Bergosh Bulletin for July: How to Create Efficiency in the Criminal Justice System Locally

The July edition of the Bergosh Bulletin is now live.  This month, we are speaking with stakeholders in the criminal justice system locally to see if efficiencies can be created to save money and reduce our overcrowding issue in our jail while simultaneously maintaining community safety as our #1 priority.  It is an interesting discussion.

Important Roundtable Meeting This Morning

7-19-2017 Stakeholders in the local criminal justice community discuss ways to lower costs and create efficiency in the system--- while simultaneously maintaining public safety as priority 1.

The cost of housing inmates in Escambia County is causing a huge drain to our budget.  Medical costs are surging, and our jail population is growing.  One of the things I'd like to work on as the District 1 County Commissioner is to find ways to safely lower the population of the jail and to control medical costs better at our jail.

There are other communities that are doing this more effectively than we are, and as the entity that runs the jail (assigning no value judgments on whether or not that is the most efficient model) the Board of County Commissioners must take a leadership role in this conversation.

I have toured the jail, and no--I do not consider myself an expert on the jail--but I can read and I can and will study this issue as a constitutional officer that was elected to help operate our government as safely and efficiently as possible for District 1 constituents.

This morning's round table will be interesting--and as soon as the video is completed I will post it to this blog.

Conflating Issues

Strong support for Law Enforcement and a desire to be fiscally conservative are not mutually exclusive ideals...

The budget process this year for the BCC has produced a lot of tension, gnashing of teeth, and ill-will---all directed at the BCC and individual board members.

Over the last few weeks and last weekend in particular, I have studied copious amounts of information in order to proceed rationally during the budget meetings.  I'm working toward a compromise position with respect to the Sheriff's office budget that will hopefully result in an increase to his proposed allocation above the currently proposed 1.57% increase.  As I stated on the radio and on the dais, I believe the figure that we arrive at will be higher, perhaps totaling a 3-4% increase over last-year's level.  I have also stated that I don't think we will get to the 8% year over year increase the sheriff has requested.

Beyond the work of tweaking the budget, making cuts, and attending endless meetings, the venom directed at us personally is a disappointment.

In fact--the most disappointing aspect in the process thus far has been the personalization of the process.

The issues are being conflated.  The talking points are being put out that "Unless the board funds the ECSO budget to 100% of what has been requested--the BCC does not value law enforcement."  This

I'll Be on 1370 WCOA This Monring at 7:30....

I'll be discussing the Sheriff's Office budget, OLF8/OLFX Land-Swap and other topics of interest.

Listen to the Podcast here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Budget Discussions May Get Heated, But We Will Settle this Budget......

The discussions thus far have been mild, with a few exceptions.

This will change in the near term but I firmly believe that although the discussions may get heated, we will settle the budget without outside influence.

The Sheriff's budget appears to be the most controversial.

Before I even got off the plane from the West Coast last week I heard on the radio that the Sheriff was "done" and that he was going to appeal our allotment of funds to his office to the Governor.  He can do this if he wants to--but  I sincerely hope we can settle the budget locally without the drama.

So far as I understand it, he can appeal our allotment to the state for his general budget, but he has no appeal mechanism for our LOST IV allocation.  I hope everyone realizes this and that between the two funds we can come to consensus locally and cooler heads will prevail.

Here is the story so far as I understand it as the new guy on the board....

For the last two years the Sheriff has received 100% of his requested allocation--100% no muss no fuss....  for the last four years, It appears to me that the Sheriff has received yearly budget increases of about 4% on average, year over year.  If we extrapolate the historical averages, this would point to an increase of about another close to 3.2% this year --------instead of what is being offered---- 1.6%.

For the last four years running, the sheriff's office employees have received yearly pay increases of 3% per year.  I have confirmed this with multiple sources.

For this year, the Sheriff's budget request is about 8% over the previous years' increase.

So far as I understand it, this is to allow for not only a 3% across the board pay increase, but also for a salary compression adjustment of 2%  that will help align the  local sheriff's office with other departments statewide.

I don't know if we can get all the way there in one year---- taking this all in one gulp.

My sense of the situation is that we will surely allocate more than what we have initially offered to the sheriff--perhaps as much as an additional $1.5 Million once the dust settles.  

It won't be what Sheriff has requested but it will be more than what has initially been put forward by the administrator.

Here's why.....

We all love our Military, LEO, Fire, and First Responders.

These folks do amazing work and run toward dangerous situations when everyone else  runs the other direction--away from problems....

I hate the fact that the atmosphere has suddenly grown toxic;  It is my hope that we will all take a step back from the ledge and realize it is in everyone's best interest if we work together locally to set the budget for the Sheriff's operating and capital needs going forward.

I honestly believe we will be able to do this, after spending the weekend communicating with multiple players intimately involved in this issue and after studying this matter meticulously over the whole weekend.

We will see how it plays out, but I believe our LOST IV allotment to the Sheriff will rise, as well as our General Fund appropriation.  I believe instead of a 1.6% increase, the  figure will be closer to $57.5 Million for LEO and Court Security Operations--representing a little more than a 3% increase--which I feel will settle the matter for this year--I hope because it should when the full picture is taken into account.

We shall see, though.

If this is still not adequate--then by all means the Sheriff has the ability to appeal the non LOST IV budgeted amount to the Governor.

Alternative Facts?

Claims of the benefits of high-quality pre-K programs have been presented to the BCC a couple of times now.  We're told VPK improves high school graduation rates and also improves test scores measured after grade 3.  I am waiting for the proof.....

A few weeks back Achieve Escambia visited the BCC to give us an update on their work in the community.  I appreciated the update and the discussion.

The subject of VPK came up at that time and I briefly discussed my thoughts on this with the presenters that day.  One of the discussion points that I took issue with at that time was simply the efficacy of high-priced VPK and Pre-K programs when looked at from an academic standpoint.

My overall opinion:  These are expensive programs that are beneficial socially, like entitlements, but that are not effective (or minimally effective) long-term from a strictly academic standpoint.

This is not popular because there is a lot of money pumped into these programs and a lot of profit to be made by companies that promote the academic benefits of such programs.

But with great claims come the expectation of clear and convincing evidence of effectiveness--otherwise I will not be convinced.

The research studies I have read ( the high-quality research studies, not the anecdotal, topical ones that look at Abecadarian and Perry High-Scope from the 1960's and 1970) point to a fade-out of academic gains by third grade among Pre-K completers.  This wash-out that occurs renders the casual observer unable to differentiate those students from similar economic backgrounds and cohorts who did/did not attend Pre-K when all students are measured academically upon completion of third grade.

This sort of blows up the notion that Pre-K is this academic panacea that helps students from challenged home lives do better in school long-term.  Trouble is-- Early Childhood Education, VPK, Pre-K and similar programs are popular program because they bring money and jobs to areas and these programs are among those academic ideas (like smaller class sizes for better academic outcomes) that seem like they ought to be beneficial-- but the benefits of which are hard if not impossible to quantify.

The other gem I heard that day was that somehow a good Pre-K program improves High School Graduation percentages.  What??  Says who?  Where is the proof?  I have never heard of any reputable research that shows this, so I asked for the studies when Achieve Escambia appeared before the board.  Never heard back from them.

Fast forward to yesterday evening, and the early learing coalition was presenting to the board.  Executive Director Walter Watson was looking for $300K for his group--an expenditure I support by the way.  

He takes money from the county and other sources and leverages it to provide day-care services to families in poverty so the parents can work.  His paperwork shows that this group has been very successful at multiplying these local government monies to accomplish this mission.  I also like the fact that his salary is among the lowest of the Executive Directors that have pitched before the board--so when the discussion came around to the quality of the day-care/pre-school, Watson threw out the anecdote that the "Florida Department of Education has a study that shows that Pre-K graduates score 15 points higher on standardized testing than their non-Pre-K graduate peers when measured at grade 3."  I asked him to clarify that statement because I couldn't believe my ears.

I don't believe such a study exists.  I don't believe there are any strictly-controlled, scientifically valid

Medical Costs are Crushing Us at the Jail

At yesterday's budget workshop, we went through the corrections budget in detail.

The jail's medical costs are skyrocketing, the medical costs are crushing us at the jail.

Setting aside the fact that we have 250 more prisoners total in custody today compared to the day the jail blew up in April of 2014--the prisoners today are sicker than the prisoners from 2014--according to staff.  I have a hard time believing that but that is what staff told us point blank.

"In 2014--we had a total of only 10 dialysis treatments for our inmates ( a figure I question )--whereas today we have had more that 300" said one staff member.

My counterpart Steven Barry asked "What has changed between then and now--what has led to this increase?"  the response was "Today's inmates are sicker."  Is it really that they are sicker, or are we tripping over ourselves to over-diagnose and treat them?

We are also spending massive amounts of cash on top-level prescription drugs for inmates, I was told at the meeting.  When I asked why, I was told we were meeting medical needs of inmates at the "Community Standard."  To which I asked, "What does that term mean?"  I did not receive a response that answered my question and I am going to did deeper into this.

I get it that we need to provide medical treatment to our inmates--but I am not willing to spend taxpayer money on top-notch, brand name pharmaceutical drugs when there are less expensive and equally humane treatments available.  We need to provide basic, stabilizing medical treatment (s) and care for these prisoners that we are temporarily housing--nothing more or less--that is my opinion.

Because it is helpful to remember that many of the taxpayers who foot the bill for this facility do not have insurance or are under-insured themselves.

Is it right to take money from under-insured or non-insured constituents and provide Cadillac treatments and brand-name pharmaceutical drugs to the inmates in our jail if less expensive alternatives are available?

To me, this is almost akin to recognizing that many of the inmates that come to us are diabetic, obese, and have horrible eating habits--so while they are in our jail we hire a master Chef, specializing in Mediterranean Heart Healthy cooking in order to provide our inmates with top-notch cuisine while they are incarcerated--to include fresh seafood, lean meats, vegetables and fruits, prepared to 5-star hotel "community standards."  We wouldn't do that, would we?

I'm going to dig through the entire medical budget like a gopher going through the garden carrot patch--we are hemorrhaging cash and this is part of the problem in my estimation