1. WHAT ARE FUGITIVE HOLDS AND HOW DO THEY IMPACT THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY? (AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?) DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 11 TH, 2012 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM – JUSTICE Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council

2. Fugitive Hold Analysis Today’s Objective: Provide an example of the kinds of data and analysis available to LPSCC to support its problem solving and policymaking functions.

3. Fugitive Hold Analysis Key steps in this process:  Identify, through the use of high level data, systemic and operational issues that represent opportunities for cost savings or increased effectiveness.  Based upon the experience and expertise of LPSCC’s members, determine if an issue, or problem, calls for further data collection and analysis.  Direct LPSCC staff, or form a work group, to report back with additional data and analysis of issue(s) and identify potential strategies to improve effectiveness while maintaining (or reducing) costs.  Implement systemic strategies or solutions with related performance measures and measureable outcomes.

4. Fugitive Hold Analysis What are fugitive holds?  Category of hold used by Law Enforcement indicating the person is wanted by local authorities, other counties or states and federal authorities.  Typically, these not Probable Cause arrests.  Primarily associated with warrant service.

5. Fugitive Hold Analysis Why do Fugitive holds matter?  On average, fugitive holds account for one in five (20%) daily arrests. In 2011, there were more than 8500 of these events.  Fugitive holds may involve significant law enforcement and jail costs. Typically, these events require arrest and booking (at a minimum).  Management of most fugitive holds is within the control of Multnomah’s Criminal Justice system. A majority of fugitive holds are associated with Multnomah warrants.

6. Fugitive Hold Analysis In 2011, 57%, or 4866, of the 8500 fugitive hold arrests were associated with warrants issued in Multnomah County Circuit Courts.

7. Fugitive Hold Analysis Sixty-three percent, or 3022, of these fugitive holds were for misdemeanor level charges.

8. Fugitive Hold Analysis Seventy-six percent, or 2337, of these local Misdemeanor warrants were for failure to appear in court (FTA).

9. Fugitive Hold Analysis Within this group of Misdemeanor FTA warrants, sixty-five percent are associated with 8 specific charges.

10. Fugitive Hold Analysis Fifty-five percent of fugitive hold arrests for FTA on Open Container charges are associated with persons who had more than 5 fugitive holds during CY2011. This group appears to consist of chronic, repeat offenders. This group is predominately White (70%). This group is predominately Male (80%). The average age of a person in this group is 45.

11. Fugitive Hold Analysis On the other hand, 82% of fugitive holds for FTA on Misdemeanor DUII charges are associated with persons who had a single arrest for fugitive hold in CY 2011. This group appears to consist of persons who are not associated with multiple arrests for fugitive holds. This group is predominately White (60%). This group is predominately Male (74%). The average age of a person in this group is 35.

12. Fugitive Hold Analysis Suggested questions for further analysis: In light of the number of local Multnomah County fugitive holds, and the proportion of those holds involving Misdemeanor FTA, does this issue present an opportunity for significant savings in law enforcement and jail costs? If so, what policies, decisions or functions are involved in the management of fugitive holds. (ex. Charging, Pretrial Release, Adjudication, Sentencing, Jail Alternatives, other?) How can the significant number of fugitive holds for misdemeanant FTA for ‘low-level’ offenses, as well as the significant number of fugitive holds associated with FTA for Misdemeanor DUII, be reduced? Should these and other questions be subject to further discussion by LPSCC’s Executive Committee at a future meeting, or be referred to a work group for further analysis?