number of multiple FTA cases.

1

BJS, 2002

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 4

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Of those defendants with an FTA in District Court, 35% had 2 or more failureto-appears. (Spokane County case processing study)
Multiple failure-to-appear on a single case most likely reflect the lack of
timely case disposition, as well as the failure to provide quality pre-trial
supervision. On the District Court side, the fact that FTA rates are lower
for those who exit on Surety release than those who exit on own
recognizance may reflect the selection process employed by the Surety
companies: bail bonds companies can accept or deny a case based on the
perceived risk.
At 29%, the pre-trial re-arrest rate for felons in Spokane County Superior Court
is significantly higher than the national average of 18%. (Spokane County case
processing study)
Spokane County falls short in pre-trial re-arrest statistics, with a Superior
Court rate significantly higher than the national average for both
misdemeanants (21%) and felons (29%). Moreover, there is little
distinction in re-arrest rates by release type for Superior Court cases,
perhaps suggesting that information regarding risk is not well supporting
the assignment of release type.
Re-Arrest Rates by Release Type (Superior Court)
Misdemeanor
Felony
All
Own Recognizance
Surety

21%
22
24

29%
23
24

Despite the lack of a full-service program, Spokane County Pre-Trial
Intake staff is dedicated to their work and have introduced some
noteworthy features: automated case tracking software, a good interview
form, expeditious time to interview, the efficient use of laptop computers
for interviewing, and court reports that are clear and concise. Pre-Trial
also has a presence at First Appearance hearings to act as a resource to the
judge, which is recommended.
 Provide Universal Front-End Screening
The proposed program should screen all individuals booked into the jail,
contact victims, document indigent status, and prepare risk assessments to
inform judicial release decision-making ─for all misdemeanants and felons
booked into Jail.
Provides Early Identification of Diversion Candidates
Pre-Trial Programs serve another important role in the immediate
identification of possible candidates for drug court, therapeutic mental
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 5

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
health court, and other diversion options. This serves to broaden the pool
of applicants considered for these programs, and to shorten the time to
program entry. Importantly, time to program entry has been shown to
be a predictor of positive program outcome.
In Spokane County Drug Court and Therapeutic Mental Health Court clients are
not identified by a universal up-front screening.
Without a universal, front-end screening process, the identification of
potential diversion clients is made more challenging. This is true to some
extent in Spokane County, where referrals come from different
courtrooms, from district attorneys and public defenders, and from the
clients themselves. A Pre-Trial intake unit consolidates what is, in many
jurisdictions, a fragmented approach to identifying diversion clients.
Inmate requests for diversion consideration may drive placement in some cases,
instead of through a universal front-end screening.
The pre-trial screening also provides an opportunity to flag underlying
issues that merit further assessment, such as mental health issues or
repeated entry into the jail. Pre-Trial screening can serve as the referral
point for individuals in need of clinical mental health assessments and
referral services.
The lack of pre-trial screening is especially troubling for Domestic
Violence (DV) cases. A judge who releases a DV case prior to trial might
consult the probation officer for release recommendations. Given that no
pre-sentence investigations are completed in DV cases, the lack of a
comprehensive record makes even this approach inadequate.
Front-end screening is a central pre-trial function. The process needs to be
made uniform and standardized, with all judges receiving the same packet
of information that is now made available for felony cases.
 Validate a Pre-Trial Risk Assessment Tool
There is no relationship between the number of prior bookings into jail and the
type of pre-trial release. (Spokane County case processing study)
Using the number of prior bookings into jail as a proxy measure for
criminal history reveals a surprising lack of relationship between prior
contacts with the local criminal justice system and release type. One
would, for example, expect that defendants released on surety would
have a more involved history of bookings than those released on their
own recognizance, however for misdemeanors no difference exists.
For felony offenders the result is opposite what one would expect.
Inmates released on their own recognizance have more prior bookings
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 6

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
than those released on surety. This calls into question the reliability of the
existing pre-trial risk screen used to make release decisions.
Number of Prior Bookings by Type of Pre-Trial Release
Own Recognizance
Misdemeanor
Felony

4.4
5.8

Surety
4.4
5.2

In any case, Pre-Trial programs should not only rely on objective risk
instruments (Spokane County does use one) but have them validated. The
validation process is vital to insuring that the tool is accurate and reliable.
 Establish a Pre-Trial Supervision Unit
The program should also develop a supervision unit responsible for
monitoring and tracking cases pre-trial cases up to the point of
disposition. This unit will also need to work with the court to develop
protocols for returning failure-to-appear cases to court, monitoring
compliance with release conditions, and providing court date notification
and appearance tracking. Pre-Trial programs contribute to reductions in
FTA’s through systematic case monitoring: providing court date
notification, and working to return FTA cases to court without the
issuance of a bench warrant. Spokane County does not have the latter
system in place.
National data indicate that re-arrest rates for defendants released from jail
to pretrial supervision are significantly lower than those released on either
deposit bonds or through a forced release: The national re-arrest rate for
supervised defendants is almost half that of forced releases.2 Spokane
County has not experienced ‘forced’ release, but only because periodic
limitations on admissions, by crime type, has been used as a management
tool.
As this is developed, the intake unit should also broaden its scope and set
up a mechanism to continuously review the jail population to identify pretrial inmates who remain in custody. The goal is to update case
information in preparation for a routine bail review.
The benefits of implementing a full-service program are many, and
include the following:
Supports Jail Population Management
Pre-Trial programs offer a systematic, front-end mechanism for managing
jail populations. This replaces the ‘back-end’ approach seen in many
2

“Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1992,” BJS, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nov. 1994.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 7

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
jurisdictions that depend on ‘forced’/citation releases of inmates to
manage the population when it nears capacity. This is not the way to
manage a jail. Pre-Trial programs help forestall jail overcrowding
through a risk-based approach that reduces the need to resort to
emergency releases.
On any given day, approximately 34% of Spokane County Jail inmates are in pretrial status. (Spokane snapshot data)
A full-service Pre-Trial Services program supervises defendants based on
a validated risk assessment. The pre-trial risk assessment structures the
frequency of contact and helps inform the setting of conditions. Not only
is this assessment vital for public safety considerations, but national data
indicate that Pre-Trial programs that rely on more subjective
determinations of risk, are more than twice as likely to have a jail that
exceeds its capacity than those that rely exclusively on an objective risk
assessment. 3
Reduces Pre-Trial Failure
Data from the case processing study reveal that and 23% of defendants released
from the Spokane County District Court and 32% of those released by Superior
Court pending case resolution failed-to-appear in court at some point in the
adjudication process.
 Use Pre-Trial to Support Expedited Case Resolution
Expediting case processing is predicated on the early collection of
comprehensive defendant information. Jurisdictions with front-end
screening protocols are in a position to make early and informed decisions
about cases that result in increased diversion and expedited disposition.
Examples of success include one jurisdiction, which achieved a 40%
disposition of felony cases within 72 hours, with early screening and
expedited case processing protocols. It all begins with a comprehensive
Pre-Trial program.
Based on a ‘snapshot’ of inmates in the Spokane County Jail, pre-trial defendants
had been in custody an average 69 days. (Spokane Jail Snapshot)
Time in Custody by Inmate Status
Overall
Pre-Trial
Post-Trial
Holds
3

69 days
76
65
66

Clark, John and D. Alan Henry, “Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st
Century: A Survey of Pretrial Services Programs,” BJA, July 2003.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 8

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Spokane County does not now have a system in place for comprehensive
judicial review of all cases (misdemeanor and felony) at the First
Appearance. Expedited release procedures not only accelerate the final
disposition of the case, but also accelerate the release of pre-trial
defendants.
Booking to Release by Pre-Trial Release (District Court)
Felony Cases
Overall (days to release)
Recognizance release
Cash release
Surety
No charge filed

9.7 days
9.2
2
11.1
8.9

Efforts should also be made to limit the impact of outside factors. For
example, defendants released on surety had the longest average time
from booking to release.
 Provide Uniform Indigent Attorney Screening
Ensures Early Access to Counsel
68% of defendants in District Court and 75% of those in Superior Court were
assigned a public defender. (Spokane County case processing study)
The lack of up-front screening can lead to blanket appointments of
counsel. That Spokane County lacks universal front-end indigency
screening for attorney appointment is reflected in the high percentage of
misdemeanant offenders appointed a public defender: more
misdemeanants may be assigned public defenders than is warranted.
Attorney Type
District Ct.
Superior Ct.
Public Defender
Conflict Atty.
Retained Atty.
No Atty.

68%
0
19
13%

75%
6
17
1%

A Pre-Trial program assists in the collection of financial information
needed to determine indigent status. This up-front documentation of a
defendant’s assets and liabilities allows informed and early assignment of
a public defender, thereby accelerating case processing.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 9

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 Formalize Victim Contact as part of Pre-Trial Service
In Spokane County the victim advocate is not directly integrated with PreTrial operations. Reliance on prosecution-based victim service offices to
contact victims at the pre-trial stage is a good approach. At the same time,
the coordination of efforts is paramount.
Solicits Victim Input
A comprehensive Pre-Trial Program also ensures that victim input is
universally solicited and presented to the judge to help inform the release
decision. Victims are contacted by phone and interviewed in all personto-person domestic abuse and battery cases. Ideally, a trained victim
advocate works alongside pre-trial staff to perform this task.
 Offer Specialized Pre-Trial Supervision Services
Provides Specialized Pre-Trial Supervision (Domestic Violence)
There are certain pre-trial populations that merit specialized attention.
Domestic violence defendants are one such group.
At booking into the Jail, 24% of offenders had, as their more serious charge, a
domestic violence offense (37% of defendants with misdemeanor charges and 10%
of defendants with felony charges). (Spokane case processing data)
Domestic violence defendants pose special challenges. Given that the
majority of these defendants have misdemeanor charges it might be no
surprise that they have a higher pre-trial release rate. On the other hand,
the volatile nature of the offense, and our inability to accurately predict
future violence, argues for a more specialized and intensive tracking of
this population.
Provides Specialized Pre-Trial Services (Mentally Ill)
It is estimated that on any given day 37% of jail inmates are on medication to
address symptoms associated with mental illness. (Spokane Jail mental health
staff)
When it comes to addressing mental health issues in the criminal justice
system, the goal is to identify the mentally ill defendant at the point of
booking. This is accomplished in two ways: use of a specialized mental
health screen, and, access to mental health information regarding current
and active case status.
The GAINS Center, in conjunction with SAMSHA, has recently introduced
an 8-question mental health screen, which has been validated and is being
recommended for use in jails. This instrument or other similar screening
tools, provide the first filter for identifying persons who require further
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 10

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
assessment. The goal, as with the general pre-trial population, is to assess
mental health issues within hours of being booked and to generate a
report for the court’s review.
The access to mental health status supports continuity of services:
allowing the jail to alert case managers that their client is incarcerated;
providing important information for continued medication and care; and
informing release planning and sentencing.
We know that jail inmates with severe mental illness are more likely to
spend longer periods incarcerated. Often this is because the person can’t
post bail, or their condition is seen as too unstable to allow release. The
availability of specialized pre-trial supervision can address this. Once on
pre-trial supervision the defendant is supported by a staff person with
specialized mental health expertise, who works to monitor the
defendant’s compliance with court conditions while linking them to
community services.
Improves Utilization of Limited Jail Space
Spokane County Pre-Trial staff does make recommendations for release,
but the percentage of cases recommended for release is extremely low.
In 2006, 12% of felony defendants interviewed were recommended for release. In
2005, of the 5,330 defendants interviewed from January to October, only 15%
were recommended for release.
One reason for the low recommended release rate is the program policy
to not recommend release if the interview information has not been
verified. While this is a cautious approach, National Association of Pretrial Standards Association (NAPSA) encourages a more flexible approach,
one that looks at the totality of the information to make a determination.
This would be expected to result in a higher percentage of felony releases.
Having substantive pre-trial supervision available would also be expected
to increase release rates.
For District Court cases 68% of misdemeanors and 24% of felons are released
from custody within one day of booking. (Spokane case processing study)
Other reasons the Spokane program will not recommend release are:
defendant has too many FTA’s, and defendant is a perceived danger to
community. They also take into consideration residence stability, family
ties, education, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Ultimately, a
validated risk assessment instrument is needed to lend credibility to the
recommendation. As a consequence, the validation study should be one
of the initial tasks in the development of a full-service program.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 11

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
It was noted that, for the most part, judges follow the Pre-Trial staff
recommendation. Judges are also making decisions to put defendants on
electronic monitoring.
43% of misdemeanants booked into the Spokane County Jail are released from
custody within one day of booking; for felons only 7% are released within one day.
(Spokane case processing study)
Routine bail review involves pre-trial staff continuously reviewing jail
records, interviewing defendants who might have been overlooked
during the first round of interviews, and updating and verifying
information on defendants who have not been able to make bond. For
those defendants who appear to be good candidates for release, a report
is submitted to the court and the public defender is notified.
A limited review process is in place in Spokane County. If a Superior
Court case remains in custody beyond 72 hrs. Pre-Trail will revisit the case
prior to arraignment. After that point, however, the defendant gets no
further review. Spokane County does not have an on-going system in
place for continuous review of the jail population to identify individuals
for bail review.
Improves Information Sharing
The information collected by pre-trial staff can contribute to efficiencies in
other areas of the system. For example, information can be used to help
shape early dispositions, to set conditions for diversion programs, or
inform pre-sentence investigations.
 Make Non-Financial Forms of Bail Available
The use of financial conditions for release should only be employed in a
manner consistent with principles of ‘the least restrictive measure to
ensure release’, and equitable access. The danger in a bail system that
depends on a commercial bail bondsman to approve and effect release is
that oftentimes those inmates with low criminal risk but a high financial
risk are the most likely to remain in jail.
As an alternative, the federal courts and 4 states have now abolished the
commercial bond practice, either by outlawing it or by simply
implementing court run 10% deposit programs. This removes jail release
decision-making for a profit-based business, allows pre-trial releases to
reflect judicial decisions regarding risk, and places the management of
financial conditions solely with the courts – thereby ensuring equal
treatment.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 12

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Average Bond Amount
(Spokane County)
Avg. Amount
No Bail Set
$500 or Less
$501 to $5,000
$5,001 to $25,000
$25,000 +

Misdemeanor
$2,250
28%
41
22
8
1%

Felony
$39,000
24%
25
29
21%

Bail is set by a schedule, except for Domestic Violence cases; and in DV
cases the defendant is not released until bond is set.
The bond amount on the felony side reflects the practice of the
prosecutor’s office in setting an initial high bond.
Benefits of a Pre-Trial Program
Pre-Trial Programs are an indispensable component of an efficient
criminal justice system.
They supply the system with accurate
information about the defendant to inform decision making; support the
early appointment of defense counsel; identify diversion candidates;
monitor pre-trial jail inmates and facilitate bail reviews; and monitor, track
and supervise pre-trial defendants.
Jail population size and jail overcrowding has been directly linked to the
hours of operation of Pre-Trial programs: the more coverage the less crowded
the jail. Pre-Trial programs that provide the most extensive coverage
have been shown to be the least likely to be located in a jurisdiction with a
jail that exceeds its rated capacity. 4
A well-managed jail is, however, not only associated with access to PreTrial Services, but to the timeliness of those services. It has been shown
that jurisdictions with Pre-Trial programs which interview defendants prior
to the initial court appearance are less likely to have a jail that exceeds its
rated capacity. 5
And, the role played by Pre-Trial program staff in the early assignment of
defense counsel has an impact on the jail. According to one study,
defendants who are not represented by an attorney at the initial
appearance are less likely to be released on their own recognizance, and

4

Clark, John and D. Alan Henry, “Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st Century: A Survey
of Pretrial Services Programs, “ BJA, July 2003.
5
Ibid (7)

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 13

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
more likely to have an unaffordable bail set, which contributes to higher
detention rates. 6
As another example, Pima County, Arizona put together a Fast-track
Program to monitor the pre-trial jail population by providing routine bail
review for defendants not released at their initial appearance. The
program involved the collection of additional information that could form
the basis for a release plan. Pre-trial staff was given the authority to
schedule bond hearings. In the end, the program has been credited with
reducing the felony pre-trial jail population by 20 percent. 7
Montgomery County, Maryland is another county that found concrete
evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Pre-Trial Services. The result of a
study conducted to measure the program’s impact, concluded that having
comprehensive Pre-Trial Services delayed the building of additional local
jail beds. After the first year of program operation, in the early 1990’s, the
county measured drops in average jail days for pre-trial defendants,
reductions in failure-to-appear rates for defendants released on pre-trial
supervision (the lowest recorded rate in 5 years), and low re-arrest rates:
all of which had a positive impact on the jail. 8
Pre-Trial Programs achieve system cost savings by reducing failure-to-appear
rates. Taking as an example an estimated system cost of $1346 for each defendant
returned to jail on a FTA warrant, based on figures derived from a cost analysis
conducted by Multnomah County, Oregon. Based on this, Spokane County can
begin to estimate the tremendous cost that FTA’s impose on the system. 9
Still, the assessment of the value of Pre-Trial Services is best understood,
not in isolation, but in crucial role it plays in supporting Early Case
Resolution (by providing defendant information), providing a flexible tool
for assisting in the management of the jail population, and in its
contribution to improving the integrity of the system.

II. Adjudication
 Establish an Early Case Resolution Program
Findings from the case processing study show the importance of
establishing an Expedited Case Resolution program.
6

The Pretrial Reporter, “Maryland Lawsuit Targets Lack of Legal Representation at Bail-Setting
Hearings,” October/November 2006, Volume XXXII No. 5
7
Shelby Meyer and Kim Holloway, “The Fastrack Program,” Federal Probation, Vol.57,No.19, March
1993, pp. 36-41.
8
Taxman, Faye S. “Pretrial Services Unit: An Evaluation of First Year Experiences,” Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council, Rockville, Maryland, March 26, 1992.
9
Multnomah County’s cost analysis breakdown: issuing and clearing a warrant, $52; police apprehension,
$198; booking, $291; one day jail detention, $110; and court hearing, $695).

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 14

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

The average time from booking to sentencing (for all cases: in-custody and out) in
Superior Court is 190 days (189.8) (Spokane case processing study)
At 190 days, the felony case processing time is significantly greater than
the national average of 98 days. The average time from Arraignment to
Disposition in District Court is 72 days (71.7).
In District Court the average time from Booking to First Appearance, at
1.3 days reflects well on the courts. However, the process slows down
from there, and the contrast in process times for in-custody versus out-ofcustody cases is striking, for both District and Superior Court
Case Process Times (District Court)
Arraign– Disposition.

In-Custody
19 days

Out-of-Custody
84.3 days

In District Court, case processing is more than 4 times as long for those
defendants released from custody pending resolution.
Case Process Times (Superior Court)
Booking to Disposition

In-Custody
135.1 days

Out-of-Custody
219 days

For the Superior Court, out-of-custody case processing time from
booking to disposition is 50 percent higher than the in-custody time. This
kind of processing delay sends the wrong message to defendants (as well
as victims and witnesses of crime).
Overall, the data from this study make a strong case for the adoption of a
formalized Early Case Resolution (ECR) program.
For those not released from jail, the time from booking to filing in Superior Court
is 34 days (33.6). (Spokane case processing study)
The establishment of a Pre-Trial program supports an ECR program. This
is because Pre-Trial assumes responsibility for collecting verified
defendant information, upon which negotiated decisions can be made;
and Pre-Trial assists with quick assignment of public defenders, by helping
screen defendants at the time of booking for eligibility. Information is the
key.
The time from booking to the attorney filing of charges in out-of-custody cases in
Superior Court is 70 days, more than double the time for those who remain in
custody pending filing. (Spokane case processing study)
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 15

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The centerpiece of an ECR program is the assignment of a single judge (in
a jurisdiction of this size) to conduct First Appearance hearings, including
bail and release decisions. Added to this is the development of case
processing expectations and standards. This process structures decisionmaking and makes the swift resolution of low-level offenses the norm.
The key is an early and meaningful offer from the county attorney that is
communicated to the public defender/private defense attorney within a
matter of days, not weeks.
An ECR program can save the system time and money. The lack of such
a program can be seen in failure-to-appear and re-arrest rates, reflecting
the time it takes to resolve cases for those released from custody.
Delays in case processing directly contribute to high failure-to-appear
rates. This can be seen in the local statistics.
The average time from jail release to FTA is 174 days for felony defendants.
Time from Jail Release to FTA (Felony)
Average: 174 days
25% of FTA’s are at 90 days or less from release
75% of FTA’s are at 90 days or more from release
Of all felony FTA’s, 55% occur at 120 days or more from release; 35% are at a6
months or more from release; and 19% are at 1 year or more from release.
These data make a strong argument for a streamlined and expedited
process. The data for misdemeanors is equally compelling. The average
time from jail release to FTA is 54 days for misdemeanor defendants.
Of those defendants with a failure-to-appear out of District Court, 20% had 2+
FTA’s; for those defendants with a failure-to-appear out of Superior Court, 35%
had 2+ FTA’s. (Spokane case processing study)
There is a direct correlation between time to case disposition and failureto-appear rates: the lack of timely resolution of cases produces higher FTA
rates, which in turn further delay case disposition.
The time from booking to case disposition is more than two times as long for
misdemeanor cases with an FTA as for those without one.
Average Time from Booking to Disposition (Misdemeanor)
No FTA
FTA

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 16

77 days
181 days

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The same is true for felony cases. A missed court appearance results in a
time to case disposition that is 50 percent again as long as compared to
those without one.
Average Time from Booking to Disposition (Felony)
No FTA
FTA

199 days
275 days

Spokane County would benefit from an ECR program that streamlines
adjudication, reduces continuances, standardizes the process of using
motions, and establishes new time expectations for lower level cases.
The County already has some experience with the concept in its broadest
form: an expedited process has been set up for low level charges
(shoplifting, trespassing, etc.); however, the expedited process is not
necessarily accompanies by meaningful interventions. For the most part
the defendant pays fine; treatment referrals are limited. An ECR process
that can be part of a universal risk assessment process allows more
nuanced decision-making.
Jail demand is driven by the number of defendants who come in the front
door of the jail, and their average length of stay. An ECR program,
working hand in hand with a comprehensive Pre-Trial program is a vital
tool for reducing jail demand.
The proposed early case resolution program changes the traditional
model of processing that accepts continuances and delays, and which
often has a dispersed judicial involvement at the front-end.
There is a problem of excessive continuances. Some judges expressed an
interest in reining this in, but noted the difficulty in tracking past warnings
that had been given regarding a request for continuance the previous
time. An ECR program will streamline the whole process.
Average Number Appearances
(Between Arraignment and Disposition)
District Court: 17% of cases have 4 or more appearances
Superior Court: 63% of cases have 4 o4 more appearances
The lack of expedited case processing is Spokane County can be seen in a
system with built-in delays and a cumbersome bifurcated process.
Some of the hallmarks of an Early Case Resolution programs are:
Immediate case review; a mechanism for early entry and negotiation of
pleas; assignment of experienced prosecutors and defense counsel to the
ECR team; policies regarding quick resolution of specified cases; and
improved information sharing.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 17

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

An ECR program will address many of the issues associated with less than
efficient case processing in the Spokane County system:
-

-

If a case is not filed within 72-hours in District Court the
prosecuting attorney may decide to re-file the case in Superior
Court, effectively securing an additional 30 days to make a proper
decision.
Only serious cases are filed within the 72 hours in District Court
Defendants do not leave District Court with a court date in
Superior Court; they are told they will receive a notice for
appearance
City does not file an appearance until having met with client and
reviewed discovery
Pleas are not routinely entered at Arraignment in Superior Court,
instead defendants are scheduled for an Omnibus date and a trial
date
Discovery can be haphazard
City police keeps records for both city and county; can be difficult
for PD to access early in process
There are delays in police completing records, and delays in getting
the records to the prosecutor
There are lots of continuances
A plea can only be entered on a specific plea calendar
Senior prosecutors not assigned to First Appearance docket
No individual calendaring except for high profile cases

In the new model one judge, or perhaps one misdemeanor judge and one
felony judge, handles all the front-end aspects of the case. The single
judge sets bail, makes a release determination for those qualified for
release to Pre-Trial Services, appoints counsel, and hears bond/release
motions.
The other function that the assigned single judge will handle is the taking
of pleas generated by the Early Case Resolution program.
The
recommendation is for the prosecuting attorney and public defender each
to designate a single (or two) experienced, senior attorneys to review all
new arrests daily. The criteria will be established, but the goal is to
negotiate as many misdemeanors and lower level felonies the day
following arrest.
Available discovery will be exchanged, and for felony cases the
negotiations may be extended to allow the necessary information to be
generated. Where there is a likelihood of an early plea, the case stays in
this front-end court.
A team approach to ECR relies on dedicated senior staff from the Public
Defender and Prosecutor’s Office to work at the front-end of the system,
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 18

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
and thereafter to have the same prosecutor track the case through the
system.
Probation will also be involved in the post-trial supervision function.
Persons who are on probation and charged with a technical violation
(non-new criminal charge) of their probation will be considered for
resolution using this same process. Defendant’s who also have a new
charge along with the probation violation will result in a probation officer
providing the prosecuting attorney, public defender, and the court with
recommendations on the resolution of the violations. Once again, the
goal is to quickly address issues in the interest of resolving cases up-front.
The goal of the Early Case Resolution (ECR) Program is to expedite the
disposition of misdemeanor and lower level felony cases. The mantra is
“Same Justice Sooner.”
The success of this approach can be measured in saved jail days, reduced
adjudication costs, and better outcomes. The move to ECR depends,
however, upon a shift in paradigm: From one of accepted continuances to
one with a true expectation of swift but fair justice.
The principle benefits of Early Case Resolution are as follows:







Relieves Crowded Dockets
Reduces Case Processing Time
Reduces Number of Pre-trial Defendants
Reduces Average Length of Stay
Frees up More Time for More Serious Cases
Reduces Impact on Jail

An Early Case Resolution (ECR) Program results in increased system
efficiency and helps reduce jail crowding. It is a central management tool
for the criminal justice system. The program involves early case screening
and timely case resolution. And, it depends on the availability of timely
and accurate information on each case, information best supplied by a
Pre-Trial Services Program.
An ECR Program results in jail bed day savings through the timely
resolution of cases. Significant reductions in jail impact have been
measured in counties that have adopted this approach.
Orange County, Florida implemented an ECR program in response to jail
crowding in 2003. A series of actions were taken to achieve the timely
processing of inmates, including the assignment of a permanent judge to
conduct First Appearance Hearings. Within a short period of time the
number of inmates processed in First Appearance Hearings increased
from 77 per day to 93 per day. The result was that the Jail’s average daily
population dropped from 4,000 inmates to 3,413 (a 15% reduction). In
2005 the Orange County was honored by the National Association of
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 19

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Counties with an Innovative Programs award for the effect that their
‘Meaningful First Appearance Program’ had on the Jail. 10
Lucas County, Ohio, implemented elements of an ECR Program in the
form of a special prosecutors unit dedicated to immediate screening of
felony warrant-less arrests. Prosecutors review the case with the arresting
officer and make an immediate filing decision. As a result about 20% of
cases are either immediately dropped or reduced to misdemeanors.
According to the Lucas County prosecutor, this approach has resulted in a
drop in the jail population. 11
Washoe County, Nevada implemented an ECR program that involves a
coordinated effort at early case resolution between the judiciary, public
defender, and district attorneys. Forty-one percent of felony cases are
negotiated within 72 hours of arrest. The offender is released the day that
the case is resolved: through diversion, drug treatment, or another
alternative. This resulted in an early reduction in the jail population by 32
inmates. 12
In another example, that involves the back-end of the adjudication
process, King County, Washington expedited the time to final case
dispositions by decreasing the time to prepare the pre-sentence investigation
(PSI). This effort was successful in reducing report completion time by 15
days, which resulted in a decrease in the average daily jail population by
about 70 to 75 inmates. 13
Monroe County, New York took a ‘systems approach’ to change that
they credit with postponing the building of additional jail beds. This
approach included the development pre-trial and post-trial alternatives,
expediting cases, and improving case management. One specific effort
involved expediting the completion of Pre-Sentence Investigations for incustody cases. According to the County this effort was successful in
reducing PSI completion time from 4 weeks to 2 weeks, saving 4,319 jail
bed days in one year. 14
Other examples of expedited processing include a project in Maricopa
County, Arizona. There, the county focused on expediting the adjudication
of probation/parole violation hearings. This resulted in a 43% reduction in the
average time for case resolution, and an associated decrease in the
average daily population of jail inmates. 15
10

National Association of Counties, NaCo Achievement Award Program, 2005.
BJA, 2000, ‘A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding,’ U.S. Dept. of Justice.
12
Ibid, (2)
13
Ibid (2)
14
Jail Utilization System Team, “Total Quality Management: Comprehensive Community Based
Corrections Program,” Monroe County, NY: Jail Utilization System Team, October 1994.
15
BJA, “A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding,” October 2000, U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of
Justice Programs.
11

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 20

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Washington County, Oregon is a good example of a county that saw
immediate results after implementation of an ECR program. After
implementing the program last year, 43 percent of all new filings were
deemed to be eligible for the ECR program.
Six months after
implementation the Metropolitan Public Defender reported that
approximately 15 to 20 percent of all their cases were now being resolved
at the time of arraignment, cases which before the program would have
commonly taken months to resolve. 16 The program has achieved the
goal of swift, efficient, and a fair resolution of qualified new criminal cases
and has saved the system time and money.
 Reduce Time to Filing
An important pre-condition to the establishment of a quality ECR
program is a reduction in the time to filing. At present, this time is
exceeding long.
The average time from booking to case filing in Superior Court is 57 days.
To bring the time to filing down to an acceptable level will require a
concerted effort. To begin with the Prosecutor’s Office will need to set
new time standards for filing, and expect staff to adhere to them. The
goal should be to file all but the most complex cases within 72 hours of
booking.
At the same time, there needs to be a strict expectation for law
enforcement to submit their reports in a timely fashion. This issue should
be reviewed to ensure that time standards for report submission are in
place and followed.
Booking to Filing Times (Superior Court)
All Cases
57 days

In-Custody
34 days

Out-of-Custody
70 days

(Spokane County case processing study)

The negative effect of delays in case filing can be seen in the large number
of ‘no complaints’ filed. Some of these may be subsequently filed, but the
lack of timely decision-making represents a terrible cost to the system. It
translates into higher failure-to-appear rates, increased numbers of
dismissals, and
Filing times must be brought down to a reasonable level in Spokane
County. Filing delays impose an unnecessary cost on the system, and run
counter to the principles of an ECR program. This issue should be viewed
as a priority.
16

Washington County ECR memo, November 21, 2007.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 21

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

 Consolidate City and County Adjudication Resource
Early Case Resolution depends upon a new kind of teamwork. The value
of a coordinated and a more streamlined approach to case management
cannot be underestimated: a reduction in system costs, better outcomes,
improved system integrity, and more. Yet the bifurcated adjudication
system in this jurisdiction makes this coordination all the more
challenging.
As Spokane County considers implementing an ECR program it should
assess the benefits of doing so within the context of fundamental
organizational reform that would consolidate city and county prosecution
offices, and municipal and county defense.
One District Court judge estimates that up to 30% of cases have both city and
county warrants.
The offender population is not categorized by neat or discreet categories.
That so many cases overlap jurisdictional boundaries, makes a compelling
argument for streamlining the process.
A District Court judge noted that it is not unusual to have an offender seen on
the morning misdemeanor docket to again appear on the afternoon felony docket.
 Resolve Holds and New Charges at the Same Time
In the Spokane Jail snapshot composite, 38% of the inmates were in ‘hold’ status.
The jurisdiction for those in ‘hold’ status is as follows:
Breakdown of Inmates in Hold Status
Federal
DOC
Other Jurisdictions
Bench Warrants
Other

31% of all ‘holds’
40
3
25
1%

(Spokane Jail snapshot)

The snapshot reveals that on any given day there are approximately 130
federal inmates in the Jail on ‘hold’ status; 191 DOC ‘holds’; 15 held for
other jurisdictions; and 119 on bench warrant ‘holds.’
Each of these categories of holds raises issues of policy and practice.
Bench warrant rates, for example, are undoubtedly influenced by the fact
that no procedure is in place for Pre-Trial services to work cases related to
pre-trial failure-to-appear. Because in most instances the defendant who
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 22

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
fails to appear has not fled the jurisdiction, a central feature of a Pre-Trial
Services program is to facilitate the return to court in an effort to reduce
the automatic issuance of warrants.
The system should set a priority on the resolution of holds. Where there
are both holds and new charges, both should be resolved at the same
court hearing.
Time in Custody by Hold Type
All Holds
66 days
Federal
115
DOC
42
Other Jurisdictions 48
Bench Warrant
50
Other
26
(Spokane Jail snapshot)

Where the hold refers to a case waiting transport to a state prison,
attention should be given by all sides to take the steps necessary to
expedite transfer.
Of those in ‘hold’ status in the Spokane County Jail, 39% were holds that also had
local charges. (Spokane County Jail snapshot)
For these cases, the resolution of any underlying local charge should be
expedited so that the case can be resolved, and where pertinent, the
inmate (or DOC prisoner) released to the other jurisdiction.
Holds with Local Charges
Overall
Federal inmates
DOC
Other Jurisdiction
Bench Warrant

39% also have local charges
10
65
59
63%

(Spokane Jail snapshot)

This issue cuts across courts and jurisdictions. For bench warrant cases,
for example, 68% of Municipal cases, 58% of District Court cases, and 53%
of Superior Court cases also have local charges.
For Department of Corrections Hold cases the percentage with local
charges ranges from 39% of Parole cases in ‘hold’ status, to 77% of Prison
‘hold’ cases.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 23

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 Reduce Number of Continuances
Action should be taken to rein in the number of continuances. This will in
large part be addressed by instituting and ECR program, but can also
helped by setting clear standards and making sure judges can track the
number of continuances already granted and the cause. The court should
adopt a case management plan that dictates how cases not resolved
through ECR are processed by the criminal justice system. Time frames
and expected outcomes from specific court hearings are part of the plan.
The court controls the calendar; stipulations by counsel as to continuances
should not govern the resolution of cases.
 Examine Case Attrition/Dismissal Rates
In Spokane County 74% of Superior Court cases ended in conviction: 72% found
guilty and 2% divert. (Spokane case processing study)
Spokane County’s felony conviction rate compares favorably to the
national rate. At the national level, 68% of the felony defendants whose
cases were adjudicated within one year of arrest were convicted. 17
Conviction rates, however, only reflect those cases that are actually filed.
The felony filing rate in Spokane County Superior Court is 69%. Or, in other
words, 31% of cases were not filed. (Spokane case processing study)
A closer look at the ‘not filed’ category for cases in Superior Court reveals
that almost half (48%) of the ‘not filed’ cases were cases in which the most
serious charge was a Narcotics offense.
Narcotic offenses also feature prominently in cases in Superior Court that
end in a ‘not guilty’ disposition. Here again, most of the ‘not guilty’
dispositions ended in dismissal (93%); and nearly half of these dismissed
cases were Narcotic offenses. The high dismissal rate for Narcotics
offenses may highlight a lack of timeliness in receiving lab reports, local
philosophy regarding adjudication, or case delays.
On the District Court side an analysis of conviction rate shows a high ‘not guilty’
rate of 32%.
District Court Disposition
Guilty
Diversion
Not Guilty
Pending

17

50%
16
32
2%

BJS, ‘Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2002,’ Feb. 2006.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 24

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
A more detailed look at ‘not guilty’ dispositions in District Court reveals
that most of the cases were dismissed (97%). Of the dismissals, 61% had a
Domestic Violence charge as the most serious offense.
Below is a comparison of reason for case dismissal for both District and
Superior Court.
Reason for Case Dismissal

Domestic Violence
Other Person
Property
Narcotics
DUI
Public Order
Traffic

District Ct.

Superior Ct.

61%
5
10
1
2
13
8

20%
10
15
48
0
8%
0

Domestic Violence cases present a challenge for adjudication, but high
attrition rates merit review. This may have to do with prosecution
practices, a lack of good protocols for contacting and working with the
victim, or delays in prosecution.
The possible reasons for high dismissal rates should be explored.
 Review Utilization of Diversion and Sentence Alternatives
Spokane County should develop treatment based sentence alternatives to
be used in lieu of jail.
Study data shows that 99% of offenders convicted in Spokane County Superior
Court were sentenced to either prison or jail. 71% in Superior Court received a
jail sentence, higher than the national average for felons of 28%. (Spokane County
case processing study)
Sentence Type
Prison
Jail
Probation
Fine

District Ct.
0
77%
9
14

Superior Ct.
28%
71
1
0

Case processing data for Spokane County shows that jail is the most used
sentence option. This may reflect the lack of community-based options
for felons, and lack of a full range of mental health options.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 25

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Distribution of Felony Sentences 18
Spokane Superior Court
National Data
28%
41%
71%
28%
1%
31%
100%
100%

Prison
Jail
Probation
Fine
Total

A comparison to national data shows that a higher reliance on jail in
Spokane County is offset by a lower reliance on prison. At the same time,
probation is seemingly used as a straight sentence at a low rate.
The study revealed that the average sentence length for offenders convicted in
Superior Court is 99 days (98.8). This is lower than the national average.
Average Jail Sentence Length
Spokane Superior Court
99 days

National (felony)19
210 days

The heavy reliance locally on jail as a disposition option is mitigated
somewhat by lower sentence lengths. This does not, however, lessen the
importance of developing a broad continuum of jail alternatives to
address this high utilization rate.
For those offenders sentenced to Jail from District Court 78% received a sentence
of 30 days or less; 22% received a sentence of 30 days or more.
While jail sentence lengths for District Court do not initially appear
excessive, they must be analyzed in the context of another element of case
processing: inmate status at exit from jail.
A high 73% of post-trial offenders convicted of a misdemeanor and 42% of posttrial offenders convicted of a felony are released from jail ‘Time Served.’
The high rate of ‘Time Served’ releases from jail is a reflection of case
processing timelines. When rates are this high offenders are sentenced
by default: their time waiting for justice serving as the final sentence.
On the other hand, the average prison sentence is on the low end.

18
19

BJS, ‘State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2002,’ May 2005.
BJS, ibid. ,

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 26

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The average prison sentence for offenders sentenced from Spokane County is 24
months (23.9). (Spokane case processing study)
Only 16% of offenders sentenced to prison from Spokane County
received a sentence of 3 years or more. The judicious use of prison is
reflected in Washington State incarceration rates which are lower than the
national average.
In part, this can be attributed to the adoption of structured sanctions
which allow the use of community-based sanctions for lower risk
offenders or lower level violations. However, these policies tend to shift
over time. A recent DOC decision to enforce a higher level of officer
compliance with custody requirements (as well as a possible move toward
lower tolerance of violation behavior) can have an impact on the Jail as
well as the prison.
Superior Court Filing Rate, By Charge
Overall Filing Rate
Domestic Violence
Other Person
Property
Narcotics
Public Order
Traffic

69%
78%
72
72
64
100
6%

 Consolidate City & County Prosecution and Defense
In Spokane County, case management is challenged by a bifurcated
system that contributes to redundancy and delay. As such, the adoption
of an Early Case Resolution program should be pursued within a new
organizational model: one that consolidates the prosecution and defense
across jurisdictional boundaries. The goal should be the creation of a
seamless system of adjudication.
The costs of the existing fragmented system are clear:
 Extended Times to Case Resolution
 High Number of Court Hearings
 High Rates of ‘Time Served’
 Redundancy of Effort
This fragmented structure works against the timely resolution of cases.
Fragmentation and the lack of system incentives to move a case has
resulted in an institutional habit of continuances and delay.
The jurisdictional boundaries that shape the adjudication of cases in
Spokane County do not reflect an offender population defined by such
distinctions. By some estimates, around 30% of offenders coming before
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 27

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
District Court have both city and county warrants. The degree of overlap
of these populations is an argument for streamlining the process.
This level of overlap also has real cost implications. A judge in District
Court working an afternoon felony docket can expect to see many of the
same defendants seen earlier in the day on a misdemeanor docket. A
more streamlined, consolidated process allows the resolution of all
charges at the first hearing. This saves the entire system time and money.
As an example, a defendant may be approved for pre-trial release on their
‘own recognizance’ for a misdemeanor charge, but then held in jail for an
accompanying felony charge. This is a charge driven, not a case driven
approach. This makes no sense. It is a burden to the whole system. And
the defendant is caught in between: the defendant in this example may
not get released or credit for time served.
Consolidation of prosecution and defense services should also set the
stage for consolidation of municipal and county probation services (more
on this in the next section) to allow a true unified approach to case
management.
The Courts in Spokane have taken positive steps in developing some very
progressive efforts that require the system to coordinate its efforts. These
include a domestic violence treatment review hearings, a mental health
court, drug court, and DUI court. These all lay the foundation for the next
stage of system development.
 Adopt Caseload Standards
The efficient adjudication of cases requires reasonable workloads. Yearly
increases in the number of cases assigned to the Public Defender’s Office
can, over time, challenge staff’s ability to provide quality services.
Streamlining case adjudication through expedited resolution processes
and consolidating services across jurisdictions will assist in the workload
management. At the same time, we also encourage the County to adopt
American Bar Association caseload standards.

III. Alternative Facility: Community Corrections Center
 Operate Geiger as a Community Corrections Center
Qualified inmates are shifted from the jail to Geiger to serve their terms of
incarceration, but the lack of a full range of step-down options results in a
lost opportunity to save money and improve outcomes. The token
number of inmates in work release out of Geiger, and the restricted use of
the work program to serve only inmates who remain in custody, is not
enough.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 28

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
In the short-term Spokane County should begin operating Geiger as a
Community Corrections Center (CCC); for the long-term it should design
a CCC as an integral component of its overall Correction facility plan.
Status of Inmates Assigned to Geiger
(January to July 2007)
ADP = 562
Jail Confinement:
Work Crew:
Work Release:
Camp:
Federal Work Release:
Electronic Monitoring:

58%
15%
6%
5%
2%
14%

A Community Corrections Center (Re-entry/Work Release Facility)
would provide a flexible option to reduce pressure on the Jail, provide a
structured but lower cost alternative to incarceration, and address
(through programs) the issues that underlie offender recidivism.
A CCC provides an important interim intervention, between jail and the
community: a ‘step-out’ to a work based and program rich facility. It
extends the limits of confinement, serves to reduce the jail population, and
allows defendants to be productive tax-paying citizens while supporting
their families and paying court-ordered restitution and fees.
A rehabilitation-oriented facility provides a setting that promotes positive
social behavior through employment programs, counseling, and other
services designed to facilitate long-term change.
 Expand Work Release
A Community Corrections Center (CCC) can serve as both a Day
Reporting Center for low-risk offenders who have program conditions to
satisfy; and as a facility where inmates return in the evening for lockdown, after a day of work in the community. A place where they can
address issues of community transition: job preparation, literacy,
treatment readiness.
On January 28, 2008 there were 26 county inmates in Work Release.
The hallmark of a Community Corrections Center is the focus on
facilitating a successful return to the community.
Toward this end services are provided to support job search and
preparation, and to monitor and track those in the community working.
After an initial Orientation phase and job readiness classes at the CCC
inmates begin a structured job search, returning to the Center in the
evening. Offenders sleep at the Center.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 29

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Presently, many inmates at Geiger are deemed ineligible for Work Release
because they are not authorized by the court, do not already have employment, or
do not have funds necessary to participate (inmates must pay a per day fee for
Work Release).
The financial bar to get into work release is high. The offender must be
able to pay fees of $252 per week.
Work Release should not be reserved for those inmates who already have
money and a job; it should not be reserved for those who are already
successful. Instead, this program should strive to create and support
success, targeting the very persons who are now not eligible. The lack of
a full-service Work Release program in Spokane County is a missed
opportunity.
 Make Work Crew a Non-Custodial Alternative
Geiger makes good use of work crews, using inmates for contracted work
for trash collection, shoveling snow, clean-up work at the fairgrounds,
ballpark clean-up, and work at the wildlife refuge.
But in most cases inmates on work crews should be sent home and told to
report to the Work Program. In most cases, inmates considered low
enough risk for work crew can be safely managed from home. For those
offenders deemed to need extra monitoring, electronic monitoring can be
additionally employed.
On January 28, 2008 Geiger had 52 inmates on work crews.
Geiger’s work crew program takes inmates volunteers who participate on
crews without the inducement of reduced time on their sentence. In fact
no activities at Geiger serve to shorten a sentence, nor can they be applied
as a substitute for days in custody.
These same inmates on work crew will, in most cases however, be good
candidates for a program that allows them to substitute 8 hours on a crew
for 1 day in custody, and live at home while satisfying their obligation to
the court and the community.
A Community Corrections Center can serve many system goals: jail stepdown; treatment for those pending residential placement (instead of
waiting in a more expensive jail bed); a constructive sanction for those in
programs or probation; etc. Services should focus on employment search,
cognitive skills, restitution, and substance abuse.
 Develop a ‘Step-Down’ System from Geiger

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 30

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Inmates at Geiger who cannot be place directly into work release should
be moved along a risk continuum from in-house work crews, to work
release with electronic monitoring, to straight work release.
This should be facilitated by a blanket judicial order to grant sheriff staff
the necessary discretion to place inmates in jail alternative programs along
a risk-based continuum.
 Establish ‘Tracks’ out of Jail based on Risk and Need
Local policy and risk assessment will dictate who qualifies as a candidate
for work release and work crews. These policies should be reviewed. At
this time inmates with bonds above a certain dollar amount do not
qualify, for example.
The goal is to develop various ‘tracks’ out of jail and Geiger to
accommodate different levels of offender risk.
An assessment of offender risk can guide the level of supervision and
treatment received. Jail classification can serve as one risk tool to allocate
custody resources across custody levels.
For example, low-risk offenders may exit Jail directly to work crew
program, while moderate risk offenders may be shifted to Geiger/the
CCC to participate in job readiness coursework and community
employment. Moderate risk offenders whose criminality is linked to
substance abuse would be shifted to the CCC to participate in intensive
treatment. For those with mental health issues, the CCC would offer a
graduated transition and case management to ease their return to the
community.
A Community Corrections Center represents a lower cost jail population
management option and should be an integral part of future planning.
 Build a Continuum of Programs from Jail to Geiger
Any long term plan for public safety must focus not only on building jail
beds but on building programs. This is the only sound strategy for public
protection. Jail beds alone cannot solve the crime problem. The best hope
is to design a system that can at all times insure one empty bed to provide
a swift and certain sanction, but that can also offer the kind of services
necessary to address companion factors to criminality: addiction, mental
illness, criminal thinking, unemployment, etc. It is only by addressing the
risk factors associated with criminality that a community can hope to
change the outcomes.
Geiger has 3 full-time counselors and 1 full-time staff to provide referrals for a
population of almost 600 inmates.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 31

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
A Corrections system must be more than courtrooms and jail cells. To
protect public safety the system needs to adopt proven approaches that
hold offenders accountable while reducing the risk of re-offending. This
requires counties to build programs Incarceration alone will not reduce
crime.
The program offerings at Geiger are meager. Treatment offered by
contract can serve around 15 inmates per day, each of whom attends
sessions two times per week.
In addition, volunteers from the
community provide Alcoholics Anonymous classes and religious services.
A dog training program is available to a limited number of female
inmates. A GED instructor is also available, and this person also runs the
law library.
Inmates self-refer to the programs, and there is no incentive to participate
in terms of sentence reduction or privileges. Those who volunteer do so
for their own reasons.
The cost of not addressing the underlying cause of criminal behavior can
be measured in the cost of a ‘catch and release’ program that sees
offenders returning to the system over and over again.
The goal is to begin to view jail as the ‘gateway’ to the community. For
every offender who enters the Jail, planning for eventual release should
begin immediately. All felony inmates should be screened for release, and
an individualized plan developed, moving them toward release to either
the CCC or to the community.
The screening proposed goes beyond the existing jail classification. A
‘needs’ assessment complements the risk assessment and helps make a
determination of the level and type of programming needed in-custody
or in the community.
Of those booked into the Spokane County Jail, 39% of misdemeanants and 63% of
felons reported they were presently unemployed. (Spokane case processing
study)
This is an especially high rate of unemployment. Offenders who serve
their time in a Community Corrections Center are expected to be
working in the community during the day. For those who have jobs, this
helps ensure that jail time does not contribute to the loss of employment.
Approximately one-third of both misdemeanants and felons booked into the
Spokane County Jail reported that they did not have a high-school diploma
(Spokane case processing study)
57% of Misdemeanants and 64% of Felons booked into the Spokane County Jail
had a history of previously bookings into the facility.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 32

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Geiger should move towards a program-based Community Corrections
Center (CCC) model.
A Community Corrections Center (CCC) is a minimum security
residential facility that offers a structured, supervised living environment
as a transition from jail to the community. It provides a lower cost option
to inmates who can serve their sentence in a minimum security setting
while maintaining employment and having the benefit of a range of
programs.
The principal goal is to facilitate a successful transition back to the
community. Individual case plans are designed to address conditions of
supervision, court orders, treatment needs, community safety, victim
restitution, and successful transition back to the community. Issues
addressed include employment, cognitive programming and substance
abuse.
A range of services are offered to address criminal risk.
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

These may

Substance abuse treatment
Mental health evaluation and services
Cognitive skills classes
Employment testing and job search assistance
GED and literacy classes
Life skills: parenting, money management, computer

Some Centers, such as the one in Washington County, Oregon provide
longer term residential treatment to a sub-set of the population. In
Washington County, an intensive 90-day treatment program is offered to
a co-ed population.
Community Corrections Centers can serve a diverse population, and can
also function as a Day Reporting Center. Populations found in these
facilities include:
•
•
•
•

Jail inmates in last phase of sentence
Prisoners re-entering the community
Probationers in the CCC on a sanction
Stabilization for those in Drug Court or other treatment
programs

Individualized plans are based on the risk and needs of the offender and
the anticipated length of stay at the Center. For residents with short stays
(less than a couple of weeks) the principal goal is to connect them to
treatment prior to release. For those with longer stays the goal is to work
with the resident to find employment, engage in treatment, and move
into drug and alcohol free housing upon exit.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 33

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Community Corrections Centers can be managed by different agencies.
In a Probation model, the CCC is staffed by Corrections Specialists. In
either model staff has the responsibility for monitoring the security of the
facility, conducting urinalysis tests, and tracking the daily plans of the
residents.
Residential counselors work with residents to develop
individualized plans for services.
Impact on Jail
Prison and Jail Re-entry has demonstrated good outcomes.
In
Washington State, a recent study found that DOC work release facilities
reduced total recidivism and system costs. Release from prison to a work
release facility yielded $3.82 of benefits per dollar cost (derived from
future benefits to taxpayers and crime victims from reduced recidivism). 20
In Washington County, Oregon, a 215 bed CCC serves a diverse
population including: inmates transitioning from jail, short-term
stabilization, direct sanctions, and re-entry from prison. The overall
success rate, measured by successful completion, is 84%. Of the 16% who
are unsuccessful, only 1% of the failure is for the commission of a new
crime. As another indicator of success for this particular program, the
Washington County CCC houses a residential treatment program for
approximately 30 residents, which has been evaluated and ranked in the
top 8% of programs nationwide for adherence to evidence based
practices. 21
Another way to look at savings associated with a Community Corrections
Center (CCC) is to compare construction costs with a jail. By definition, a
CCC is a minimum security facility that has dormitory style housing. It is
estimated that building costs for a CCC are one-third less than those of a
jail. 22 Moreover, the operating costs are less: In Washington County,
Oregon the per-day cost of operating the CCC is, at $55 per day, half of
the per-day jail cost of $109.46. 23
Community Corrections Center, Day Reporting, and the programs
associated with them have a good track record.
In Hampden County, Massachusetts, a Pre-Release Facility serves inmates
who are within six months of release. Inmates reside at the Facility but
work in the community. In a move to reduce jail crowding even more, a
Day Reporting component was added. This program serves offenders
serving shorter sentences, pre-trial defendants released with a condition
to report, and also functions a s a step-down from Pre-release. Not only
20

Washington State Institute of Public Policy, ‘Does Participation in Washington’s Work Release Facilities
Reduce Recidivism?’ November, 2007
21
Washington County Community Corrections, Biennium Plan 2005-2007.
22
Estimate given by Rosser International. 9-19-07.
23
The Washington County CCC per day rate for the small number of residents involved in the in-house
residential treatment, is $71 per day. (John Hartner, Community Corrections Director, Sept. 2007)

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 34

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
has the program saved jail beds for those who need them most and
reduced the costs of holding inmates, but they have found that individuals
who earn the opportunity to participate in these programs have an
improved chance of successful community re-entry. 24
In Davidson County, Tennessee, the Sheriff sought grant funds to start a
Day Reporting Center in a move to alleviate jail overcrowding. The
program, designed for non-violent offenders, provides a program rich
environment in order to “give someone an option to turn his or her life
around in a positive manner,“ noted the Sheriff. The program has been
judged a success by the county, with a per diem rate one-third of the jail
and residents actively completing program. 25
In Connecticut, The Office of Alternative Sanctions was established with
the state’s judicial branch to expand alternative programs. Day Reporting
Centers were developed as part of this approach. These Centers are
designed as community-based alternatives to jail for defendants with
more serious offenses, who need more structure than straight probation.
Participants report to these Centers during the day and are under house
arrest at night. It is estimated that this program saves Connecticut 700 jail
beds each year. 26
Many Community Corrections Centers also rely on community service
and other community-based programs. Salt Lake County, Utah credits the
expansion of alternative to jail programs, such as community service, as the
principal factor in forestalling jail population increases. They report a
significant reduction in the number of defendants serving jail time since
the programs began. 27
Sometimes special populations are targeted for community alternative
programs. Quincy, Massachusetts started an alterative to jail program for
first and second time DWI offenders. The program relies on treatment
and probation supervision instead of incarceration. The program is
reported to be an effective jail population control measure while yielding
good rehabilitation success rates. 28
 Design a CCC as part of Jail Facility Planning
Spokane County has, with the Geiger facility, seen the benefit of having a
lower custody level facility. It offers flexibility in inmate management and
24

Richard McCarthy, “The Hampden County Day Reporting Center: Three Years’ Success in Supervising
Sentenced Individuals in the Community,” Hampden County, Massachusetts, Sheriffs Department.
25
“Davidson County’s Day Reporting Center: An Effective Alternative,” Large Jail Network Bulletin,
2000.
26
Justice Education Center, Inc. “Longitudinal Study: Alternatives to Incarceration Sentencing Evaluation,
Year 3,” Hartford, CT: Justice Education Center, Inc September 1996.
27
Ibid (2)
28
Ibid (2)

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 35

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
a lower cost option to incarceration. We recommend that Spokane
County now take this concept to the next level and design a true
Community Corrections Center as a companion facility to any jail
expansion plan.
On an average day in October 2008, there were 177 post-trial prisoners who
were either at Geiger or classified minimum security at the jail. In addition, there
were 114 medium security post-trial prisoners at the jail.
Many of the minimum and medium security inmates currently
incarcerated would be qualified for a CCC, with the necessary provisions
of work support and case monitoring.
From January to July 2007 the average daily population at Geiger was 562
(capacity is 616). On average roughly 20% of the inmates over this seven month
period had an out-of-custody status (either on work release or electronic
monitoring). And additional 2% were on Federal Work Release.
Given this we recommend a 300 to 350 bed Community Correction
Center be designed to serve Spokane County over the next 20 to 30 years.
There are many models to choose from in the design of such a facility.
One is to incorporate a jails industry component. Given that Spokane
County has a history with jail industries program (Federal inmates used
to have access to some in-custody work such as leather working and kiln
work, and at one time there was a solid waste contract) this might be
considered.
We recommend a two pronged approach that would have the county
make the changes needed today to enlist Geiger as a meaningful
incarnation alternative CCC (adding job preparation courses and other
services, for example), while at the same time planning the design of a
CCC that will have the requisite features to fully implement this exciting
concept.

IV. The Jail
 Move Toward Ending Booking Exclusion Practice
When the number of jail bookings exceeds the number of available beds
any Sheriff is confronted with a limited number of options. The approach
to dealing with overcrowding in Spokane County is to manage the front
door to the jail by closing it. Particular offenses no longer qualify for
booking when the jail is full. These include the following:
Domestic Violence
Harassment Offenses
DUI
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 36

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Physical Control
Hit and Run Attended
Assault 4 & City Assault
Prostitution Laws or Ordinances
Interference with health Care facilities or health care providers
Violation of chapter 69.50 Uniform Controlled Substances
Intimidation with a Weapon
Reckless Endangerment
Pedestrian Interference
Jail management through charge exclusion compromises the integrity of
the system, frustrates law enforcement, and in the worst case scenario
threatens public safety.
Implementing key recommendations of this report will go a long way
toward jail management. Universal Pre-Trial screening, an Expedited
Case Resolution program, expanded non-jail alternatives, and reduced
rates of failure will all contribute to reduce the impact on the jail.
 Develop Core Jail Treatment Programs
The Spokane County Jail lacks the essential core program services one
would expect in a facility of this size. Hampered by lack of program space
and challenged by crowded conditions, programming has taken a lower
priority.
At this time the only programs in jail are a GED program. There is also a
limited opportunity for inmates to work in the kitchen, but this does not
result in any certification (the inmate does receive a certificate to
acknowledge good service). The fact that T.V. viewing has been barred in
the jail for some time all but consigns inmates to a state of enforced
idleness.
A core set of programs should be developed, and these programs should
form a continuum that extends from the jail through Geiger and into the
community.
Core programs include:
•
•
•
•
•

Alcohol and Drug pre-treatment/treatment
Academic, vocational and financial skills courses
Anger Management Classes
Cognitive: Criminal Thinking Classes
Mental Health Counseling and Services

Research has shown that a cognitive-behavioral approach is fundamental
to sustained reductions in recidivism. This approach addresses the
thinking errors and rationalizations related to criminal activity, helps the
person identify ‘triggers’ for relapse or criminal behavior, and works to
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 37

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
develop individual strategies for change. It is based in role-playing and
activities that help the person practice new behavior. This is in contrast to
programs that simply provide information, are grounded in ‘talk therapy,
are designed to boost self-esteem, or that focus primarily or exclusively
on environmental deficiencies (jobs, housing, etc.)
Additionally, there should be separate classes for sex offenders and
batterers to ensure that time in jail does not disrupt on-going treatment;
and counseling and life skills classes should be available for the mentally
ill. Other classes that are recommended include those having to do with
parenting and family issues.
In the mental health arena, non-Medicaid dollars need to be available to
support sufficient in-custody and transition programs.
 Focus on Re-entry
The goal in adding programs is to build a continuum of services from the
jail to Geiger and out to the community.
Where possible, program curriculum should be shared. Making use of the
same cognitive skills curriculum across programs (one designed to
specifically address criminal risk factors, for example), would provide
continuity of treatment for offenders moving between programs, and
offers a common language for treatment providers, probation officers,
and offenders alike.
Some programs have been designed specifically for offenders and are
commonly offered in jail settings. These include the MRT thinking
cognitive program, and a public domain cognitive program developed by
the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). Because so many offenders
move through the DOC, the tested programs they offer are a good place
to start to review curricula.
Designing a re-entry effort requires going beyond the jail and Geiger and
involving the larger system. For inmates who already have mental health
case managers a ‘reach-in’ effort should be encouraged to insure a smooth
transition. Similarly, DOC and the misdemeanor probation should be
involved during the course of an extended incarceration.
 Fully Integrate Risk into Inmate Management
We applaud Spokane County Sheriff for adopting, four years, ago an
objective classification instrument. This is an essential management tool.
We now encourage that the application of risk be broadened, using it to
guide program placement and step-down opportunities. It is also
important that services be in place to respond to all risk levels. It was
mentioned during our project that in some cases sex offenders may be
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 38

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
released directly to the street from jail because their risk level is too high
to be handled elsewhere.

V. Mental Health Services
 Integrate Clinical Staff Into Booking Process
Staff in the jail booking must deal with persons in crisis. They are
confronted with complex physical and mental health issues. Although the
jail has a protocol to address these issues, seeing flagged inmates within
24-hours of booking, the immediacy of crisis situations dealt with in
booking calls for clinical staff to have a 24/7 presence in booking to
conduct medical screening and provide immediate care. The jail should
also review the availability of psychiatric services, ideally having this
resource available at least on an on-call basis.
 Strengthen Mental Health Services
Spokane County has taken important steps toward the development of a
continuum of mental health services. It has a crisis hotline, a crisis triage
center, mobile outreach to address crisis calls, Crisis Intervention Training
for police and other responders, mental health assessments in the jail
upon request, a fast-track placement in Eastern State Hospital, mental
health dockets, mental health probation caseloads, an multi-disciplinary
case management team for chronic ‘high users’, and a therapeutic mental
health court. There is no doubt that there is a local commitment to
providing good services to the mentally ill in Spokane County.
Jail mental health staff has taken some important steps to address the
issues surrounding the mentally ill inmate. They are trying to provide
discharge planning for as many inmates as possible, providing over 750
discharge referrals in the first six months of 2007; have arranged to have a
Department of Health Services staff come to jail to help with financial
applications for benefits upon release; and jail staff try to see that mentally
ill inmates are released with a prescription for medication.
The lack of dedicated beds in the community for stabilizing the mentally ill
discharged from jail poses a real challenge. Of course, this problem is not
restricted to the mentally ill. Most crisis beds will not accept sex offenders,
persons addicted to methamphetamine, or offenders with a history of
violence. It is hoped that the new housing resources coming to the
community can help address this.
Follow-up services for those released from jail are also limited. Although
a PACT team (intensive, 24/7 case management) has been formed to
provide intensive case management for a select group of mentally ill, to
date there is no direct connection with the jail for accepting referrals.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 39

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Jail staff estimate that 28% of inmates in the Spokane County Jail have are
seriously mentally ill (have an Axis I disorder).
At the same time, staff is stretched. Four full-time employees do their
best to address the bulk of mental health and medical needs. The task is
enormous. Moreover, they do not have the kinds of in-custody programs
that are needed to address the emotional and psychological issues at hand.
Needed services include: counseling, cognitive sessions, and life skills
training preparatory to release.
50% of inmates in the Spokane County Jail are taking general medications;
approximately 37% are on some form of psychotropic medication to address
mental health issues.
Spokane County has adopted many practices that research has shown to
be essential for ensuring long-term success. The key for any of the efforts
is that they not be single efforts, but are integrated. Recent evidence from
more than a dozen studies shows that comprehensive, integrated efforts
reduce substance abuse, mental health symptoms and re-arrest. 29
Jail discharge planning also holds promise. Providing immediate and
concrete assistance is the key. As one example, a recent study found that
those persons with mental illness who had Medicaid benefits upon release
from jail had, on average, 16 percent fewer subsequent detentions over
the following year than those who were released without Medicaid. 30
Mental Health Courts and Assertive Case Management Programs have also
demonstrated a real potential to lower the impact on jails and hospitals. A
new study on the San Francisco Behavioral Health Court found that, 18months after program completion, participants had a 39% lower risk of
being arrested for a new offense, and a 54% lower risk for committing a
violent offense than a comparable group booked into the jail who did not
participate in the specialty court. 31
Untreated mental illness has a tangible effect on jails. Defendants with
low level charges who recycle through the jail (‘frequent fliers’) are usually
individuals who are struggling with chronic and untreated mental illness,
homelessness, and other complex issues. In an effort to document the
impact of this population on the jail, a county in Oregon (Multnomah
County) took a closer look at their top 20 ‘frequent fliers.’ These 20
individuals had spent a combined 12,712 days in jail, or 35% of each year
on average behind bars; 30% had a serious psychiatric diagnosis; all had
22. Osher, F.C. (2000), “Co-occurring addictive and mental disorders. “ In Mental Health, United States,
Washington, DC: Center for Mental Health Services, 91-98.
30
Morrissey, Joseph P. “Medicaid Benefits and Recidivism of Mentally Ill Persons Released from Jail, “
May, 2006. NCJ 214169
31
American Journal of Psychiatry, “Effectiveness of a Mental Health Court in Reducing Criminal
Recidivism and Violence,” 164: 1395-1403, September 2007.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 40

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
extensive drug records; and the county had spent, on average, $70,000 for
booking and jailing each of the top 20 over a five-year period.
The next step in strengthening these services would include the following:









Insert clinical staff into booking
Produce inmate log to be matched against mental health database
Provide comprehensive Pre-Trial assessment of all inmates booked
into jail, with expanded questions regarding mental illness
Develop reach-in program in which case managers begin work
with inmate while incarcerated
Develop expanded diversion programs
Establish specialized pre-trial supervision for mentally ill
Develop range of jail programs for mentally ill
Ensure jail mental health staffing is at levels recommended by
national standards

 Accelerate and Expand CIT Training
Spokane Mental Health has already held 4-5 Crisis Intervention Team
(CIT) trainings. Developed according to model developed in Memphis,
Tennessee, whose police department pioneered the use of specially
trained law enforcement officers to respond to mental health calls, these
trainings are designed to educate first-line responders about mental health
symptoms and behavior, and to provide behavior-based strategies for
responding. The trainings to date have involved staff from DOC, police
agencies, and the sheriff’s department. Sessions specific to issues such as
identifying instances of ‘excited delirium’ have also been delivered to
firefighters and paramedics.
Jail personnel should be provided this training as well, and a condensed
version of the course made available to judges and other system
professionals.
 Continue to Address Information Integration Issues
Spokane County has some excellent information resources. For example,
police can access to a local database (‘Raintree’) to determine whether
persons apprehended have had contact with the local mental health
system. The 211 call centers are another good resource, offering an
updated database on 700 Health and Human Services which outlines
information regarding client eligibility, financial requirements, and other
relevant placement information.
In addition, Spokane Mental Health has their own database which
documents the number and nature of client contacts going back 15 years.
Still, there is work to be done.
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 41

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The ability to quickly identify at booking persons with chronic mental
health needs is vital to providing appropriate care. At this time jail staff
does not have access to the ‘Raintree’ database nor can is there a
consistent method to quickly and accurately be informed about mental
health issues. This puts staff in the position of operating in crisis mode.
Although Spokane Mental Health can be called 24/7 to come to the jail
and conduct an evaluation if an inmate is in crisis, a more proactive
approach should be the norm.
Other states and jurisdictions have recently been reviewing the issue of
sharing health and mental health information in the criminal justice
system, in the context of new privacy laws (HIPPA).
Texas has recently passed legislation that will facilitate information sharing
between criminal justice and mental health agencies. A mechanism is
being established to permit jail staff to quickly identify persons arrested
who have a diagnosis or history of treatment and to transmit this
information in a uniform manner to the jail while respecting the
individual’s privacy rights. In Texas, as in Arizona that has already
established information sharing mechanisms, jail staff transmits booking
rosters to the keeper of a central mental health database for immediate
information sharing regarding medications and other needs. This and
other options should be explored.
 Expand Therapeutic Mental Health Court
Spokane County is to be commended for the establishment of a
Therapeutic Court and specialized mental health dockets. The good
program developed to serve misdemeanor mental health cases should
ultimately be considered for expansion to some felony cases. The court is
getting some felony reduction cases.
 Reduce time to Restoration Hearing
Spokane County should join with other counties in objecting to the long
waits of up to 6 months for inmates awaiting a court-ordered restoration
hearing.
On the positive side there is a short one-day turnaround for the transfer
to Eastern State Hospital of inmates deemed to be a danger to themselves.
 Hold a System-wide Symposium to Address Issues of Mental Health Care
Last year an inmate in the Spokane County jail starved himself to death.
This is a regrettable incident and a trauma for all involved.
The issues at play in this incident reside at the intersection of public safety,
health, mental health, and law. Legislation that protects the rights of the
mentally ill and stringent commitment standards have led to situations
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 42

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
where the values of privacy and an obligation to provide care come in
conflict.
The complexity of this issue argues for a cross-system discussion and
review to ascertain whether changes to policies, procedures or practices
are warranted; to review and discuss collective roles and responsibilities in
such a situation; to debrief an administrative and clinical review of the
case; and to identify issues that require further study.
This is also a good time to review jail mental health care standards. We
support the adoption of National Commission on Correctional Health
Care (NCCHC) standards.
 Ensure Full-Service Crisis Center Available to Law Enforcement
For lack of a reliable place for law enforcement to bring persons for
behavior related to mental illness, the jail becomes the only option. Police
will take persons to Sacred Heart for psychological triage 20 hours per
day, and Crisis Triage is available, although this resource is trying to
return from budget cut-backs and still does not have 24/7 nursing staff.
But when there is a minor criminal charge the person is usually brought to
jail. The broad details from one case observed in Spokane County helps
tell the story:
Police receive a complaint about a man who is screaming on a downtown
street that ‘the world is coming to an end’. When officers arrive and try to
speak to the man he runs towards a storefront and, swinging a bag he has
in his hands, breaks the window. The man is arrested, booked into the
jail, and presents confused and conflicting information during the pre-trial
assessment. The information supplied by the defendant cannot be
verified the defendant’s record is reviewed, and Pre-Trial and the
Prosecutor’s Office ultimately recommend against release. Bond is set.
There is now a high likelihood that the defendant will remain in jail unable
to post until his next court hearing. Jails across the country are filled with
individuals like this man, charged with low-level crimes or violations that
have direct relationship to an underlying, and often untreated, mental
illness.
Nationally, a conservative estimate is that 16 percent of the jail population
in incarcerated for offenses related to mental illness. Of these, 60 percent
to 75 percent were jailed for non-violent offenses. These individuals are
often those persons who cycle through the jail door over and over again.
Once in jail, the mentally ill defendant is spends on average 15 months
longer incarcerated than those without mental illness who commit the
same crime.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 43

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The need for a reliable mental health triage resource for law enforcement
is an important resource to forestall the booking of the mentally ill, and
should be discussed as part of jail facility planning.
Spokane Mental Health’s triage center is still rebounding from devastating
budget cuts that resulted in a loss of mental health funds and resulted in
the closing of crisis triage. As the program rebuilds it would be good to
discuss what level of service and staff are needed to best accommodate
law enforcement; what level of service would help divert defendants from
either expensive hospital crisis beds (Spokane must pay $500 + per day for
any use of state designated hospital beds over its limit) or from expensive
jail beds.
Police need a 24/7 drop-off facility that has the necessary clinical support
staff A limited crisis triage resource; a detox unit that cannot
accommodate serious cases and must turns individuals away; and a the
high financial cost of exceeding a hospital bed-day cap, come together to
demonstrate the need to plan long-term criminal justice system mental
health services within a broader context.
As the county reviews the need for crisis services in the context of jail
planning it should track the Washington State funded Integrated Crisis
Response program pilots that are being tested in two sites. These pilot
cases are testing a model that has designated crisis responders
investigating, and detaining, individuals with serious mental illness or
substance abuse problems in a unified approach. The pilots also created
secure detox facilities to hold involuntarily detained individuals.
Preliminary data shows the degree of overlap between the two
populations: more than half of the individuals detained in secure detox
facilities also received publicly funded mental health services in the
previous year. 32
The goal is to make an assessment and stabilization option available that
can serve to prevent some persons from penetration the criminal justice
system.

VI. Community Supervision and Treatment Programs
 Consolidate Municipal and County Probation
Often government redundancy is hidden in dry reports and obscure
statistics. In Spokane County one need only walk into the reception are of
Adult Probation. There, behind a counter two receptionists sit shoulder to

32

Washington State Institute of Public Policy, “Integrated Crisis Response Pilots: Preliminary Report on
Client Characteristics,” December 2007

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 44

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
shoulder: One serves Municipal offenders and the other serves County
offenders.
Although there is no discernible difference between their respective
clients, each receptionist can only serve clients from their respective
jurisdiction, and must not cross an invisible line that separates paperwork
and personnel. This results in the spectacle of two receptionists, two fax
machines, and two paper shredders sharing the same space.
As one moves beyond the lobby the separation becomes less apparent. To
their credit, the staff has developed a good relationship in working side by
side. But behind the scenes the cost of the division is easily apparent. The
City will be acquiring new automated case management software. The
only problem: It is not the same one used by the County.
No business model would justify this level of duplication.
The Court has only been able to access the day reporting program as a condition
for county cases because facility is not a city program.
This is a division without a difference. And yet the separation of the
supervised misdemeanor population by jurisdiction not only results in
absurd redundancies; it results in uneven service.
Municipal DUI probation cases do not have access to the county DISP program.
The City and the County each have hard-working and dedicated staff, but
these two enterprises need to be joined. There is no business model that
would justify the existing arrangement.
 Foster Case Coordination with Department of Corrections
The bifurcation of misdemeanor probation services aggravates an already
fragmented system of supervision, one that has felony probation
delivered by the Department of Corrections. This level of fragmentation
obscures the fact that many of these cases have both misdemeanor and
felony charges. This results in the worst of all worlds; case management
is neither consolidated nor coordinated.
County Probation staff estimate that as many as 1 out of 4 defendants on their
caseloads may also be under DOC supervision.
The place to begin is with information sharing between the respective
agencies.
There needs to be a mechanism for the county/city
departments and the DOC to identify shared clients.
At the next level there should be work toward developing a shared case
plan: one that will allow correctional officers – and the offender – to track
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 45

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
the multiple case requirements. Anything less than this can contribute to
failure.
There have been some examples of reciprocal efforts in the past: the DOC
agreeing to accommodate low-risk female offenders sentenced to jail, for
example; housing them in a specialized program.
At present, the Director of Municipal Probation is exploring whether her
staff could co-teach some DOC courses in exchange for gaining access for
some misdemeanor clients.
This makes sense and should be fully
explored across the board.
 Formalize Use of Risk Assessment in Supervision
One of the principles of effective correctional treatment is the use of
accurate risk assessment at intake and at regular intervals during
supervision.
Misdemeanor supervision lags behind felony supervision in the use of
objective risk assessment. Washington State is recognized as a leader in
the research of risk assessment but the advancements in application have
been, for the most part, at the felony level.
Risk assessment should guide the intensity of supervision, the sanctioning
of violations, and the recommendations to the court regarding
supervision and treatment conditions. Both Municipal and County
probation are not unfamiliar with risk assessment. They have, to varying
degrees, used a tool out of Michigan to address risk. This tool, however,
does not assess need, has not been validated for local use, and is not
formally and fully applied. It is essential that valid and reliable instruments
be used to assess risk and needs and guide decisions about case
assignment.
One judge noted that Probation officers will often give sentencing
recommendations that do not seem to comport with the severity of the case,
recommending to ‘jail them for one year’ when other options have not been fully
pursued..
The lack of formalized use of risk and needs assessment reveals itself in
the reported inconsistent or ‘cookie cutter’ recommendations to the court,
the lack of any formal sanction policy, and the lack of confidence in quality
probation (and treatment) services raised by various segments of the
system.
The lack of risk assessment is one part of a problem. In cases involving
violence the risk assessment should be conducted as part of a more
comprehensive pre-sentence investigation. An example was given of a DV
case in which, because no national criminal history screen (NCIC) was
run, the court was not aware of past violence and the offender was
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 46

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
sentenced as a low-risk offender. Remedying this begins with establishing
uniform front-end Pre-Trial assessments and the formalization of sentence
reports and risk assessment.
 Reduce Caseload Size
Meaningful supervision requires manageable caseloads. Working to
effect positive change is impossible with caseloads of 400 to 750.
Meaningful supervision also depends on having staff with good basic
training and specialized expertise. The overall assignment of caseloads
according to an alphabet, not risk level or other relevant criteria belies this
kind of system.
On the other hand each agency has developed some specialized caseloads,
which is to be commended. Municipal Probation ahs specialized domestic
violence and mental health caseloads; County Probation has these two
plus a specialized DUI unit.
Adult caseload standards, advanced by The American Probation and
Parole Association are as follows: 33
Case Type
Intensive Risk
Moderate to High Risk
Low Risk
Administrative/Bench

Case to Staff Ratio
20:1
50:1
200:1
No Limit Noted

The formalization of risk assessment will help structure caseload pressures
by more precisely targeting the lowest risk cases for monitoring-only
options. The manager of County Probation is considering this and
estimates that under this approach as many as 50% of cases might be able
to be shifted downward to lower supervision status.
Accurate classification of cases will allow a more careful allocation of
resources. Evidence suggests that staff resources and programs should be
targeted at intensive and moderate to high risk offenders in order to
achieve the greatest impact. Minimal contacts and services should be
reserved for the lowest risk cases.
The system should formalize the use of risk, set caseload standards, and
begin to collect outcome data to help make future adjustments in the
supervision of offenders.
 Expedite the Sanction Process

33

APPA Perspectives Journal, “Issue Paper on Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole,” Spring 2007.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 47

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
To be effective sanctions must be swift and certain. Indeed, when it comes
to positively impacting criminal behavior, it is the immediacy and
predictability of the sanction that is most important – more important
than severity.
As reported, it is not uncommon for the resolution of a county probation violation
to take 6 months to resolve.
In many cases it takes too long to respond to supervision non-compliance.
Oftentimes a violation hearing is set out 4 to 6 weeks, during which period
it is not uncommon for the offender to fail-to-appear. With the resetting
of court dates and attending to other issues, it can take 6 months to
resolve the issue. This does not qualify as a swift response.
The process should be expedited by taking two measures: one is adoption
of sanction guidelines that structure correctional officer discretion
according to risk; the second is the streamlining of the revocation process
itself.
 Collect and Routinely Prepare Probation Data Management Reports
Effecting organizational change requires good data. This is true with
Probation Services where detailed information is not readily available. As
an example, one data report to develop would be an accounting of the
number and nature of violations, sanctions imposed, and outcomes.
Data on population profile, process data, and outcome data should all be
collected and organized in a report format for regular review.
 Subsidize Treatment for Domestic Violence and High Risk Offenders
No state money is available for domestic violence treatment. Defendants
who are court ordered to treatment must pay their own way, and little is
mandated or available for those needing both battery and substance
abuse treatment.
 Strengthen Domestic Violence Services
Spokane County has made a commitment to domestic violence (DV)
services through its court monitoring program and its specialized DV
probation caseload. At the same time there is no subsidized treatment
and misdemeanor probation is not capable within existing caseload levels
to provide quality supervision. There are numerous issues to address.
These include:
•

Orders of Continuance in domestic violence cases that suspend
treatment are recommended for use in a conservative fashion, and
only then when based on full risk and needs information. In the
opinion of some there is an over-reliance on suspend treatment

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 48

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
and continue orders, and a concern that they are used not only for
first time offenders by for multiple offenders as well. These orders
are designed to continue the case, sometimes for 18-24 months,
suspending treatment pending further review. This speaks to the
need for universal and comprehensive pre-trial assessments to
guide diversion and sentencing decisions.
•

Bond for domestic violence defendants is fairly uniformly set. This
reflects again the lack of good pre-trial assessment information.
Pre-Trial should be providing criminal history reviews and risk
assessments in all domestic violence cases. Furthermore, the
development of a Pre-Trial supervision unit should include
specialized supervision services for the DV defendant.

•

Although there is specialized DV probation supervision, probation
officers struggle with large caseloads and cannot conduct field visits
or do drug testing, hampering the ability to provide meaningful
supervision. Municipal probation offenders are seen in the office
one time per week until they enter treatment, thereafter they are
monitored without any direct contact.

•

The lack of formal supervision by DOC for domestic violence cases
sometimes results in felony cases being pled to a misdemeanor
simply to access supervision.

•

The lack of system coordination results in a terrible duplication of
effort. A misdemeanor probation officer in the domestic violence
unit noted that it is common for an offender to have two probation
officers, each for a different charge: one misdemeanor and one
felony. This same officer even has one offender under supervision
at this time who has must report to four separate agencies: city,
county, state and federal. Spokane County must work to both
consolidate and coordinate services.

•

Domestic Violence offenders are not consistently ordered to
complete a substance abuse evaluation. Given the linkage between
drinking and drug use and violence an assessment of need for
treatment should be standard.

•

Domestic violence treatment is not available in the jail or at Geiger.
Violence coursework should be available in custody in order to
insure continuity.

•

Some reported DV treatment completion rates are exceedingly low.

 Strengthen DUI Treatment
As reported by multiple sources, DUI treatment is inconsistent,
inadequate, and at times inaccessible. Criticisms include the following:
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 49

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

•

DUI Court (The DISP program) does not subsidize any treatment and as
such has no control over the consistency or quality of programs. All
treatment is self-pay. As a result the program cannot insure that the
treatment attached to its intensified supervision program conforms
to the highest standards.

•

Treatment programs vary greatly in the degree to which they
disclose violations and in their general levels of communication.

•

Although defendants must pay for an assessment, much treatment is
simply ‘cookie cutter’ in nature, not reflecting individual needs.

•

Programs vary in terms of their treatment philosophy and tolerance
of relapse. While Drug Court is based on an acknowledgement that
relapse is an expected part of the recovery process some DUI
programs take a punitive approach. Some programs use lie detector
tests and recommend the court sanction relapses with time in jail.
This is in contrast to drug court where relapse is viewed as an
opportunity for a therapeutic intervention.

•

Mental health needs are not adequately addressed. For the most
part defendants in need of co-occurring treatment must go elsewhere.

These issues should be reviewed as part of a larger discussion about
treatment quality and the development of court-approved performance
standards.
 Address Treatment Quality and Availability
Spokane County’s commitment to treatment and alternative to jail
programs is evident in the progressive specialty court programs it has
supported; a strong community ethic to provide housing and mental
health services; and specialized probation services. It also stands out for
the reform efforts of its juvenile justice system which has worked hard to
bring their practices in line with best practices in detention reform and
service provision.
This foundation can be seen in the continuum Spokane County has put in
place over the years:








Drug Court
Therapeutic Mental Health Court
Domestic Violence Court Monitoring
DISP Program
Specialized probation caseloads
FACT team
Jail discharge planning

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 50

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
 A range of community-based treatment
This is worthy of praise. On the other hand there is discontent among the
judiciary, probation officers, sheriff’s staff, and others, with program
quality. These criticisms included the following:
Program Access


Persons with the most difficulty accessing services are those of middle
income. Under a largely self-pay system of treatment, the low income
offender pays on the low end of sliding scale, and the high income
offender pays the full amount. It is the person in the middle income range
who most often struggles to access services.



No formal community service program. Liability concerns have prevented
the development of a centralized service, and yet community services are
an essential service on the continuum of sanctions. Options should be
explored to centralize this service, including having probation responsible
for its operation. In this way the program would be better coordinated.
The County Probation Manager also mentioned an interest in making
community service available to the low income probationer in lieu of
probation fees. We strongly support this direction. As more aggressive
enforcement of payment of fines and fees is pursued, service in lieu of
payment options need to be readily available.



During our project the 24-hour DUI education program was given notice
that their program space at Geiger would no longer be available. A
permanent solution is needed to address this and to ensure that this longstanding court-ordered program has a place to reside.



Mention has already been made about the uneven access to services based
on a misdemeanor probationer’s jurisdictional status. For example, day
reporting is only an option for county offenders, not city offenders on
misdemeanor supervision. Program options should be equally available
to probationers, an objective served by program consolidation.

Program Quality


During our time in the County the contracted Day Reporting Program was
woefully underutilized. At the time we met with program staff only 20
offenders were being served; program capacity is 100. Moreover, the
program offerings would not normally be considered of sufficient
substance or duration to effect long term change. The program serves as
a sanction/diversion option (and in some cases pre-trial monitoring
option) primarily serving District Court referrals (around 90% of all
referrals). The program is for the most part serving non-violent cases
(many theft charges) and probation violation cases, for a reported 30 days
average length of stay.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 51

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Offenders are asked to report to the program for an intake assessment,
but beyond that the program lacks any coursework or substantive
activities. Offenders can report in, submit their schedules, and simply
spend their time ‘being there.’ The County should consider several
options: developing a program-based day reporting option as part of an
expanded Geiger program; working out an arrangement with the DOC to
access their excellent community justice center programs; or establishing a
stand alone county operated program.


The DISP program for DUI offenders is an innovative effort. We were
told, however, that the quality of DUI treatment and the communication
between probation and treatment providers is, in many cases,
substandard. Probation clients are being served by ten different agencies
operating within the county. There has been an issue with providers not
routinely notifying probation officers about client non-compliance, and
the programs are perceived to have varying levels of quality. The County
should join with the DOC and the State to address issues of quality control
and oversight. Probation officers should have a system in which to solicit
feedback from offenders participating in these programs; and the County
should consider contributing funding enough to allow input and program
accountability.



In some cases domestic violence offenders are not accessing quality
treatment, but are receiving anger management instead. This reflects the
difficulty in retaining quality treatment providers (the certification
standards are very high) and the cost of treatment which is a barrier to
some offenders. Performance standards need to be not only set, but
adhered to; probation officers need to solicit formal feedback from
offenders in these programs; and an advisory board needs to review
reasons for high drop-out rates and monitor quality.



Spokane County has been exploring the relative benefits of private versus
public electronic monitoring. Issues include the time it can take to set up
the monitoring, the fact that private companies do not have the power to
arrest, and issues of accountability. Electronic monitoring should be
viewed as an extension of custody, and be managed by a public entity.
Overall, to address issues of quality the County needs to make sure that
in-house and contracted programs conform to the highest standards.
Programs that the courts use need to be assessed to make sure they are
using evidence based practices, are transparent and accountable.
There are different ways to achieve this goal. Some counties set up
quality standards committees to set program benchmarks and monitor
quality. In some places like Oregon, all contracted corrections programs
(both in-custody and in the community) are now subject to audits to
measure the degree to which they are conforming to best practices. This
same approach can be adopted by county government to set new high
expectations for program performance.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 52

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Evidence based practices target higher risk offenders and deliver tested
services in a manner designed to yield the best outcomes. Recent research
demonstrates the cumulative benefit of evidence-based practices.
The average reduction in the expected recidivism rate for alternative
programs is approximately 10%. However, programs that are of the
highest quality, in terms of best practices, have been shown to reduce the
expected recidivism rate by up to 30%.
Research shows that to have the greatest impact on recidivism, length of
supervision and services provided should be clearly linked to an
offender’s risk level. Research has shown that programs that achieve the
greatest reductions in recidivism share common characteristics:
-

Allocate resources to higher risk
Address at least 3 factors that are predicators of criminal behavior
(substance abuse, attitudes, peers, employment, etc.)
Provide treatment of at least 3 months duration
Provide sufficient treatment intensity (structuring at least 40% of
the person’s week)
Offer more rewards than sanctions
Deliver programs that are cognitive- behavioral in nature
Ensure staff are well trained
Ensure program manager is experienced and has direct oversight
Conduct program evaluations

Importantly, it has been shown that the quality of the treatment appears
to be as important as the content. Not only do the most effective
programs triple the reductions in recidivism, but ineffective programs
have been shown to actually increase recidivism. 34
The significance of targeting the higher risk offender is made clear in
research that shows that not only do services for this population provide
the greatest public safety return, but that intensive services delivered to
low risk offenders can also serve to increase recidivism. 35
Particular treatment models have been shown to be crucial for realizing
long-term gains. Cognitive-behavioral approaches that address criminal
thinking and help the person understand triggers for addictive/criminal
behavior have proven most effective, providing a benefit to the system
(after accounting for treatment costs) of $ 10,299 per person. 36

34

Lowenkamp, Christopher, Latessa, Edward, Holsinger, Alexander, “The Risk Principle in Action: What
Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs?” Crime and Delinquency, Vol.
52 No. 1, January 2006.
35
Ibid, Lowenkamp
36
Ibid, Aos

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 53

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
But treatment does not operate in isolation. Effectiveness also depends
upon the availability of an empty jail bed to provide a quick sanction in
response to program violation. And, the importance of a coordinated
system approach has also been demonstrated. For example, outcomes for
substance abuse treatment are improved when criminal justice staff works
as a team with treatment programs. 37
Develop Coordinated Treatment/Supervision Plans
The greatest reductions in recidivism are achieved by providing a balance
of treatment and supervision.
Surveillance-only or sanction-only
approaches demonstrate no positive outcome. A review of 23 controlgroup studies of surveillance-oriented, intensive supervision showed zero
positive effect. 38
Recent research into evidence-based practices, conducted for the
Washington State Legislature is instructive. It found that while intensive
supervision alone yielded no reductions in recidivism, intensive
treatment-oriented supervision resulted in an almost 22 percent reduction
in recidivism. After accounting for the cost of supervision and treatment,
the system cost benefits per person are estimated to be $11,563. 39
Research has also shown that it is the swiftness and certainty of the
sanction that is important, not the severity. An Oregon Department of
Corrections study of sanctions confirmed this in a study that matched
offender groups by risk level and delivered sanctions of different types
and length. They found similar rates of re-conviction for high-risk
offenders regardless of time in jail; for most medium risk offenders longer
stays in jail were associated with higher recidivism; and, overall,
community sanctions yielded lower reconviction rates. 40
Train Staff in Motivational Interviewing
While most research on evidence-based practices has focused on the
properties of effective programs, recent research is paying attention to the
quality of the interaction between staff and the offender. Evidence suggests
that the quality and nature of the interaction is as important as the
program itself. This should not be surprising.
As a result, community corrections agencies are taking steps to train staff
in motivational interviewing skills.
This approach substitutes
confrontational interactions with a model in which communication clear,
respectful, and constructive.
37

NIDA (July 2006)“Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations.”
Aos Steve, Miller Marna, and Drake Elizabeth (Oct. 2006) ,“Evidence-Based Adult Corrections
Programs: What Works and What Does Not,” Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
39
Ibid; Aos.
40
Oregon Department of Corrections (Sept. 2002), Structured Sanction Study (paraphrased)
38

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 54

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Research is also finding that the degree of recidivism reduction is
associated with other staff-related qualities such as the education and
experience of the Director and the degree of staff oversight.
 Expand Drug Court
The Spokane County Drug Court, started in 1997 by Judge White is a preplea program for felony defendants. At present, Judge Linda Tompkins
presides over Drug Court. Tom Lloyd is the Drug Court Coordinator.
The program currently has around 80 clients and can accommodate up to
90 at any one time.
This is a mature Drug Court program with many excellent features:










A strong team, with long-standing members, and excellent teamwork between the Prosecutor’s and Public Defender’s Offices
Solid intensive outpatient treatment (provided by North East
Washington Treatment Alternatives NEWTA) with individualized
treatment plans, good case management, referrals to multiple
services, and the ability to refer to in-patient treatment; and
gender-specific classes
DOC supervision
A dedicated mental health resource
Funds available to address client support: housing vouchers, dental
care, food and clothing
Access to DOC work crews and community service for sanctions
Availability of alternative sanctions to respond to violations
Aftercare

While it is commendable that treatment is subsidized if the defendant
cannot afford to pay, not all programs charge defendants for urine tests
(the program charges defendants based on a sliding fee scale). This is
worth reviewing.
Program funded with state funds and some county. State funds are CJAT
and are generated in large part by a 2002 change in drug sentencing laws:
the savings in prison costs from this change were set aside for counties.
Spokane County has had federal grants in the past, as well.
Broaden Drug Court Eligibility
The research on Drug Court outcomes makes a compelling case for
expansion. A recent analysis of the Multnomah County Drug Court (the
second oldest program in the nation) tracked 11,000 drug court eligible
offenders over a 10-year period. Results included significantly reduced
recidivism for drug court participants up to 14 years after program entry
compared to eligible offenders who did not participate. The incidence of
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 55

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
re-arrest was reduced by nearly 30% for drug court participants. System
costs for persons in the drug court were $1,392 less than the costs for
‘business-as-usual’ cases. 41
More generally, substance abuse treatment, in its many forms, has been
shown over and over to be a good investment. A study of 44 treatment
programs in California across 13 counties revealed that for every dollar
spent on drug treatment yielded $7 in savings: a collective savings in
health, criminal justice, welfare, and work productivity. 42
At this time, the program is not available for offenders with 5+ previous
convictions; sex or violence-related charges; or previous drug court
participants.
Because many drug courts began with federal funding that excluded
violent offenses, programs that are now self-supporting often continue
this blanket prohibition. The downside is that this category can include
offenders who would benefit from the very services denied them.
Offenders charged with low level assault charges might be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis: especially when the Assault charge was part of the
juvenile record. A case-by-case review is recommended for cases of
delivery (sometimes the amount is very minimal), violence cases
involving domestic violence, and weapon possession (not necessarily an
definitive indication of dangerousness).
Adhering to narrow criteria can exclude the very offenders who might
benefit most from this kind of intensive program.
Develop Universal Pre-Trial Screening to Identify Clients
Drug Court clients are referred from a number of sources, including
private attorneys, the prosecuting attorney office, and at times the
defendant himself, who will take the initiative to request consideration.
For the most part though the Prosecutor’s’ Office takes the lead. They
have a staff assigned to the Court who reviews court dockets and
identifies possible candidates. In some cases the inmate comes to the
attention of the Prosecutor through a request for review.
Pre-Trial screening would assist this process and, in making review
uniform, would be expected to expand the numbers considered and
expedite entry. This has been the case in other jurisdiction.
Address Issue of Incentive to Participate

41

Finigan, Michael W. et. al, “Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and
Costs (Final Report),” July, 2007, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
42
The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP) Final Report, Sept. 2002.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 56

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The Spokane County Drug Court has a high initial drop-out rate.
Although the incentive to participate is the ultimate dismissal of charges
and free treatment, for many offenders the trade-off between jail time
and length of program participation is not enough to encourage
involvement.
50% of defendants drop out during the 2-week trial period
The drop-out rate is strikingly high. It reflects a number of factors, one of
which is the relatively low jail penalty for simple possession cases: in most
cases a maximum 90 days in jail.
Other factors include: screening of inappropriate cases (the lack of
uniform front-end case identification results in screening many defendants
who do not meet basic program criteria); the already noted lack of
enough system incentive (jail vs. program time) to encourage
participation; and the need for a more concerted effort to discuss the
candidate’s decision to reject the program.
Since program inception in 1996, almost 14,000 cases have been screened.
Screened:
Found Not Eligible:
Eligible But Program Full:
Eligible:
Opted In:

13,752
11,598 (85%)
139 (1%)
2,015 (14%)
1,639 (81% of eligible opt in)

For the year to data, 2007, program has screened 1,298; found 73% not
eligible. However, of those found eligible in 2007, only 17% have opted
in, an extremely low rate.
A review of the statistics on the reason the person was denied entry into
DRC makes the case for universal pre-trial screening: the vast majority of
rejections were due to current or prior criminal factors. The time spent
reviewing cases that did not even meet initial eligibility criteria could be
saved by having Pre-Trial Services conduct the first screening to identify
possible candidates.
Reviewing historical data, the main reasons for a defendant not entering
the Spokane County Drug Court was:
Open misdemeanor or felony case:
Other current open reports:
Five prior felonies:
Prior violent conviction:
Additional charges with current arrest:
Multiple social security numbers:
Not a local resident:
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 57

391
263
231
174
173
139
124

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Warrants:
Pending referrals:
Transient:
Prior sex conviction:
Prior drug court:
Other reasons:

34
29
19
13
6
133

A uniform Pre-Trial screening would document all of the reasons noted
here and help to establish a more pro-active policy to have defendants
enter Drug Court.
Review Sanction Policy
This Drug Court program stands out from many other programs
nationwide in its purported limited use of jail to respond to dirty urine
tests. This reflects a philosophy of tolerance, which is based on the belief
that a least restrictive, therapeutic response should be employed to the
greatest extent possible. If the defendant discloses drug use, for example,
an alternative sanction is most often employed. In any case, the program
will work to address the underlying reason for relapse.
This approach should be studied as part of more extensive outcome study
that compares outcomes by different judicial and programs responses
over time. Grant funding might be possible to compare this program
with other programs that take a more strict approach to sanctions.
Consider Drug Court Treatment and Reporting Tracks
The Drug Court is delivering a solid program with an exceptional team of
professionals. The goal now should be to make the program available to
more individuals.
The program is moving the majority of individuals through the program
in a reasonable amount of time, although some clients have stayed up to
two years, and the program may want to review the policy on maximum
time allowed for program involvement. At the same time, consideration
should be given to the development of treatment ‘tracks’ of varying
intensity, guided by an assessment of criminal risk.
In four experimental studies, participants who were high risk for
recidivism had better outcomes in drug court when scheduled to attend
frequent biweekly judicial status hearings.
In contrast, high-risk
participants had poor outcomes when this level of contact was reduced.
However, outcomes for low risk offenders were generally equivalent
regardless of how often they were required to appear before the court. 43

43

Marlowe, Douglas B. et. al, “Matching Judicial Supervision to Client’s Risk Status in Drug Court,”
Crime and Delinquency, Volume 52: Issue 1: (January, 2006).

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 58

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
Conduct outcome study
The Drug Court program has tracked recidivism data for clients, and
reports a low 13% recidivism rate two years after graduation. The next
step would be to track recidivism rates for a matched group of offenders
who do not enter the program. Data should also be tracked and
compared by whether a client graduated or not, and by other
characteristics (criminal history, drug type, types of services received,
etc.). This kind of analysis helps refine and justify program operations.
 Expand Detox Continuum
A fully funded Detox program benefits the jail. When Detox is full the
overflow often ends up in custody.
Spokane County has the only sobering unit in the state, and has a social
detox model program. As a social model it does not have on-site nurses
or a physician in the unit and as such cannot accept persons coming off of
long-term opiate use, on methadone, or persons who have been using
heroin within the last year. This limits the kind of cases it can accept. This
does not mean, however, that there is not a place for social detox services.
This represents an important least restrictive response on the continuum
of crisis and stabilization services. The challenge is insuring that a full
spectrum of services exist to accommodate the full range of needs
presented.
Not only does the Detox program struggle with the inability to serve
particular cases, it is also challenged by a lack of sufficient resources. On a
daily basis it is in the position of having to refuse to accept cases.
The program also struggles with the lack of sufficient community
resources to accept homeless client needing to transition back to the
community within a stable setting. Having adequate residential treatment
available as a transition option should continue to be explored (especially
in light of the new state dollars available for housing), and should be
planned as part of a ‘point of exit strategy’ that also includes exit from jail.

VII. Information Systems
 Establish Routine Data Reports
The Criminal Justice System should routinely track summary data from
each component of the system. This summary information, provided on
a quarterly basis, will allow the on-going assessment of system workload,
trends, and outcomes.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 59

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan
The information presented in this Report provides baseline data for the
Jail and the system. Routine review of this kind of information is
recommended to track changes in population make-up, demands on the
system, and improvements in case processing efficiency.
 Fund a System Data Analyst Position
The County should establish a position responsible for on-going jail and
system data collection. Additionally, this person should assume the role
of an Expeditor, working with Pre-Trial Services, the court, public
defender and other agencies to be available to review an inmate’s status
and work to get them out of jail. This might include working with a
demanding county as to whether they really want to receive the prisoner,
working with the court to help facilitate the release of a sentenced
prisoner held on a minor charge who has been cleared for release to PreTrial, accept calls from the public defender when defendants are in
custody for multiple charges and clarification is needed, etc. This person
would work closely with the city analyst that provides reports from the
jail system.
 Establish Evaluation Protocol
The measurement of system efficiency must be coupled with the tracking
of system and program outcomes. Any data collection protocol should be
simple but substantive; and the data should be reviewed on a regular
basis. Some of this data is already collected, some is not.
 Better Integrate Mental Health Data
Continue to explore how to better integrate mental health and criminal
justice data. To the extent allowable by privacy laws defendant mental
health information needs to be available to support a comprehensive and
quality system response.
This issue should be addressed on a number of fronts: establishing
protocols for seeking an individual’s permission to share mental health
information with the criminal justice system prior to such contact;
establishing a method for comparing the daily jail log against mental
health databases; formalizing reach-in efforts to the jail from mental
health case managers; expanding Pre-Trial assessment questions
pertaining to mental health; etc.
All of these efforts form the foundation for a humane and respectful
approach to the person with mental illness who comes in contact with the
criminal justice system.

VIII. Conclusion
Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 60

Spokane County Corrections Master Plan

Some of the recommendations outlined in this Report will require an
investment in both time and money. This can be viewed as a ‘pay me
now or pay me later’ proposition. This is because the implementation of
these recommendations will result in the more efficient management of
existing resources, thereby delaying the day when the county needs to
start planning again for more jail beds.
Taken together, these measures form a strategic Corrections Master Plan
for Spokane County.

Jail Population Management
Chapter Four
Page 61