Prior Criminal Justice System Involvement. In the previous year, 351 out of 502 individuals, or 69.9% of the sample had at least 2 arrests (see Table 4). Table 4. Prior Criminal Justice Involvement: Arrest Data All Arrests 1 Year Prior to Court Order Date (92.6% with at least 1 arrest and 69.9% with at least 2 arrests) Number of Arrests Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 0 37 7.4 37 7.4 a1 114 22.7 151 30.1 l2 82 16.3 233 46.4 i3 73 14.5 306 61.0 4 65 12.9 371 73.9 5 38 7.6 409 81.5 6-10 72 14.3 481 95.8 11-15 16 3.2 497 99.0 16-20 3 .6 500 99.6 21-25 2 .4 502 100.0 Total 502 100.0 Prior Mental Health System Involvement. In the year prior to the day the court order was signed, 313 out of 502 individuals, or 62.4% of the sample received outpatient mental health services, 250 out of 502 individuals, or 49.8% of the sample received residential mental health services, and 284 out of 502 individuals, or 56.6% of the sample received crisis services in at least one month in that year (see Tables 5-7). In the 2-5 years prior to the day the court order was signed, 318 out of 502 individuals, or 63.3% of the sample received outpatient mental health services, 226 out of 502 individuals, or 45% of the sample received residential mental health services, and 294 out of 502 individuals, or 58.6% of the sample received crisis services in at least one month in those years (see Appendix B). Table 5. Prior Mental Health Outpatient Services Number of Months with Mental Health Outpatient Services in 1 Year Prior to Court Order (62.4% with at least 1 month of Mental Health Outpatient Services) Months w/ Service Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 1. None 189 37.6 189 37.6 a2. 1 month 75 14.9 264 52.6 l3. 2-3 months 82 16.3 346 68.9 i4. 4-7 months 82 16.3 428 85.3 5. 8+ months 74 14.7 502 100.0 Total 502 100.0
101, or 65% of 156 respondents, selected Law Enforcement/Emergency Services as the intercept point in the criminal justice system that should be the number one priority. The second highest ranked intercept point in the criminal justice system was Initial Detention/Initial Court Hearing, as 22 respondents, or 14%, selected this as number one, and 61, or 39%, ranked it as the second highest priority. Jail/Courts was given the 3rd highest overall score/ranking, and 47, or 30% of respondents, selected this variable as the third highest priority. Re-entry had the highest number respondents (45 or 29%) rank this variable as the fourth highest priority; but Community Corrections/Community Support had a higher score. Table 13. Stakeholder Survey Intercept Point Ranking INTERCEPT POINT NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE INTERCEPT POINT AS THE MOST IMPORTANT. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE INTERCEPT POINT AS THE SECOND (2ND) MOST IMPORTANT. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE INTERCEPT POINT AS THE THIRD (3RD) MOST IMPORTANT. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE INTERCEPT POINT AS THE FOURTH (4TH) MOST IMPORTANT. TOTAL SCORE LAW ENFORCEMENT/EMERGENCY SERVICES 101 17 10 4 752 INITIAL DETENTION/INITIAL COURT HEARING 22 61 32 13 608 JAIL/COURTS 5 31 47 24 492 RE-ENTRY 7 15 21 45 405 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS/COMMUNITY SUPPORT 12 17 24 31 426 The third question asked respondents to list any issues that should be considered when planning for Diversion Services (see Appendix D). Summary of Member Survey Results There were 13 respondents to this survey. Class members answered questions about themselves and then ranked various diversion methods in order of helpfulness. The first question asked class members to answer questions about themselves to provide the workgroup with information about who was responding to the survey. The results of this item are outlined as follows: All respondents had been in jail in the past 3 years. 10 respondents, or 77%, were in jail at the time of the survey or had been in jail within the last year. 9 respondents (69%) reported felonies and 4 (31%) reported misdemeanors. 3 respondents (23%) were arrested between 2 and 5 times, 6 (46%) between 6 and 10 times, and 4 (31%) were arrested more than 11 times. 7 respondents (54%) reported going to a state hospital and 6 respondents (46%) said that they had not gone to a state hospital.
Number of Months with Substance Use Outpatient Services in 1 Year Prior to Court Order (3.2% with at least 1 month of Substance Use Outpatient Services) Months w/ Service Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 1. None 486 96.8 486 96.8 2. 1 month 3 .6 489 97.4 3. 2 months 3 .6 492 98.0 4. 3-4 months 5 1.0 497 99.0 5. 5+ months 5 1.0 502 100.0 Total 502 100.0 Number of Months with Substance Use Residential Services in 1 Year Prior to Court Order (2.6% with at least 1 month of Substance Use Residential Services) Months w/ Service Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 1. None 489 97.4 489 97.4 2. 1 month 5 1.0 494 98.4 3. 2 months 5 1.0 499 99.4 4. 3 months 3 .6 502 100.0 Total 502 100.0 Number of Months with Substance Use Detox Services in 1 Year Prior to Court Order (2.8% with at least 1 month of Substance Use Detox Services) Months w/ Service Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent 1. None 488 97.2 488 97.2 2. 1 month 8 1.6 496 98.8 3. 2+ months 6 1.2 502 100.0 Total 502 100.0 71 out of 502 individuals, or 14.1% of the sample received outpatient substance use treatment services, 46 out of 502 individuals, or 9.2% received residential substance use treatment services, and 28 out of 502 individuals, or 5.6% received detox services in at least one month in the 2-5 years prior to the day the court order was signed.
Intercept 1 - Law Emergency Services Crisis Intervention Teams Embedded SW (Snohomish) Model (Tacoma; Lakewood) see RCW 43.101.427 MOCT Teams BHO Crisis Stabilization Units Crisis Solutions Center (King) Hardened Triage Facility (Thurston) Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) (King, Thurston, Snohomish)* Correctional CIT (Cowlitz, Clark) Least Restrictive Alternative revocation Project Edge* Knoxville Early Diversion Program * First Do No Harm*