Lane County Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Book

PSCC OFFICERS CHAIR, TIM LAUE Lay Citizen VICE CHAIR, PAUL SOLOMON Lay Citizen

VOTING MEMBERS FAYE STEWART Commissioner PETE KERNS Chief of Police TOM TURNER Sheriff ALEX GARDNER District Attorney MARYANN BEARDEN State Court Judge GREG HAZARABEDIAN Public Defender The Public Safety Coordinating Council’s JOAN COPPERWHEAT Community Corrections Manager ROLAND HOSKINS Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Book Youth Services ROB ROCKSTROH Health & Human January 2011 Services Director (Mental Health) KAREN GILLETTE Public Health Manager ANDREA ORTIZ Eugene City Councilor HILLARY WYLIE Springfield City Councilor JACQUE BETZ Florence Assistant City Manager Please Note: LAY CITIZENS When a new chart was added which includes updated data, a  was placed by the Figure title. STEPHEN DAVIS TOM ENGLISH When the new data resulted in a change in the grade, a  was added next to the new grade. DAVID WINETT DOUGLAS BAKKE

NON-VOTING MEMBERS ROBERT EDWARDS OSP Representative The PSCC Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Books and Report Cards JIM CRAMER are available at www.lcog.org/safety.cfm. Follow the link to Community Safety Data Publications. Oregon Youth Authority LIANE RICHARDSON County Administrator

Table of Contents

Public Safety Coordinating Council Vision and Guiding Principles...... 1 2011 Report Card on the Criminal Justice System in Lane County, Oregon – Background ...... 2 Grading System for the Report Card...... 3 Report Card Data: Part A – Adult and Combined Criminal Justice Data ...... 5

I. Crime and Safety ...... 7 o Reported Crime ...... 7  Figure 1.1 Rate of Reported Serious Violent Crime per 10,000 Population ...... 7  Figure 1.2 Rate of Reported Property Crime per 10,000 Population...... 7  Figure 1.3 Serious Reported Crime in 2004 per 1,000 Population – Lane County’s Rank Vs. 252 Metro Counties 100,000 to 1,000,000 Population...... 8 o Assault, Drug, and Alcohol Crimes...... 9  Figure 1.4 Adult Assault Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults...... 9  Figure 1.5 Adult Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults...... 9  Figure 1.6 DUII Arrests per 10,000 Population ...... 10 o Domestic Violence...... 11  Figure 1.7 Lane County Reported DV Assaults per 10,000 Population ...... 11 o Child Abuse...... 12  Figure 1.8 Child Abuse Victimization Rate per 10,000 Children Under Age 18 ...... 12 o Traffic Accidents...... 13  Figure 1.9 Traffic Injury Accidents (Excluding Fatal Crashes) per 10,000 Population ...... 13  Figure 1.10 Fatal Crashes per 10,000 Population ...... 14  Figure 1.11 Percent of Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes...... 14

II. Resource and Capacity ...... 15 o Number of Officers...... 15  Figure 2.1 Number of Officers per 10,000 Population ...... 15 o Jail Capacity ...... 16  Figure 2.2 Jail Beds Occupied per 1,000 Reported Crimes...... 16

 Figure 2.3 Funded Jail Beds per 1,000 Reported Crimes ...... 16  Figure 2.4 Built vs. Funded Beds ...... 17  Figure 2.5 Built vs. Funded Beds By Facility...... 17  Figure 2.6 Releases Triggered by Overcrowding as Percent of Lodgings...... 18 o District Attorney Intakes per Lawyer...... 19  Figure 2.7 Total DA Intakes per Lawyer ...... 19  Figure 2.8 DA Felony Intakes per Lawyer...... 19  Figure 2.9 Number of Lawyers Needed in DA’s Criminal Division ...... 19 o Probation Officer Caseloads...... 20  Figure 2.10 Average PO Caseload Size ...... 20

III. Efficient and Effective Use of Resources ...... 21 o Arrests per Officer ...... 21  Figure 3.1 Rate of Arrests per Officer – Violent Crime...... 21  Figure 3.2 Rate of Arrests per Officer – Property Crime...... 21 o Arrests to Reports ...... 22  Figure 3.3 Rate of Arrests to Reports for Violent Crimes ...... 22  Figure 3.4 Rate of Arrests to Reports for Property Crimes...... 22 o Speedy Trials ...... 23  Figure 3.5 Percent of State Court Felony Cases Completed Within 180 Days...... 23  Figure 3.6 Percent of State Court Misdemeanor Cases Completed Within 180 Days...... 23

IV. Justice and Accountability ...... 25 o Failure To Appear ...... 25  Figure 4.1 Percent of Court Events Where Defendants Fail to Appear...... 25  Figure 4.2 Percent of Individuals Who Fail to Appear...... 25 o Failures on Supervision ...... 26  Figure 4.3 Three Year Re-offense Rate for Offenders on Post-Prison Supervision...... 26  Figure 4.4 Three Year Re-offense Rate for Offenders on Probation Supervision...... 26 o Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) Enforcement...... 27  Figure 4.5 DUII Enforcement Index ...... 27

Report Card Data: Part B – Juvenile Data...... 29

I. Crime and Safety ...... 31 o Juvenile Referrals and Arrests ...... 31  Figure 1.1 Juvenile Rate of Criminal Referral to Juvenile Services per 1,000 Youth Age 17 and Under...... 31  Figure 1.2 Juvenile Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth Age 10-17...... 31  Figure 1.3 Juvenile Violent Crime Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth...... 32  Figure 1.4 Juvenile Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth...... 33  Figure 1.5 Juvenile Property Crime Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth ...... 33 o Dropouts ...... 34  Figure 1.6 Percent of Students Dropping Out of School ...... 34 o Drug and Alcohol Abuse ...... 35  Figure 1.7 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Marijuana Use in Last 30 Days – 8th Grade...... 35  Figure 1.8 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Marijuana use in Last 30 Days – 11th Grade...... 35  Figure 1.9 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Binge Drinking in the Last 30 Days – 8th Grade ...... 36  Figure 1.10 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Binge Drinking in the Last 30 Days – 11th Grade...... 36

II. Resource and Capacity ...... 37 o Juvenile Detention Capacity ...... 37  Figure 2.1 Lane County Department of Youth Services Juvenile Bed Resources – Local and State Beds Allocated to Lane County...... 37  Figure 2.2 Built vs. Funded Beds by Facility...... 38  Figure 2.3 Built vs. Funded Beds ...... 38

III. Efficient and Effective Use of Resources ...... 39 o Juvenile Re-offenses...... 39  Figure 3.1 Percent of Juvenile Offenders Who Did Not Re-offend Within 12 Months...... 39  Figure 3.2 Percent of Juvenile Offenders With 1-2 New Referrals Within 12 Months...... 40 o Chronic Juvenile Offenders...... 41  Figure 3.3 Chronic Juvenile Offenders – Those With Three Or More Referrals Within 12 Months ...... 41

iii

o Re-offenses and Tracking Time ...... 42  Figure 3.4 Juvenile Re-offenses At 36 Months By Year...... 42

IV. Justice and Accountability...... 43 o System Capacity...... 43  Figure 4.1 Lane County Juveniles Released From Detention Early ...... 43

Public Safety Coordinating Council Vision and Guiding Principles

Vision Statement

We will live in a safe community supported by a safety and justice system that works together to focus on prevention and restoration, while balancing intervention and enforcement. The system will be built on a solid foundation of constitutional principles, statutory laws and community values which honor and promote personal responsibility, family and neighborhood involvement, and trust among people and institutions.

Guiding Principles

 We will prevent crime by promoting conditions, behaviors, and individual and community attitudes that result in a safe community.

 We will hold youth and adult offenders accountable and employ sanctions which fit the circumstances of the crime and the offender.

 We will promote the rights of victims and the community to be compensated and restored.

 We will provide opportunities for skill training, rehabilitation, and reintegration of offenders into the community.

 We will assist community members to understand and accept their responsibility to contribute to and maintain a safe and just society.

 We will coordinate the programs and activities of governmental and private agencies that affect community safety and justice, and will ensure agencies work in partnership with the business community and citizens.

 We will make effective community safety decisions based on research data from a comprehensive information management system.

 We will support the rights of all individuals to a fair and non-discriminatory legal process.

2011 Report Card on the Criminal Justice System in Lane County, Oregon – Background

Why Produce a Report Card? probation and post-prison supervision; State Circuit Court and Eugene and Springfield municipal courts; adult treatment and As in locales across the United States, 50-70% of most local transitional services; juvenile services; juvenile court; shelter; and jurisdiction budgets in Lane County are allocated to the criminal juvenile educational and treatment services. justice system. This Report Card is designed to report the progress of the criminal justice system in improving services to Information on Lane County, Oregon the community. This project was developed by the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) to address one of their Guiding Lane County has a population of 348,550 people living in a Principles: We will assist community members to understand and accept geographic area of 4,618 square miles – roughly the size of the their responsibility to contribute to and maintain a safe and just society. state of Connecticut. The county stretches from the summit of The Report Card is designed to create a forum for the PSCC the 10,000 foot Cascade Mountains, through the tree covered to report to the public about safety in the community. In Willamette Valley prairie and wetlands, over the 6,000 foot Coast addition, it is intended to be a valuable tool for policy makers and Range to the Pacific community planners to monitor and improve performance. Ocean. Lane is an urban/rural county The Process for Developing the Report Card with more than half the residents (61%) living in Eugene and The Report Card was developed by the PSCC Public Springfield, the second Information Task Force and adopted by the full PSCC. The Task largest urban area in the Force, staffed by Lane Council of Governments, determined state. Approximately measures and collected longitudinal and baseline data for 12% live in small cities comparison. The is the second Report Card, produced and and the remaining 27% distributed so the community can track system progress. live in unincorporated

areas scattered around the county. A total of 1,433 miles of Criminal Justice System county, 918 miles of city, and 484 miles of state maintained roadways wind along rivers, lakes, and the two mountain ranges The local criminal justice system in Lane County includes: in this starkly changing geography, connecting widely separated nine law enforcement agencies; four primary public safety small cities and the urban core. answering points (9-1-1 and dispatch centers); the county jail in Eugene; three small city jails; district attorney; public defender;

Grading System for the Report Card

Data were chosen as indicators for each category that are representative of the issues and, where possible, are updated annually and have comparable state and national data available. Some data that would make excellent indicators are not collected. Each category and the indicators included in each category are assigned grades. Grades are determined by comparing Lane County’s trend and its current rate over the last seven years of available data to the trend and current rate of other geographic areas with comparable data.

A Trend and current rate substantially better than comparison geographic areas

B Trend and current rate better than comparison geographic areas

C Trend and current rate roughly equal to comparison geographic areas

D Trend and current rate worse than comparison geographic areas

F Trend and current rates substantially worse than comparison geographic areas

A plus (+) is added to the grade if the trend and current rate have improved over the last three years of available data compared to the last seven years.

A minus (-) is added to the grade if the trend and current rate have worsened over the last three years of available data compared to the last seven years.

Grades of "F" are not eligible for either a plus or a minus.

Report Card Data: Part A – Adult and Combined Criminal Justice Data

Category I: Crime and Safety Grade 2010: B- Grade 2011: B- Crime and Safety includes: reported crime; adult assault; drug, and alcohol arrests; domestic violence; child abuse; traffic accidents; and victimization. o Reported Crime.

Figure 1.1 Rate of Reported Serious Violent Crime Figure 1.2 Rate of Reported Property Crime per 10,000 Population per 10,000 Population

60 600

Lane 50 500 US

40 400 Lane US 30 300 Oregon

Oregon 20 200

10 100

0 Rate of Crime per 10,000Reported Serious Property Population 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rate of Reported Serious, Violent Person Crime per 10,000 per PopulationCrime Rate ofPerson Violent Serious, Reported Lane 26 26 25 27 31 33 30 Lane 502 491 550 449 408 477 409 Oregon 30 30 29 28 29 26 25 Oregon 478 463 440 367 353 328 297 48 47 47 47 47 45 43 359 352 343 333 326 321 304 US US Source: FBI, Crime in the United States Source: FBI, Crime in the United States Grade 2010: D Grade 2011: F Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: D-

The figure below shows Lane County’s ranking for serious crimes when measured against other metropolitan counties in the United States. For instance, Lane County is in the 95th percentile in Motor Vehicle Theft, meaning only 5% of the counties had a motor vehicle theft rate higher than Lane County’s.

Figure 1.3 Serious Reported Crime in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 per 100,000 Population Lane County’s Rank Among 259 Metropolitan Counties of 100,000 to 1,000,000 Population

95% 93% Motor Vehicle Theft 98% 89% 2009 2007 Crime

y 80% 2005 65% Larceny-Theft 2003

ert 90%

p 83%

66% Pro 67% Burglary 78% 62%

39% 38% Aggravated Assault 25% 21%

49% 44% Robbery 32% 43%

53% 39% Rape 42% Violent Crime 45%

9% 3% Murder/Manslaughter 30% 11%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Typical Metro County

Source: FBI, Crime in the United States

o Assault, Drug, and Alcohol Crimes.

Note: Several factors influence arrest rates such as system capacity to arrest, prosecute, and hold offenders.

Figure 1.4 Adult Assault Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults Figure 1.5 Adult Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults

80 140

70 120 US

60 Lane 100 Oregon Lane 50 80 US 40

60 Oregon 30

40 20 Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults 10,000per Rate Arrest Abuse Drug Adult Assault Arrest Rate per 10,000 People per Rate Assault Arrest Adult 20 10

- 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 68 59 56 61 52 50 60 Lane 104 105 115 110 99 84 88 Oregon 60 50 42 66 58 58 57 Oregon 55 52 48 75 70 66 59 71 68 64 64 64 64 63 65 63 68 70 74 75 72 US US Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: A Grade 2011: A- Grade 2010: B Grade 2011: B-

Figure 1.6 DUII Arrests per 10,000 Population

Lane 50 Oregon

20 DUII Arrests per Arrests DUII 10,000 Population

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 37 39 46 50 45 50 52 Oregon 51 47 41 49 43 47 48 US 50 51 50 49 46 49 47

Source: Easy Access to FBI Statistics Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

o Domestic Violence.

Figure 1.7 Lane County Reported DV Assaults per 10,000 Population

Lane

5 Lane County Reported DV Assaults per 10,000 per Assaults Lane CountyReported DV

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 20 21 20 12 16 14 10

Source: Area Information Records System Grade 2010: A- Grade 2011: A

o Child Abuse.

Figure 1.8 Child Abuse Victimization Rate per 10,000 Children Under Age 18

150 Lane 140 130 120 Oregon 110 100 US 90 80 70 60 50 40 Substantiated Victims per 10,000 per Victims Substantiated 30 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 135 127 115 114 110 112 124 139 Oregon 97 108 120 130 138 122 118 125 US 123 122 119 121 121 106 103

Note: Reporting period changed to Federal Fiscal Year in 2003 to conform to federal reporting requirements. Source: Lane and Oregon – DHS: The Status of Children in Oregon’s Child Protection System 2004 Source: US – National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information: Child Maltreatment 1996-2003 Grade 2010: A- Grade 2011: C-

o Traffic Accidents.

Figure 1.9 Traffic Injury Accidents (Excluding Fatal Crashes) per 10,000 Population

70.0

60.0 US Oregon 50.0

40.0

30.0 Lane

20.0 Traffic Injury AccidentsTraffic per 10,000 People 10.0

- 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 28 25 38 21 24 22 22 Oregon 54 51 53 53 49 48 50 US 66 63 61 58 57 54

Source: Lane and Oregon - Oregon Department of Transportation Source: US - US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts Annual Reports Grade 2010: A Grade 2011: A-

Figure 1.10 Fatal Crashes per 100,000 Population Figure 1.11 Percent of Alcohol Involved Crash Fatalities

14 100%

90% 12 80% US 10 Oregon 70%

60% 8

50%

6 US Lane 40% Oregon 30% 4 Lane

Fatal Crashes per 100,000PopulationFatal Crashes 20% Percent of Crash Fatalities Involving Alcohol Involving Fatalities of Crash Percent 2 10%

0 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 11 10 10 6 6 5 5 Lane 26% 27% 40% 41% 41% 41% 31% Oregon 12 11 12 11 11 10 9 Oregon 40% 44% 36% 41% 40% 27% 37% US 13 13 13 13 12 11 10 US 40% 39% 39% 41% 37% 26% 38%

Source: Lane and Oregon – Oregon Department of Transportation Source: US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Source: US – US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Reporting System Analysis Reporting System Grade 2010: A Grade 2011: A- Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

Category II: Resource and Capacity Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F Resource and Capacity includes: number of officers; jail capacity; custody and overcrowding releases from Lane County Adult Corrections; District Attorney intakes per lawyer; District Attorney prosecution rates; and Probation Officer caseloads. o Number of Officers.

Figure 2.1 Number of Officers per 10,000 Population

US 25

Oregon

Lane

5 Number ofNumber Police per 10,000 Officers Population

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 12 13 12 12 12 11 11 Oregon 16 16 15 15 15 16 16 US 24 24 24 24 24 25 24

Note: Number of Officers includes all law enforcement officers in the county including State Police stationed in Lane County Source: Lane and Oregon - Law Enforcement Data System, Uniform Crime Report Source: US – FBI, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

o Jail Capacity.

Figure 2.2 Jail Beds Occupied per 1,000 Reported Crimes Figure 2.3 Funded Jail Beds per 1,000 Reported Crimes 80 60 US 70 Oregon 50 60

40 50

40 30

Lane 30 Lane 20 20 Jail Inmates per 1,000 Reported Crime per 1,000 Reported Inmates Jail Jail Beds per 1,000Beds per Jail Crimes Reported

10 10

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 29 31 27 38 42 19 26 Lane 33 33 30 25 40 22 28 US 58 61 65 67 69 70 72 41 39 41 47 52 54 52 Oregon Note: The number of jail beds occupied used in this calculation Note: The number of funded jail beds does not include is a one-day snapshot of beds occupied at the Lane County Jail, Community Corrections Center beds in order to utilize data Forest Work Camp, and Community Corrections Center. comparable with the state data.

Source: Lane County Sheriff's Office Source: Lane County Sheriff's Office Source: US – Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoner and Jail Inmates at Midyear Source: Oregon - Oregon Jail Managers Association, Washington County Sheriff Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

Figure 2.4 Built vs. Funded Beds

800

700

600

500

400

Number of Beds of Number 300

200

100

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Built Beds 721 721 731 735 740 747 754 754 754 Funded Beds 696 661 577 619 622 593 349 384 468 Source: Lane County Sheriff's Office

Figure 2.5 Built vs. Funded Beds By Facility

2009 Jail CCC FWC 2010 Jail CCC FWC Funded Beds 351 33 0 Funded Beds 435 33 0 Built Beds 507 122 125 Built Beds 507 122 125 % Operated 69% 27% 0% % Operated 0.8 0.27 0 Source: Lane County Sheriff's Office

o Custody and Overcrowding Releases.

Figure 2.6 Releases Triggered By Overcrowding as a Percent of Lodgings

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Capacity-Based Releases as a Percent of Lodgings 5%

0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Releases 23% 24% 26% 20% 19% 29% 35% 23%

Note: “Percent of Lodgings” is the number of inmates released as a percent of all inmates housed at that time in the Lane County Jail. Source: Lane County Sheriff’s Office Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

o District Attorney Intakes per Lawyer.

Figure 2.7 Total DA Intakes per Lawyer Figure 2.8 DA Felony Intakes per Lawyer

450 300

275 400 250 350 225

300 200

175 250 150 200 125

150 100 Total DA Intakes per Prosecutorper Intakes DA Total DA FelonyDA Intakes per Prosecutor 75 100 50 50 25

- - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 400 396 375 330 336 312 294 DA Intakes per Lawyer Felony Intakes per Lawyer 218 232 241 212 201 181 170 Source: DA's office; DACMS Source: DA's office; DACMS

Figure 2.9 Number of Lawyers Needed in DA’s Criminal Division

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Number of Lawyers in DA's office 23 22 22 22 22 22 24 FTE Needed 33 32 31 28 27 26 27 % Staffed (Lawyers/FTE Needed) 70% 69% 71% 79% 81% 85% 89%

Source: APRI study, DACM; LCOG using same methodology

o Probation Officer Caseloads.

Figure 2.10 Average PO Caseload Size

2003 Average 2008 Average 2010 Average Caseload Size Caseload Size Caseload Size Lane 100 100 100 Oregon 75 75 Data not available

Source 2003: Multnomah County Community Justice Department Survey of Community Corrections Directors in August 2003 Source 2008: LCOG Survey of Oregon Community Corrections Programs

Category III: Efficient and Effective Use of Resources Grade 2010: C Grade 2011: C+

Efficient and Effective Use of Resources includes: arrests per officer; rate of reports to arrests; successful prosecutions; speedy trials; and alternatives to incarceration. Data is not collected or reported to measure the number of criminal cases not being investigated or filed due to lack of resources. o Arrests per Officer.

Figure 3.1 Rate of Arrests per Officer Figure 3.2 Rate of Arrests per Officer Violent Crime Property Crime

1.8 12.0 Lane

1.6 10.0 1.4

Lane 1.2 8.0

1.0 US 6.0 Oregon 0.8 Oregon

0.6 4.0

US 0.4 2.0 Rate of Arrests Per Officer - Violent Crime 0.2 Rate Rate of Arrests per Officer - Serious Property Crime

0.0 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 1.61.41.41.51.31.31.7 Lane 9.59.69.59.18.77.17.7 Oregon 0.70.60.60.90.90.90.9 Oregon 5.04.94.25.85.24.74.9 1.00.90.90.90.90.90.9 2.52.52.32.52.42.32.4 US US Source: Lane and Oregon – Law Enforcement Data System, Uniform Crime Report Source: Lane and Oregon – Law Enforcement Data System, Uniform Crime Report Source: US – FBI, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted; Source: US – FBI: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted; Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: B- Grade 2011: B+ Grade 2010: B Grade 2011: B

o Arrests to Reports.

Figure 3.3 Rate of Arrests to Reports for Violent Crimes Figure 3.4 Rate of Arrests to Reports for Property

80% Crimes

30% 70%

Lane 60% 25% Lane

50% 20% Oregon Oregon 40% US 15% 30% US

20% 10%

Rate of Arrests to Reported Violent Crimes Violent Reported Arrests to of Rate 10% 5%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Crimes Property - Crimes to Reported Arrests of Rate Lane 66% 73% 66% 68% 65% 58% 65% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Oregon 37% 33% 32% 48% 45% 46% 47% Lane 24% 25% 23% 22% 19% 20% 23% US 44% 44% 43% 43% 43% 43% 42% Oregon 17% 17% 14% 20% 18% 19% 21% 16% 15% 15% 16% 16% 15% 16% Sources: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003; Easy Access to FBI Arrest US Statistics Sources: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003; Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: C- Grade 2011: C+ Grade 2010: C Grade 2011: D+

o Speedy Trials.

Figure 3.5 Percent of State Court Felony Cases Figure 3.6 Percent of State Court Misdemeanor Cases Completed Within 180 Days Completed Within 180 Days

100.0% 100.0% Lane Lane 90.0% 90.0% Oregon Oregon 80.0% 80.0%

70.0% 70.0%

60.0% 60.0%

50.0% 50.0%

40.0% 40.0%

30.0% 30.0%

20.0% 20.0%

10.0% 10.0% Percent of Felony Cases Completed Within 180 Days Within Completed Casesof Felony Percent Percent of Misdemeanor Cases 180 Terminated Within Days 0.0% 0.0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 89% 88% 91% 94% 96% 94% 94% Lane 92% 92% 92% 94% 96% 97% 97% Oregon 79% 79% 82% 82% 83% 82% 83% Oregon 85% 87% 90% 90% 91% 91% 92%

Note: Oregon goal is 98%. Note: Oregon goal is 98%. Source: Oregon Circuit Court Source: Oregon Circuit Court Grade 2010: B- Grade 2011: B- Grade 2010: B Grade 2011: B

Category IV: Justice and Accountability Grade 2010: C- Grade 2011: C-

Justice and Accountability includes: failure to appear; failures on supervision; Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants enforcement; and average sentence and supervision length. o Failure to Appear (FTA).

Figure 4.1 Percent of Court Events Figure 4.2 Percent of Individuals Where Defendant Fail To Appear Who Fail To Appear

30% 45%

40% Springfield Municipal Court 25% 35% Springfield Municipal Court 20% 30% Eugene Municipal Court 25%

15% Eugene Municipal Court 20% Circuit Court

10% 15% Circuit Court

Percent of Court Events with FTA 10%

5% PercentAppearto of Individuals Who Fail 5%

0% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Circuit Court 14% 10% 12% 11% 10% 12% 11% Circuit Court 25% 23% 27% 25% 22% 23% 22% Eugene Municipal Court 21% 22% 21% 18% 14% 16% 16% Eugene Municipal Court 39% 39% 37% 34% 32% 29% 29% Springfield Municipal Court 18% 23% 24% 17% 16% 18% 20% Springfield Municipal Court 33% 38% 39% 38% 32% 32% 36%

Source: PCAIRS Source: PCAIRS Grade 2010: D+ Grade 2011: C- Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

o Failures on Supervision.

Figure 4.3 Three Year Re-offense Rate for Felony Figure 4.4 Three Year Re-offense Rate for Felony Offenders on Parole/Post-Prison Supervision Offenders on Probation Supervision

45% 40%

40% 35% Lane 35% Lane 30%

30% 25% Oregon 25% Oregon 20% 20%

15% 15%

10%

Percent Recidivating and Absconding andPercent Recidivating 10% Absconding and Recidivating Percent

5% 5%

0% 0% 01/03- 07/03- 01/04- 07/04- 01/05- 07/05- 01/06- 07/06- 01/07- 07/07- 01/08- 07/08 - 01/09- 07/09 - 01/03- 07/03- 01/04- 07/04- 01/05- 07/05- 01/06- 07/06- 01/07- 07/07- 01/08- 07/08 - 01/09- 07/09 - 06/03 12/03 06/04 12/04 06/05 12/05 06/06 12/06 06/07 12/07 06/08 12/08 06/09 12/09 06/03 12/03 06/04 12/04 06/05 12/05 06/06 12/06 06/07 12/07 06/08 12/08 06/09 12/09 Lane 30% 41% 34% 34% 30% 29% 34% 34% 39% 31% 32% 30% 32% 33% Lane 25% 29% 28% 28% 28% 26% 27% 24% 24% 35% 30% 34% 28% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 29% 29% 31% 31% 31% 31% 30% 29% 29% 28% 24% 24% 23% 24% 25% 24% 23% 25% 26% 27% 27% 24% 24% 24% Oregon Oregon Note: The Oregon goal is no more than 31%. Note: The Oregon goal is no more than 23%. Source: Oregon Department of Corrections Source: Oregon Department of Corrections Grade 2010: C+ Grade 2011: C+ Grade 2010: D- Grade 2011: D-

o Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) Enforcement. The DUII Enforcement Index is the ratio of the number of DUII arrests to the number of drivers in fatal crashes with any level of blood-alcohol concentration.

Figure 4.5 DUII Enforcement Index

250

200

150 Lane

Oregon 100 US

50 Ratio of to Arrests DUII Alcohol-Involved Fatal Accidents

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 111 109 168 210 137 130 117 Oregon 119 114 91 117 105 108 107 US 98 99 102 103 92 97 99

Source: DUII Arrests: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Source: Drivers with any BAC in Fatal Accidents: US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System Grade 2010: A- Grade 2011: A-

Report Card Data: Part B – Juvenile Data

Category I: Crime and Safety Grade 2010: D+ Grade 2011: D+

Crime and Safety includes: juvenile referrals and arrests; dropouts; and drug and alcohol abuse. o Juvenile Referrals and Arrests.

Figure 1.1 Juvenile Rate of Criminal Referral to Juvenile Figure 1.2 Juvenile Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth Age 10-17 Services per 1,000 Youth Age 17 and Under

350 1200

300 1000

Oregon 250 Oregon 800 Lane 200 US Lane 600

150 400

100

200

50 10-17) (Age Youth 10,000 per Rate Arrest Juvenile Juvenile Referrals per 1,000 Youth Age 17 and UnderYouth Age 17 and 1,000per Juvenile Referrals 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 970 834 880 794 659 685 778 Lane 287 276 244 280 255 234 214 Oregon 887 812 744 844 766 785 814 Oregon 298 279 275 280 267 252 228 US 690 678 662 655 638 660 654

Source: Lane County Department of Youth Services, Juvenile Justice Data Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: C+ Grade 2011: C Grade 2010: B+ Grade 2011: A-

Figure 1.3 Juvenile Violent Crime Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth

US 30

Lane 25

20 Oregon

5 Juvenile Violent Crime Arrest Rate Juvenile Arrest per Violent10,000 Crime Youth

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 36 21 25 26 22 21 29 Oregon 17 14 15 23 21 20 23 US 29 28 28 27 28 30 29

Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: B Grade 2011: B-

Figure 1.4 Juvenile Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per Figure 1.5 Juvenile Property Crime Arrest Rate per 10,000 10,000 Youth Youth

120 600 Lane

100 500

80 400

Oregon

60 300 US Lane 40 200 Oregon

20 100 US Juvenile Serious Property Crime Rate per 10,000Rate per Youth Crime Property Juvenile Serious

Juvenile Drug Abuse Arrest Rate per 10,00010-17) Youth per (age Rate Abuse Arrest Drug Juvenile 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Lane 87 76 88 97 82 88 105 Lane 310 282 254 240 198 200 199 Oregon 57 56 51 66 61 59 62 Oregon 211 196 175 212 182 179 184 US 61 56 59 58 57 58 59 US 149 144 138 135 124 120 126

Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Source: Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F Grade 2010: C Grade 2011: B-

o Dropouts. Lane County’s Dropout rate is lower than the state’s and the nation’s.

Figure 1.6 Percent of Students Dropping Out of School

10%

4% Oregon

Lane 2% Percent ofPercent Students Dropping Out of School

0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Oregon 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%

Note: Prior to 1997, students receiving a GED were counted as drop-outs

Source: Lane and Oregon - Oregon Department of Education, Early Leave Report. As cited by Oregon Progress Board, Oregon Benchmarks 2003 County Data Book Grade 2010: C- Grade 2011: B-

o Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Lane County exceeded the state and US rates for 2001-03 for percent of 8th graders reporting marijuana use in the last 30 days and still exceeds the US rate. At the 11th grade level, Lane exceeded both state and US rates for 2003 but the Lane, State, and US rates were virtually identical for 2001 and 2005. This is self report data from the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey.

Figure 1.7 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Marijuana Use Figure 1.8 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Marijuana Use in Last 30 Days – 8th Grade in Last 30 Days – 11th Grade (12th Grade US Data)

35% 35%

30%

25% 25% Lane Oregon

US 20%

15% Lane 15%

Oregon 10% 5% US 5% Percent Reporting Marijuana Use in Last 30 Days - 8th Graders - Days 30 in Last Use Marijuana Reporting Percent

-5% Graders 11th - Last 30 Days in Use Marijuana Reporting Percent 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane^ 13% 14% 9% 9% 12% 10% 10% Lane^ 23% 29% 21% 20% 23% 23% 23% Oregon 12% 13% 10% 11% 10% 9% 9% 11% Oregon 24% 23% 20% 21% 19% 19% 19% 22% US 8% 8% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% National 22% 21% 20% 20% 18% 19% 19% 21%

Source: Lane and Oregon – Oregon Healthy Teens Survey Source: Lane and Oregon – Oregon Healthy Teens Survey Source: US – Monitoring the Future Source: US – Monitoring the Future Grade 2010: D- Grade 2011: D- Grade 2010: D- Grade 2011: C-

Lane County and Oregon exceeds the nation for binge drinking by both 8th and 11th graders. Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks of alcohol within a couple of hours one or more times in the last 30 days.

Figure 1.9 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Figure 1.10 Percent of Juveniles Who Report Binge Drinking in the Last 30 Days – 8th Grade Binge Drinking in the Last 30 Days – 11th Grade

35% 35%

Lane 30% 30%

Oregon 25% 25%

20% 20% US

15% 15%

Oregon Lane 10% 10% Percent Binge Drinking - 8th Grade - Percent Binge Drinking Percent BingePercent - 11thDrinking Grade

5% 5% US

0% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lane^ 12% 11% 12% 12% 14% 12% 12% Lane^ 27% 27% 28% 29% 32% 29% 29% Oregon 10% 10% 12% 12% 13% 13% 12% 11% Oregon 25% 26% 29% 29% 25% 27% 26% 23% US* 7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% 2% US* 25% 24% 27% 23% 22% 24% 20% 17%

Source: Lane and Oregon – Oregon Healthy Teens Survey Source: Lane and Oregon – Oregon Healthy Teens Survey Source: US – US Survey on Drug Use and Health Source: US – US Survey on Drug Use and Health Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

Category II: Resource and Capacity Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F

Resource and Capacity includes juvenile detention capacity. o Juvenile Detention Capacity.

Figure 2.1 Lane County Department of Youth Services Funded Juvenile Bed Resources Local Beds and State Beds Allocated to Lane County

160

140

120

100

Number of Beds 60

0 AOD AOD Lane Closed Shelter OYA Closed Shelter (girls) Residential Residential Custody Total (boys) Custody (boys) (girls) Treatment * FY 01-02 127140075140 FY 09-10 0080163272

*Note: In 2005-06, 16 detention beds were designated as long-term treatment beds. While this increased treatment options, it reduced available beds for short-term detention. Source: Lane County Department of Youth Services

The juvenile justice system differs in how youth are committed to state secure custody. Unlike the adult criminal justice system that can sentence offenders to prison with no cap/matrix issues, the juvenile justice system is limited to a discretionary bed allowance that the Oregon Youth Authority calculates using a county’s youth population count and crime rate. It should be noted that the total number of secure custody youth beds available for the entire state of Oregon is not driven by any scientific method or demand forecast formula. The bed allowance has always been a product of what resources were available instead of actual need.

Figure 2.2 Built vs. Funded Beds by Facility

2001-02 2009-10 Built vs. Funded Beds by Facility Built Beds Funded Beds % Funded Built Beds Funded Beds % Funded Lane County Resources Detention 96 32 33% 80 16 20% Shelter (boys) 12 12 100% 12 0 0% Shelter (girls) 7 7 100% 700% AOD Residential (boys) 14 14 100% 14 8 57% AOD Residential (girls) 7 0 0% 700% Lane Close Custody Treatment 0 0 16 16 100% State Resources Available to Lane County Oregon Youth Authority Close Custody 75 75 100% 75 32 43% Source: Lane County Department of Youth Services Figure 2.3 Built vs. Funded Beds

250

200

150

100 Number of Beds

0 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Built Beds 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 Funded Beds 140 121 78 80 78 72 72 Source: Lane County Department of Youth Services

Category III: Efficient and Effective Use of Resources Grade 2010 C+ Grade 2011: C+

Efficient and Effective Use of Resources includes: juvenile re-offenses; chronic juvenile offenders; and re-offenses and tracking time. o Juvenile Re-offenses.

Figure 3.1 Percent of Juvenile Offenders Who Did Not Re-offend Within 12 Months

100%

90%

80% Lane

70% Oregon

60% Percent of Offenders with No New Referrals Within 12 Months Within Referrals No New with Offenders of Percent 50% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Lane 71% 68% 73% 66% 70% 74% 74% Oregon 68% 68% 69% 68% 69% 70% 71%

Source:: Lane County Department of Youth Services Grade 2010: C+ Grade 2011: C+

Figure 3.2 Percent of Juvenile Offenders With 1-2 New Referrals Within 12 Months

35%

30%

Oregon 25%

Lane 20%

15%

10%

5% Percent of Offenders with 1-2 New Referrals Within 12 Months Within Referrals 1-2 New with Offenders of Percent 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Lane 23% 25% 21% 26% 24% 22% 22% Oregon 26% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 24%

Source:: Lane County Department of Youth Services Grade 2010: C+ Grade 2011: C+

o Chronic Juvenile Offenders. A small group of juvenile offenders become chronic delinquents and commit a majority of new offenses. Chronic offenders commit three or more new crimes over a 12-month period.

Figure 3.3 Chronic Juvenile Offenders – Those With Three Or More Referrals Within 12 Months

10%

6% Oregon

4% Lane

2% Percent of 12 Offenders Within 3+ New Referrals Months with 0% 2002200320042005200620072008 Lane 6% 7% 6% 8% 6% 4% 4% Oregon 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5%

Source:: Lane County Department of Youth Services Grade 2010: B+ Grade 2011: B+

o Re-offenses and Tracking Time

Figure 3.4 Juvenile Re-offenses At 36 Months By Year

10%

6% Oregon

4% Lane

2% Percent of 12 Offenders Within 3+ New Referrals Months with 0% 2002200320042005200620072008 Lane 6% 7% 6% 8% 6% 4% 4% Oregon 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5%

Source:: Lane County Department of Youth Services

IV. Justice and Accountability Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F o System Capacity

Figure 4.1 Lane County Juveniles Released From Detention Early

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

Number of Juveniels Released Early From Detention Early Released Juveniels Number of 200

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number Released 820 763 800 886 920 1165 943 1030 1052 965 923

Source:: Lane County Department of Youth Services Grade 2010: F Grade 2011: F