It tells you something that the only public member of Oregon’s Commission on Public Safety is a car dealer.
Not that there’s anything wrong with car dealers. (I’ve owned three cars in my life, and two of them were bought from car dealers.)
To his credit, Dick Withnell is the only member of the commission to bluntly admit what they are up to: Adjusting the sticker price on public safety.
At the commission’s first meeting Sept. 30, Withnell suggested that the public provide jobs for juvenile delinquents – the sort of thing a politician might think but not say out loud to just anyone.
“The public can’t get a free pass on this,” said Withnell. “Citizens have to come forward to be part of the solution. … I’m a little bit nervous when citizens say the governor should do this … whatever. … The citizens themselves have to come up to the plate.”
The Commission on Public Safety was created by Gov. Ted Kulongoski, shortly before he left office, annoyed that voters kept passing initiatives to strengthen criminal sentences, which deprives the legislature of revenue to spend elsewhere. The commission would recommend changes in sentencing and help the legislature overcome public opposition from voters who approved Measure 11, which mandated minimum sentences for certain violent felonies.
Kulongoski was appointed to the commission by his successor, Gov. John Kitzhaber. The seven-member body also includes state Supreme Court Justice Paul J. De Muniz; Sen. Jackie Winters (R-Salem); Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene); Rep. Chris Garrett (D-Lake Oswego), and Sen. Andy Olson (R-Albany).
Withnell doesn’t talk in the carefully crafted mottoes – “We need to get smart on crime” – of De Muniz and Kulongoski. (When I was a reporter, a career burglar described in detail how he hit a string of Church’s Fried Chicken stores and made more in one weekend than I did in three months. This burglar liked chains because they tended to be laid out identically, with safes in the same place, etc. He got smart on crime.)
Just before 2011 ended, the commission released a report on its findings. Not surprisingly, the commissioners “are unanimous in believing that Oregon’s public safety system can be improved to better protect the public at less cost,” according to the cover letter by De Muniz.
That sounds like “doing more with less,” a reassuring promise offered during layoffs and cutbacks. Considering that only about a third of convicted felons are currently incarcerated in Oregon, does that mean that there will be a push to lock up even fewer?
The commission recommends alternatives that will be “evidence-based” protocols, proven through scientific research to work as effectively and cheaper than incarceration.
Representatives from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission who served as advisors to the public safety commission, demonstrated the Oregon Public Safety Checklist, an actuarial risk tool, at the Nov. 21st meeting. Type in a criminal’s SID (state identification number) and the ORS number of his violation, and the risk tool generates a quick computer analysis of his likelihood to re-offend on a new felony; a person crime and a property crime. The results show low risk, moderate to high risk, and high risk.
Among the factors taken into consideration by the risk tool are: age of first arrest, type of current crime, number of prior arrests. That information is available from electronic databases in Oregon. However, other information is not: family drug court, gang affiliation, “pro-criminal attitudes,” federal and out-of-state criminal history.
“Unfortunately this tool is not perfect …,” Kelly Officer told the Commission on Public Safety at is Portland meeting. “Some will recidivate… risk assessment can help guide the process.”
At the same meeting Scott Taylor from the Multnomah County Dept. of Community Justice and Ginger Martin from the Oregon Department of Corrections pointed out that Oregon has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the country – 22.8 percent. (The state also has a generous definition of recidivism – not committing a felony within three years of being released from incarceration.)
Taylor and Martin presented a graphic listing four things that have been the “foundation for Oregon’s success.” They cited the Community Corrections Partnership Act of 1997; advancements in evidence-based practices; collaboration among system partners; strong leadership at local and state levels. (Voter mandates were not listed as one of the factors for Oregon’s corrections success.)
Withnell brought a car dealer’s scrutiny to these visuals. He suggested that every graph include “an ROI – return on investment.” It can be useful, he said, when talking to the public to sell them on it.
How do you calculate that kind of return on investment? How do you subtract if an ex-felon re-offends and isn’t caught? Or re-offends but only commits a misdemeanor? How do you deduct the continuing cost to a victim whose suffering or injuries exceed the offender’s time incarcerated?
At the commission’s Dec. 2 meeting, Withnell was still trying to do the math on this ROI.
“The community needs to realize it is not a reward for bad behavior. It’s saying how can we fix the whole community to come out better …,” he said. “The system is supposed to do the solving. … If we did ‘X,’ how does that do economically and (affect) the safety of the community… .”
Could be a hard sell.
– Pamela Fitzsimmons
How’s Jackie Winters doing on that committee? I haven’t seen much about her. They look to be going about this wrong.
I don’t have aproblem with Measure 11. I voted for the later deal that kept it in because we had a family member who needed some jailtime. He’s clean when he’s in prison. He gets out, he gets dirty. Treatment dooesn’t stick to him.
In terms of attendance, Sen. Winters put in the least time. Out of four meetings, she missed the second and third. At the first meeting, she was primarily concerned with the number of elderly inmates – what she called the “chronologically advantaged” group because old people commit less crime. Max Williams (who recently left as head of the Dept. of Corrections) told her that many of the older inmates were serving time for significant sex offenses. She dropped the matter.
At the fourth meeting, she once again brought up elderly inmates. She’s concerned because state corrections will have to pay for their medical costs. No matter where they go, though, they will likely be dependent on public assistance. It’s doubtful she would prefer that they end up under the Burnside Bridge. They need to live somewhere, and prison might be the best alternative for them – and the public.
I found her late husband’s book, “Lifer,” and plan to read it soon.
Pamela