CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members Nikuyah Walker, Mayor September 28, 2021 Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J. Lloyd Snook, III Kyna Thomas, Clerk 5:00 PM WORK SESSION Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. Virtual/electronic meeting in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted April 19, 2021, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during a declared State of Emergency. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL REPORTS 1. Report: Marcus Alert group presentation 2. Report: Imagining a Just Cville group presentation PUBLIC COMMENT and DISCUSSION Adjournment Page 1 of 72 IMAGINING A JUST CVILLE Location: Virtual Date: September 28, 2021 Time: 5:00PM – 8:00PM Agenda: • Opening Remarks – Mayor Nikuyah Walker • Mass Incarceration in a World Class City – The Smith Family Shares their Story • Ten Key Findings - Neal Goodloe • The Power and Impact of Officer Discretion - Dr. Rashall Brackney and Nancy Amin • Reform Efforts of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office - Joe Platania • Exploring a LEAD Program - Dr. Rashall Brackney and Joe Platania • Participatory Justice: A Request for Funding - Liz Murtagh • Changing the Culture of Policing in Charlottesville – Jeff Fogel • Lending Hands: Why are Grassroots Programs Necessary - Cherry Henley • Bridge Ministries: Our Efforts during the Pandemic – Jay James • Restoration and Hope House – Sandra Carter • Closing Statement - Raylaja Waller & Mayor Nikuyah Walker Page 2 of 72 Charlottesville Criminal Justice Trends by Race 2011‐2020 Presented to Charlottesville City Council Just C’Ville Workgroup September 28, 2021 Page 3 of 72 Background • In January 2020, the consulting firm MGT presented to Charlottesville City Council the results of a multi‐year study of the disproportionate incarceration of Black inmates arrested in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. • MGT obtained jail and court data from 2014 to 2017 and used a matching protocol to identify “similarly situated” inmates (one Black and one White). • Regression analysis was then used to identify areas of true disparity along a series of decision points in the criminal justice system. • Disparity was identified in six of seven areas studied. o Severity of Principle Charge o Number of Companion Charges o Bond/Hold decisions o Length of Stay o Findings of Guilt o Sentence Length (including suspended sentence) Page 4 of 72 The Current Study • This study is a longer‐term trend analysis, studying reported crime, arrests and incarceration data from 2011 to 2020. • This study tallies the number of Black and White arrestees and inmates observed among a number of key criminal justice metrics to highlight areas of disproportionality, and to measure any change in that disproportionality over the decade. • No attempts were made to identify “similarly situated” individuals in the data sets, nor did this study attempt to measure true disparity. • Still, many of the key findings are consistent with the MGT findings of January 2020. Page 5 of 72 Ten Key Findings • Reported crime fell significantly in Charlottesville from 2011 to 2020, especially when compared to other Virginia cities of comparable size. • The number of Charlottesville arrests decreased by similar percentages among Black and White people over the decade, in all three major crime categories. • Arrests of older people have been on the increase, especially among Black arrestees age 55 or older, while arrests of 18‐24 year‐olds have fallen sharply. • Intakes of Charlottesville‐responsible inmates have fallen significantly, slightly more so among White inmates than among Black inmates. • Black inmates were increasingly taken into the jail on more charges than white inmates from 2011 to 2020. • Black inmates were significantly less likely to be released pretrial than were white inmates throughout the decade. • Average length of stay fell among Black inmates, while rising modestly among White inmates. Still, on average, Black inmates served 24.2 days longer than White inmates in 2020. • The percentage of Black Charlottesville inmates increased as length of stay increased. • Bed day expenditures dropped significantly among both Black and White inmates from 2011 to 2020. • Black arrests, jail intakes and bed day expenditures in the City remained significantly disproportionate throughout the decade, when compared to US Census estimates of the Black population of Charlottesville and surrounding jurisdictions. Page 6 of 72 Charlottesville’s Racial Demographics • Charlottesville’s population grew 7.1% from 2010 to 2020. • Fewer than one in five Charlottesville residents identified as Black in 2020. • Nearly three quarters of Charlottesville residents identified as White in 2020 (including those identifying as being of Hispanic ethnicity). • There is some evidence to suggest that fewer Charlottesville residents identified as Black in the 2020 census than in 2010. • However, the Weldon Cooper Center at UVa cautions against relying on 2010 and 2020 census comparisons in isolation. Among the reasons: o Communities are increasingly multi‐racial, with greater numbers of residents identifying as more than one race or ethnicity. o In addition, demographers inserted intentional “noise” in the 2020 census data to protect the identity of individual households. The extent to which this “noise” influenced Charlottesville’s 2020 census data by race is unknown. o Finally, the 2020 census was conducted during a pandemic, in which many UVa students were not present to be counted in Charlottesville. The impact of this undercount on the 2020 census by race is unknown. Page 7 of 72 Charlottesville Census: 2010 and 2020 by Race Data includes those who identified as one race alone or in combination with other races or ethnicities. Decennial Census Count, April 1, 2010 Decennial Census Count, April 1, 2020 April 1, 2010 ‐ April 1, 2020 Charlottesville by Race Total Population Total Population Change Population Total (%) Population Total (%)Total Charlottesville White 43,475 31,197 71.8% 46,553 33,650 72.3% 2,453 Charlottesville Black 43,475 9,010 20.7% 46,553 8,122 17.4% ‐888 Charlottesville Asian 43,475 3,330 7.7% 46,553 5,064 10.9% 1,734 Charlottesville Other Race 43,475 921 2.1% 46,553 2,774 6.0% 1,853 Charlottesville Native American/Alaska Native 43,475 379 0.9% 46,553 673 1.4% 294 Charlottesville Pacific Islander 43,475 55 0.1% 46,553 77 0.2% 22 Ethnicity: Charlottesville Hispanic 43,475 2,223 5.1% 47,266 3,207 6.8% 984 Source: Weldon Cooper Center, University of Virginia Page 8 of 72 Reported Crime Data (2011 to 2020) • Charlottesville’s reported crime data for 2011‐2020 was extracted from the Virginia State Police database: https://va.beyond2020.com/ • Reported crime is entered by all law enforcement agencies into the Uniform Crime Reporting system, which populates the VSP database. • Reported crime data is not categorized by the race of the offender or victim. • Reported Group A crime is separated into three major categories: o Crimes Against Person (homicide, assault, sex offenses, kidnapping, etc.) o Crimes Against Property (theft, burglary, fraud, arson, robbery, vandalism, etc.) o Crimes Against Society (narcotics, illegal weapons, pornography, gambling, etc.) Page 9 of 72 Trends in Charlottesville Reported Group A Crime Rate per 1000 Residents (2011‐2020) • Sizeable reductions were observed among all three Group A crime categories from 2011 to 2020, with crimes against person dropping 40%, crimes against property falling 41% and crimes against society decreasing 52%. • Compared to nine Virginia cities of comparable size, Charlottesville’s crime rates per 1000 residents were lower than the average of peer cities in all three Group B categories. In particular, Charlottesville’s crimes against society rate was far lower than peer cities, trending down 52% while comparable cities averaged a 20% increase. • The comparison cities included Danville, Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Manassas, Petersburg, Staunton, Suffolk and Winchester. • Crimes that were not reported are not captured in this analysis. Page 10 of 72 Charlottesville Reported Group A Crime Rates per 1000 Residents 70 Crimes Against Property Down 41% 60 50 Crimes Against Person Down 40% 40 Crimes Against Society Down 52% 30 20 10 0 Charlottesville Crimes Against Person Charlottesville Crimes Against Property Charlottesville Crimes Against Society 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 11 of 72 Reported Group A Crimes Against Person per 1000 Residents Charlottesville vs. Average of Comparable Virginia Cities 30 Comparable Cities down 14% 25 20 15 10 Charlottesville down 40% 5 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Average of Comparable Cities Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Average of Comparable Cities) Page 12 of 72 Reported Group A Crimes Against Property per 1000 Residents Charlottesville vs. Average of Comparable Virginia Cities 70 Comparable Cities down 28% 60 50 40 30 Charlottesville down 41% 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Average of Comparable Cities Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Average of Comparable Cities) Page 13 of 72 Reported Group A Crimes Against Society per 1000 Residents Charlottesville vs. Average of Comparable Virginia Cities 25 Comparable Cities up 20% 20 15 10 5 Charlottesville down 52% 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Average of Comparable Cities Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Average of Comparable Cities) Page 14 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests (2011‐2020) • The number of Charlottesville Group A arrests recorded in the Virginia State Police database reflected a similar decrease in crime rates as was observed in the reported crime data. • Arrests dropped for both Black and White arrestees, in all three major crime categories, and in a similar fashion. • However, the number of Black Charlottesville arrestees remained higher than the number of white arrestees during all years studied, in all three crime categories (with the exception of crimes against property in 2017). • Black arrests in the City remained significantly disproportionate throughout the decade, when compared to US Census estimates of the Black population of Charlottesville and surrounding jurisdictions. Page 15 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests 600 Crimes Against Person down 52% 500 Crimes Against Property down 68% 400 Crimes Against Society down 75% 300 200 100 0 Crimes Against Person Crimes Against Property Crimes Against Society 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 16 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Person by Race (2011‐2020) 350 300 Black Arrests down 52% 250 200 150 100 50 White Arrests down 51% 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Crimes Against Person ‐ Black Crimes Against Person ‐ White Linear (Crimes Against Person ‐ Black ) Linear (Crimes Against Person ‐ White) Page 17 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Property by Race (2011‐2020) 250 200 150 Black Arrests down 72% 100 50 White Arrests down 68% 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Crimes Against Property ‐ Black Crimes Against Property ‐ White Linear (Crimes Against Property ‐ Black ) Linear (Crimes Against Property ‐ White) Page 18 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Society by Race (2011‐2020) 200 180 160 Black Arrests down 72% 140 White Arrests down 72% 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Crimes Against Society ‐ Black Crimes Against Society ‐ White Linear (Crimes Against Society ‐ Black ) Linear (Crimes Against Society ‐ White) Page 19 of 72 Group A Arrests by Race and Age (2011‐2020) • Significant reductions in the number of Group A arrests of both Black and White arrestees were observed among all age groups, except for those age 55 and older. • The number of Charlottesville Black arrestees age 55+ increased 63%, while the number of White arrestee rose 16%. • The greatest reductions in arrest volume were observed among the youngest age group (18‐24), with the number Black arrestees dropping 84% and the number of White arrestees dropping 83%. • This same pattern has been observed in intake data at ACRJ. Page 20 of 72 Charlottesville Group A Arrests by Race and Age Group 250 200 150 100 50 0 Black 18‐ Black 25‐ Black 35‐ Black 45‐ Black 55+ White 18‐ White 25‐ White 35‐ White 45‐ White 55+ 24 34 44 54 24 34 44 54 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 21 of 72 Percent Change in Charlottesville Group A Arrests by Race and Age Group (2011‐2020) 63% 16% ‐50% ‐55% ‐54% ‐59% ‐68% ‐73% ‐84% ‐83% Black 18‐24 Black 25‐34 Black 35‐44 Black 45‐54 Black 55+ White 18‐24 White 25‐34 White 35‐44 White 45‐54 White 55+ Page 22 of 72 Virginia State Police Group B Arrest Data Group B offenses only have arrestee data recorded in the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Most Group B offenses only come to law enforcement attention when arrests are made. 1. Bad Checks 2. Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy Violations 3. Disorderly Conduct 4. Driving Under the Influence 5. Drunkenness 6. Family Offenses, Nonviolent 7. Liquor Law Violations 8. Peeping Tom 9. Runaway 10. Trespass of Real Property 11. All Other Offenses Page 23 of 72 Charlottesville Group B Arrests by Race (2011‐ 2020) • Significant reductions in arrests for Group B offenses were observed among both Black and White arrestees in Charlottesville from 2011 to 2020. • The percentage decrease for Black and White Group B arrests were nearly identical (down 55% and 56% respectively). • Black Group B arrests in the City remained significantly disproportionate throughout the decade, when compared to US Census estimates of the Black population of Charlottesville and surrounding jurisdictions. Page 24 of 72 Charlottesville Group B Arrests by Race 1,200 1,000 White Group B Arrests down 56% 800 600 400 200 Black Group B Arrests down 55% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Black White Linear (Black) Linear (White) Page 25 of 72 Albemarle‐Charlottesville Regional Jail Data (2011‐2020) • ACRJ provided the Criminal Justice Planner with all intake and release data from 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2020. • This data set records each intake by race, gender and age, charge(s) and jurisdiction of offense. • The data set also includes intake date, release date and release reason, allowing for calculation of average length of stay by race. • The number of intakes, multiplied by the average length of stay, provides a tally of the number of jail bed days expended by race. Page 26 of 72 ACRJ Intakes by Race (2011‐2020) • As might be expected by the drop in reported crime and arrests in Charlottesville, the number of people taken into ACRJ on Charlottesville offenses dropped 30% from 2011 to 2020. • The reduction in Charlottesville intakes was greater among White inmates (down 35.4%) than for Black inmates (down 28.7%). • During the most recent three year period (2018‐2020), intakes dropped more sharply than the ten‐year trend, down 49%. • Again, the reduction in Charlottesville intakes from 2018 to 2020 was greater among White inmates (down 54%) than for Black inmates (down 45%). • Intakes of Black inmates held on City charges remained significantly disproportionate throughout the decade, when compared to US Census estimates of the Black population of Charlottesville and surrounding jurisdictions. Page 27 of 72 Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ 2500 Intakes down 30% 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 28 of 72 Charlottesville Intakes by Race 1200 Black intakes down 28.7% 1000 800 600 400 White intakes down 35.4% 200 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Black Intakes Charlottesville White Intakes Linear (Charlottesville Black Intakes) Linear (Charlottesville White Intakes) Page 29 of 72 Charlottesville Booking Types by Race (2010‐ 2020) • A “booking” is a charge associated with an inmate’s intake. An inmate can be taken into ACRJ on a single booking (for example, grand larceny), or multiple bookings (such as breaking and entering, grand larceny and probation violation). • The chart on the next slide shows tallies of the top ten charge types by booking volume, by race. • Black inmates were more likely to be taken into the jail on charges of assault, probation violations, narcotics, larceny, driver’s license offenses and weapons charges. White inmates were more likely to be taken in on alcohol offenses and DWI. • Significant reductions in booking volume among Black inmates were observed in the charge categories of alcohol, narcotics, and driver’s license offenses. • Significant reductions in booking volume among White inmates were found among alcohol, DWI, narcotics, fraud and driver’s license offenses. • The most significant increase in booking volume was observed among Black inmates arrested on illegal weapons charges. Page 30 of 72 Charlottesville Top Ten Booking Types by Race 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 31 of 72 Percent Change in Top Ten Booking Types by Race (2011‐2020) 73% 23% 12% 12% 15% 6% 4% 6% ‐1% ‐8% ‐6% ‐18% ‐26% ‐31% ‐39% ‐56% ‐57% ‐60% ‐65% ‐62% ALC ‐ Black ASL ‐ Black PRB ‐ Black DWI ‐ Black NAR ‐ Black LAR ‐ Black CON ‐ Black FRD ‐ Black LIC ‐ Black WPN ‐ Black ALC‐White ASL ‐ White PRB‐ White DWI ‐ White NAR ‐ White LAR ‐ White CON ‐ White FRD ‐ White LIC ‐ White WPN ‐ White Page 32 of 72 Charlottesville Inmate Booking/Intake Ratio • The booking to intake ratio is a measure of the number of bookings (charges) associated with an inmate’s intake into ACRJ. The larger the number, the greater the number of charges associated with that intake event. • In 2011, the booking/intake ratio for Charlottesville inmates was virtually indistinguishable by race. • From 2011 to 2020, the Black Charlottesville booking/intake ratio increased at three times the rate of White inmates (33% vs. 11%). Page 33 of 72 Charlottesville Booking to Intake Ratio 3 Black booking/intake ratio up 33% 2.5 2 1.5 1 White booking/intake ratio up 11% 0.5 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Black Booking to Intake Ratio White Booking to Intake Ratio Linear (Black Booking to Intake Ratio) Linear (White Booking to Intake Ratio) Page 34 of 72 Pretrial Release Rates • The rate at which Black and White Charlottesville inmates were released from ACRJ on bond or to pretrial supervision decreased slightly from 2011 to 2020 (4% and 7% respectively). • However, pretrial release rates for Black Charlottesville inmates were well below that of White inmates throughout the study period. • During 2020, 40% of Black Charlottesville inmates were released pretrial, compared to 60% of White inmates. Page 35 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Released Pretrial by Race 80% White pretrial releases down 7% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Black pretrial releases down 4% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 % of Black Inmates Released Pretrial % of White Inmates Released Pretrial Linear (% of Black Inmates Released Pretrial) Linear (% of White Inmates Released Pretrial) Page 36 of 72 Average Length of Stay by Race (2010‐2020) • The average length of a Black inmate’s stay on Charlottesville charges dropped 16% from 2011 to 2020, while rising 3% among White inmates. • While the difference in average length of stay narrowed somewhat during the decade, Black inmates served considerably longer sentences than did White inmates during the entire decade. • During 2020, the average length of a Charlottesville Black inmate’s jail stay was 59.4 days, compared to 35.2 days for the average White Charlottesville inmate. Page 37 of 72 Charlottesville Average Length of Stay by Race 80 Black ALOS down 16% 70 60 50 40 30 20 White ALOS up 3% 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Black ALOS Charlottesville White ALOS Linear (Charlottesville Black ALOS) Linear (Charlottesville White ALOS) Page 38 of 72 Length of Stay by Race • 33% of Charlottesville inmates were released within 24 hours of their jail intake from 2011 to 2020. • The number of Black and White Charlottesville inmates serving less than 24 hours dropped by almost half during the decade. • Smaller decreases were observed among Black and White inmates serving 1 to 7 days, falling 14% in both groups. • White inmates had slightly greater decreases in lengths of stay of 8 to 30 days than did Black inmates (down 23% and 16% respectively). • The only length of stay category in which increases were observed was from 31 to 90 days, with the number of White inmates increasing 26%, compared to a 10% increase for Black inmates. • The number of both Black and White Charlottesville inmates staying longer than 90 days fell by nearly a third from 2011 to 2020. Page 39 of 72 Percentages of Inmate Length of Stay by Race (2011‐2020) • Fewer than 1% of inmates were members of a racial group other than Black or White in any of the five length of stay bins from 2011 to 2020. • In the shortest length of stay bin (inmates serving less than 24 hours), the percentage of White inmates was significantly higher than that of Black inmates (61% to 38%). This was the only length of stay bin with a White majority. • As length of stay increased, the percentage of Black inmates in that length of stay bin increased, relative to White inmates. • In the longest length of stay bin (stays of longer than 90 day), Black inmates account for over two thirds of all inmates. Page 40 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Serving Less Than 1 day (2011‐2020) White LOS <1 Day dropped 48% Black LOS <1day dropped 45% 2011 to 2020 2011 to 2020 38% 61% Black Inmates Serving Less than 1 Day White Inmates Serving Less than 1 Day Page 41 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Serving 1 to 7 Days (2011‐2020) White LOS 1‐7 days dropped 14% Black LOS 1‐7 days dropped 14% 2011 to 2020 2011 to 2020 43% 56% Black Inmates Serving 1‐7 Days White Inmates Serving 1‐7 Days Page 42 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Serving 8 to 30 Days (2011‐2020) White LOS 7‐30 days dropped 23% Black LOS 8‐30 days dropped 16% 2011 to 2020 2011 to 2020 39% 60% Black Inmates Serving 8‐30 Days White Inmates Serving 8‐30 Days Page 43 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Serving 31 to 90 Days (2011‐2020) White LOS 31‐90 days rose 26% Black LOS 31‐90 days rose 10% 2011 to 2020 2011 to 2020 35% 65% Black Inmates Serving 31‐90 Days White Inmates Serving 31‐90 Days Page 44 of 72 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Serving More Than 90 Days (2011‐2020) White LOS 91+ days dropped 33% Black LOS 91+ days dropped 33% 2011 to 2020 2011 to 2020 31% 68% Black Inmates Serving 91+ Days White Inmates Serving 91+ Days Page 45 of 72 Charlottesville Inmates Transferred to DOC • The number of Charlottesville inmates transferred to the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections, both Black and White, fell substantially from 2011 to 2020. • Significantly greater numbers of Black inmates were transferred to DOC custody than were White inmates. • During 2020, transfers to DOC custody were curtailed after March, resulting in increasing lengths of stay at ACRJ for state‐custody inmates. Page 46 of 72 Charlottesville Inmates Transferred to the Virginia Department of Corrections by Race 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Black Inmates Transferred to DOC White Inmates Transferred to DOC Linear (Black Inmates Transferred to DOC) Linear (White Inmates Transferred to DOC) Page 47 of 72 Bed Day Expenditures by Race (2010‐2020) • The number of jail bed days expended on Charlottesville inmates dropped 36% between 2011 and 2020. • Decreases were similar among both Black inmates (down 38%) an White inmates (down 34%). • Black bed day expenditures in the City remained significantly disproportionate throughout the decade, when compared to US Census estimates of the Black population of Charlottesville and surrounding jurisdictions. Page 48 of 72 Charlottesville Inmate Bed Day Expenditures 100000 90000 BDE down 36% 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 49 of 72 Charlottesville Bed Day Expenditures by Race 70000 Black BDE down 38% 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 White BDE down 34% 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Charlottesville Black BDE Charlottesville White BDE Linear (Charlottesville Black BDE) Linear (Charlottesville White BDE) Page 50 of 72 Conclusions • Reported crime, arrests, and incarceration all decreased substantially in Charlottesville from 2011 to 2020. • Drops in arrests and incarceration were fairly equally distributed among Black and White people. • While fewer numbers of Black people were incarcerated in 2020 than in 2011, those decreases have done little to reduce the degree of disproportionality between Black and White people arrested and incarcerated in Charlottesville. • While the average length of stay of Black inmates still exceeds that of white inmates by a considerable margin, that margin has narrowed somewhat over the past decade. Page 51 of 72 Prepared by: Neal S. Goodloe, MPA Criminal Justice Planner Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board September 2021 Page 52 of 72 City Council Community Discussion with Imagine a Just Cville workgroup Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:00 – 8:00 p.m. via ZOOM (Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom) MARCUS ALERT Workgroup AGENDA 1) Introduction 2) Brief History of group 3) Personal testament to the intersection of policing and mental health in our community in minority communities 4) Overview of Statewide Marcus Alert legislation 5) How the Marcus Alert affects our local Mental Health system 6) How the Marcus Alert affects our local emergency response 7) Local issues identified 8) Recommendations Page 53 of 72 City of Charlottesville Marcus Alert Workgroup Charlottesville City Council Work Session September 28, 2021 Page 54 of 72 Current Members Workgroup Members Current Members Con’t Myra Anderson, Workgroup Co-Chair, Dr. Hezedean A. Smith, Fire Chief, Charlottesville Fire Department Mental Health Advocate, Marcus Alert Stakeholder Group, Sur-Thriver Lloyd Snook, Charlottesville City Councilor Tom von Hemert, Coordinator, Thomas Jefferson CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Dr. Lisa Beitz, New Members Executive Director, Region Ten Community Services Board Ashley Marshall, MPA, J.D. Deputy City Manager for Devin Coles, Pastor, Member Charlottesville Clergy Collective Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Brian Henderson, Operations Supervisor, City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services James Mooney, Assistant Chief of Police, Charlottesville Police Department Myron Johnson, Youth Development Professional, Boys and Girls Club Past Members Sena Magill, Workgroup Co-Chair, Vice Mayor, Charlottesville RaShall Brackney, PhD., Charlottesville Chief of Police Joe Powers, Deputy Fire Chief, Charlottesville Fire Department Kaki Dimock, Charlottesville Director of Human Resources Sonny Saxton, Executive Director, Emily Pelliccia, Deputy Chief of Operations Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communication Center Guest Speakers/Consultants Dr. Lisa Jobe Shields, Deputy Director of Community Services, DBHDS Daryl Washington, Executive Director, Fairfax- Falls Church Community Services Board Page 55 of 72 Marcus Alert Act- Overview •Named for Marcus-David Peters, a young, Black Biology teacher who was shot and killed by Richmond Police in 2018 in the midst of a mental health crisis •Aims to ensure that the emergency response to a behavioral health crisis is a behavioral health response Page 56 of 72 Marcus Alert State Components 4 level framework for urgency • Core definition exists at the state level, cross walks are used to integrate it and further specify at local level Equity at Intercept 0 Initiative • Includes network leads and coalition development Statewide training standards • Behavioral health training competencies Public service campaign focused on calling 988 • Focus on calling at first signs of a crisis Page 57 of 72 Required Components for Local Implementation of Marcus Alert Protocol #2- establishing Local needs relationship integrated between local with the state LE and mobile Community Voluntary triage crisis hub coverage database framework •July 1, 2022 plans Required Protocol #1- Protocol #3- planning routing calls specialized process with to 988 response local •July 1, 2022 protocols stakeholder •July 1, 2022 group Page 58 of 72 DBHDS Marcus Alert Deadlines and Deliverables July 1, 2021: voluntary database developed for locality July 1, 2021: state guidance released ~August 1, 2021: discuss “area” and form stakeholder group Conduct planning at local level using state guidance Submit application for 3 protocols Implement 3 protocols by July 1, 2022 Continue planning for Community Coverage for Statewide Implementation by July 1, 2026 Page 59 of 72 RTCSB Emergency Services FY 2021 2,614 Evaluations 1,385 Prescreens 613 ECOs 439 TDOs from the ECO 65 Voluntary Admissions 109 Released Charlottesville- 38/month Page 60 of 72 Current Crisis Landscape Early Pandemic Impacts on the System Executive Order 70 Decrease in State Psychiatric Hospital Beds Workforce Challenges Inadequate Community Infrastructure Individual and Community Impacts Need for Collaborative Community Solutions Page 61 of 72 Marcus Alert/STEP-VA/Project BRAVO • A set of Protocols • 988 • Formalized MOUs regarding Coordination of Services Marcus Alert • Community Care Teams • Intercept 0 Initiative • Statewide Training Standards • Data Platform • Call Center • Mobile Crisis STEP-VA • CITAC • 23 Hour Beds • CSU • Medicaid Recipients Project BRAVO • Best Practices • Reimbursement Page 62 of 72 MARCUS ALERT – THE INTERSECTION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT / ECC Page 63 of 72 CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT The Charlottesville Police Department is staffed by 98 sworn police officers. There are 19 current vacancies for police officers. CPD responded to over 36,000 calls for service in 2020, and over 27,000 CFS thus far in 2021. CPD Marcus Alert 2 Page 64 of 72 MENTAL HEALTH CALLS Police are the primary, and sometimes only agency that responds to MH calls, handling the initial response, the period of custody, and the transport to facilities. CALLS FOR SERVICE CPD responded to 551 MH calls for service in 2020, and 387 so far in 2021. Of these calls, 14 in 2020 and 11 in 2021 have been “high- risk,” meaning a weapon or immediate danger was involved. ECO/TDO SERVICE 272 ECO’s and/or TDO’s were served by CPD in 2020 and 211 so far this year. Currently, service of ECO’s and TDO’s results in reduced staffing for CPD and officers spending long hours with MH consumers, sometimes up to 48 hours while patient awaits medical clearance and/or bed space becomes available at facilities. (What are the effects of long-term exposure with police officers?) COSTS Considerable overtime costs related to staffing past normal shifts/assignments, as well as supplementing other PD functions by hiring officers for overtime. CURRENT STATUS CPD Marcus Alert 3 Page 65 of 72 CURRENT CPD ROLES Response to MH Calls Transport for Treatment - Voluntary transport to CRISIS - Assessment (CIT) - Officer initiated ECO - Offer Services (CRISIS) - Execution of 3rd Party issued ECO’s - Referral to Region 10 for additional services - TDO transports to facilities CPD Marcus Alert 4 Page 66 of 72 CPD’s Interim Plan Support ECC’s plan to implement new protocol systems for mental health calls. - ECC plans to roll out the new protocols in December 2021 - Training already underway, 60-70 hours for dispatchers, and over 100 hours for Supervisors - Will enhance the way ECC interacts with callers, the community. - Will aid with dispatcher interactions with callers, mental health consumers, allowing for better classification of calls and more appropriate response SHORT TERM PLANS teams/efforts. CPD Requirement for all officers to receive CIT certification at or shortly after hire. UNTIL FULL STATE- Development of a mental health unit, possibly with regional partners and other WIDE agencies, consisting of officers (and others) with specialized training in response to mental health calls, with the thought of possibly integrating this unit in future Marcus Alert Local Response Teams (if Police presence is needed or desired). IMPLEMENTATION - Staffing, staffing, staffing. Current Staffing levels allow for a minimal response OF THE MARCUS - and extensive waiting periods. Funding ALERT PROGRAM IS REALIZED CPD Marcus Alert 5 Page 67 of 72 MARCUS ALERT BENEFITS • Reduction in Police Involvement by limiting response to high level MH calls (Level 3 & 4) as outlined by Marcus Alert Local Response Plans • A more well-trained police officer based on required training through DCJS. (Most of which is already being integrated into Academy and In-service training requirements) •Need for higher percentage of CIT trained officers. *Not a requirement, but very likely an expectation. •Specialized training or doctrine (DT/Use of Force) when dealing with combative MH patients •Likely need for specialized, youth-based training (Policing the Teen Brain?) CPD Marcus Alert 6 Page 68 of 72 • What model of response will our region use? (Co-Response, Cahoots, other?) • Once assessment is made, who determines course of action? (Response team, LE or 3rd party evaluator?) UNANSWERED • Where will we take them? (Still a shortage of bed and/or QUESTIONS treatment facilities) • Who transports to hospital or MH care facility, or other yet to be determined alternative facility? • Will Police Officers still be required to sit with MH patients? • Lack of Outline for “advanced Marcus Alert training” standards (What will these consist of?) • How will we (Dispatch/First Responders) manage the staffing needs associated with Marcus Alert? CPD Marcus Alert 7 Page 69 of 72 CLOSING THOUGHTS CURRENT STATUS INTERIM PLAN MARCUS ALERT Extensive interactions between Develop local systems/models for The program and the work are worthwhile! CPD supports this effort. police and mental health future implementation as state- consumers wide Marcus Alert support We don’t have all the resources yet, we don’t know how to pay for them, but systems come into place. that should not, and cannot stop or Staffing shortages slow the work being done. Partnerships with local teams, Costly Ensures that the emergency response ECC, Region 10, and other to a behavioral health crisis, even when agencies to improve responses to involving a police officer, is a Unsuccessful outcomes, repeated behavioral health response, not a calls for service MH calls. police or enforcement response. CPD Marcus Alert 8 Page 70 of 72 The recommendations 1) Make an official task force and then the task force is recommended to do the following. 2 ) Engage the community, focus on people who have historically had poor interactions with policing and mental health. 3 ) Recommendations for the makeup of the official work group members and leaders of the group (see below)- Additionally we recommend that the chair of this group be a member of our minority community. 4) Design a survey and enlist groups already engaged in the community to help get it out, this needs to be active not passive. 5) Whoever gives surveys must be trained in motivational interviewing, the survey should be short 5-10 questions with a mix of open ended and definitive answers. The survey needs to 6) Beyond Marcus Alert Plan think about how we could have a on 24/7 crisis center that is not jail or hospital- ctac 7) Because we are regional we recommend that we also try and work with the county and uva. 8) Coming at the beginning of the budget season, where should it live, who has ownership? The city needs to decide the most appropriate department for this to live as it will need staff support and continual support. We recommend the members to include (1) Region Ten (1) Charlottesville Police Department (1) Charlottesville Fire Department (1) ECC (1) Crisis Intervention Team (1) Charlottesville Department of social services or human services or human rights (1) University of Virginia (1) Local Clergy (1) Member who resides or works in the city and who represents a mental health organization that seeks racial or social justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities; (1) Family members or close friends of someone with a mental health diagnosis (1) Family members or close friends someone with a mental health diagnosis who comes from historically disadvantaged communities that have traditionally experienced mental health disparities (2) Members who identify as having/had lived experience with mental health challenges (including peer support specialists) and/or individuals who have engaged with police before during a mental health crisis. Page 71 of 72 Members to include (1) Region Ten (1) Charlottesville Police Department (1) Charlottesville Fire Department (1) ECC (1) Crisis Intervention Team (1) Charlottesville Department of social services or human services or human rights (1) University of Virginia (1) Local Clergy (1) Member who resides or works in the city and who represents a mental health organization that seeks racial or social justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities; (1) Family members or close friends of someone with a mental health diagnosis (1) Family members or close friends someone with a mental health diagnosis who comes from historically disadvantaged communities that have traditionally experienced mental health disparities (2) Members who identify as having/had lived experience with mental health challenges (including peer support specialists) and/or individuals who have engaged with police before during a mental health crisis Page 72 of 72