CJCC Court Case Management/Data Information Subcommittee

min010615.pdf (156 KB)

Members present:     Scott Alexander, Lt. Lewis Lange, Steve Pate, Kathy Laatsch, Yvonne Neumann, Ellen Allen, and Jay Englund

Members absent:       Carrie Wastlick and Marty Krueger

Others Present:         Tom Kriegl

The meeting was called to order and certification of Open Meeting compliance was given at 3:00 P.M. Motion by Neumann, second by Englund to adopt agenda. Motion carried.

Public Comment: Kriegl comments on the promising progress that this subcommittee is making.  In addition there is some discussion regarding data collection systems and improvements that are being made.

Communications: Krueger reports receiving confirmation of absence from both Marty Krueger and Carrie Wastlick. 

Updates: 

Neumann reports that the Protect system has the capability to run a number of reports with specific information like the referral number; however, trying to get specific details is trickier and would take an individual to physically open all cases to see details.  For instance, OAR first through third offense is the same statute violation therefore someone would have to open each case to see if it was a first, second, or third offense.  Neumann reports that there were 360 OAR cases in 2012; 429 cases in 2013; and 454 in 2014. 

Krueger provides Wastlick’s information on the population of minority involved with OAR cases.  The report states that between 2012-2014 of the OAR cases, 69 were minority; this represents less than 13% of the OAR cases.  Wastlick also provides information on the Dream Act, which passed Senate and Congress.  Wastlick reports that within six months the application process may be open. 

Lange reports that the when running data from his system the data is skewed because there is no way to isolate people who are sitting on an OAR only.  This is largely affected because most people are sitting on multiple charges/cases and the most severe is usually listed.  Lange will contact Tritech to inquire about them designing a custom report for our needs. 

Krueger reports on several different counties and criminal justice coordinating councils who are actively providing diversion programs similar to the one we are reviewing.  It is noted that what the subcommittee is specifically looking at would be a combination of La Crosse and Marathon Counties programs.  Krueger also provides statistical data addressing the amount of OAR’s and an estimated cost of running these cases through both the criminal justice system and jail.  The subcommittee agrees that the numbers provide statistical proof that an OAR diversion program would be beneficial in Sauk County.

Implementation of Action Plan:  The subcommittee discusses the proposed outline for the OAR diversion program.  There are some recommendations for changes and additional policy changes that will benefit clients.  The subcommittee decides to move forward with building an OAR program.  The program will be presented to the CJCC for concept approval at their January meeting. 

Next meeting and agenda items:

Member Updates
OAR Program Updates
Next steps

Date and Time:           February 10, 2015                             3:00 P.M.

Agenda items:             

Motion was approved to adjourn the meeting by Neumann, second by Allen.

Respectfully submitted;

Janelle K. Krueger

Criminal Justice Coordinator