|
|
LAW AND JUSTICE
County governments provide staffing and facilities for most of the trial
court system of the state and nearly all of the state’s criminal justice
system, with the exception of law enforcement within cities and
misdemeanor crimes prosecuted by cities within municipal courts.
Counties often provide regional criminal justice services for cities,
services that are too expensive for each small community to duplicate.
Counties pay for mandatory trial-level public defender services for
indigent persons. As a result of increasing state mandates and
decreasing funding resources, counties are spending, on average, more
than 70 percent of general fund dollars on law and justice -- even as
court dockets for civil matters are significantly delayed; superior,
district and juvenile court facilities are overcrowded; jails and some
juvenile detention facilities are dangerously over capacity; and inmate
health services are woefully inadequate. As defendants in civil cases
counties often end up as the “deep pockets,” paying more than their fair
share of monetary damages under the state’s rule of joint and several
liability. Counties also face increasing costs for, and uncertain
availability of, liability insurance to cover core government
activities.
WSAC Policy: Counties believe the purpose of the criminal justice system
is to minimize the cumulative impacts of crime on society. Cumulative
impacts include personal, social and overall economic impacts. For that
reason, counties take their criminal justice responsibilities very
seriously. Over many years, as state funding has declined, counties have
instituted numerous efficiencies within their criminal justice programs
and, where authorized by statute, developed innovative agreements for
the provision of intergovernmental services that share costs and
benefits. However, in spite of efforts to be more efficient and
accessible, counties lack adequate funding for mandatory criminal
justice services. In order to cover criminal justice costs, many
counties are forced to short-change other programs essential to the well
being of their residents. Counties will work to gain adequate funding
for all essential law and justice services, and to remove unnecessary or
overly burdensome state requirements on the law and justice system.
Counties also will work to limit the burden of civil liability
associated with providing local government programs and activities.
Courts
While an independent state commission determines judges’ salaries,
counties must pay full salaries for district court judges and half the
salaries of superior court judges – regardless of the economic situation
and cost of living in the individual counties. Counties pay all salaries
and benefits of court personnel, and bear the full expense of providing
public defenders in superior and district court. Counties also are
responsible for constructing and maintaining all court facilities.
WSAC Policy: As subdivisions of the state, counties believe the state
must take a greater role in funding state-mandated law and justice
activities that are administered at the county level, such as superior
courts. Counties believe the state also should assist in funding
discretionary court services, such as drug courts, that reduce impacts
to state prisons and juvenile institutions and other costly state
programs. As long as a state commission determines judges’ salaries,
counties support a constitutional amendment to require the state to pay
full salaries and benefits for superior court judges. Counties also
support use of the state public works trust fund and public safety and
education account for construction, remodeling and maintenance of court
facilities.
Jails
Many demands on county jails are driven by the Legislature as new
criminal laws are enacted and more “community-based” sentencing and
supervision are required, thus increasing capacity problems. As more
defendants are convicted of multiple misdemeanors, such as driving while
license suspended, many jails are housing inmates for periods exceeding
a year. As more inmates enter jails and stay for long periods of time,
those with medical, psychological and substance abuse conditions strain
jail budgets and sometimes receive inadequate health care and treatment.
Between 56 % and 79% of adult inmates have been found to be in need of
chemical dependency treatment. Counties also often provide services for
state agencies, such as confinement of Fish and Wildlife and State
Patrol misdemeanants and DOC supervision violators in county jails, for
which little or no compensation is provided – thus exacerbating the
overcrowding and under-funding problems.
WSAC Policy: Counties believe the Legislature should require state
agencies to enter into and honor compensation agreements for housing
state misdemeanant inmates and DOC violators. Counties support state
“extraordinary fund” assistance for jails that house unexpectedly high
numbers of ill inmates or any ill inmates who require specialized care,
isolation, or high-cost treatment. Counties further support state
assistance in purchasing and distributing medications to inmates, and
preparing pre-release documentation to ensure inmates continue to
receive needed medications and care following release from jail.
Counties also support use of the state public works trust fund and
public safety and education account or a new funding source to assist
with construction and maintenance of adult or juvenile correction and
detention facilities.
Juvenile Justice
Counties are responsible through their superior courts for
administering the juvenile justice system in the community. The local
system includes administering juvenile detention facilities, operating
accountability boards and diversion systems such as juvenile drug
courts, and implementing and contracting for early intervention and
prevention programs.
In recent years, the Legislature has increased its requirements for
research-based outcome measures in all areas including juvenile justice
as well as mandating the most effective use of limited funding through
increased coordination with both the state level administration at the
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and other county health
and human services systems such as the Regional Support Networks. Such
coordination is particularly important given that over 51% of juvenile
inmates are in need of substance abuse treatment and even higher numbers
suffer from behavioral disturbances and need mental health care. County
juvenile courts have been instrumental in implementing innovative,
evidence-based practices statewide such as their risk and needs
assessment tool now implemented by other states. Their success has been
supported by independent evaluation. They have demonstrated that they
can provide services even more cost-effectively than the state when
compared with the cost of institutional care.
WSAC Policy: Counties support full state funding for
administering the costs associated with mandated laws such as “Becca”
and the Hope Act for serving at-risk youth including providing necessary
county-administered human services. Counties support the increase in
flexibility of state and federal juvenile justice funds through
consolidation of funds and continued use of block grant approaches
especially as the level of those funds remains stable. Counties support
continued as well as increased state support for funding the costs of
accountability boards, diversion systems especially juvenile drug
courts, validated early intervention and prevention programs for at-risk
youth and minor offenders. Counties support more effective partnerships
with the state Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, the Children’s
Administration, the Administrator for the Court, the Washington
Association of Juvenile Court Administrators, the Superior Court Judges
Association, and other key stakeholders and additional integration and
coordination of functions and responsibilities. Counties support state
funding for full implementation of collaboration requirements with state
and local juvenile justice agencies placed upon the county Regional
Support Networks. As a matter of policy regarding community supervision
or parole, counties support a blend of supervision, risk and needs
assessment and treatment services and would oppose any reduction of one
of these areas to expand one of the others increasing potential risk to
the community and client. In addition, counties generally support
juvenile sentencing alternatives insofar as adequate funding is assured,
but remain concerned about the state’s commitment to continuing that
funding.
|
|
