Handouts

• June 2026 Minutes
• Draft Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Key Performance Indicators, 2021-2025

Meeting called to order at 11:03 am, by Jessica Glendening, Chair, Chief Defender, BIDS

Welcome

Agenda Item 1: Approval of the June 2026 Minutes

Discussion: June 2026 Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) meeting minutes presented. No corrections were identified. Motion to approve was made by Dr. Kirsten Watkins, seconded by Chief Lockhart. June minutes were approved as presented unanimously.

Agenda Item 2: Review Framework and Status of CJCC Key Performance Indicators

Discussion: Katy provided a copy of the "Draft Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Key Performance Indicators, 2021-2025." Katy acknowledged that some member agencies may have had negative experiences in the past with data sharing and encouraged members to consider what lessons could be learned from those experiences to incorporate into future data sharing experiences. In the draft performance measures document, the measures are color coded as follows: Orange indicates that those measures have not been collected previously and/or that they have not been validated; Green indicates that those measures have been collected previously and/or that validated infrastructure exists to track those measures; and Yellow indicates that those measures have not been collected previously in this format, but that infrastructure exists to collect these measures.

Katy walked through the measures in order, reviewing the definitions and purpose of the measure, and discussing with council members what questions or points of clarity that they had about each measure. Council members were reminded that this document is a pared down list of system measures and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of measures about the performance of the criminal justice system. With that, the council members were reminded that once these basic measures are established, additional measures can be added over time and that the council should consider keeping a "parking lot" list of additional measures of interest. One suggestion was that since the council hasn't yet baselined these measures and is not currently benchmarking or establishing targets, the suggestion was made to retitle this document to reflect that these are baseline system measures.

Regarding Lawrence Municipal Court measures, Judge Hafoka shared how the charges filed in Municipal Court are considered as traffic charges or public offense charges. Traffic includes infractions, misdemeanors, and, in prior years, parking violations. Public offenses reflect misdemeanor charges that are not traffic related. Judge Hafoka asked the council for feedback about whether it would be clearer to refer to the public offense charges as non-traffic misdemeanors. Council members agreed, so measures related to Public Offense charges in Lawrence Municipal Court will be changed to Non-Traffic Misdemeanors. Commissioner Sellers asked about why the Lawrence Municipal Court was the only one included in these measures. Katy shared that she has not yet met with Eudora or Baldwin City Municipal Courts about their ability to provide their own measures. Katy shared that she does not anticipate pushback but does want to be mindful that those two courts do not have the staffing of Lawrence and that they may have infrastructure challenges to overcome to provide data. Adding the other two municipal courts should be considered in the parking lot. Judge Hafoka clarified that the municipal court measures are at the charge level and not the person or incident level, so one person can be reflected multiple times from one or more incidents. She shared that over time the court could look at providing measures at the person level. Chief Lockhart shared that one measure that could be important context within the traffic misdemeanors is the use of traffic crash data, which Lawrence Police and KDOT collect. This measure could be important in understanding enforcement activity, as if the number of crashes increases, but traffic enforcement activity has also been increasing, that could indicate that enforcement is not having as great an impact as desired. This measure could be added to the parking lot for consideration. Lori Alvarado shared that Driving Under the Influence data each quarter would be helpful for DCCCA, as they provide the driver education classes for those individuals and if the number of DUI charges increased significantly one quarter, that could indicate to their staff they may need to consider additional classes to meet the need.

Regarding District Court Measures, time to Disposition caveats include that the start date is the date of case filing, not necessarily when the defendant has appeared in court. If these measures are longer than expected, it will be important to remember that the time between filing and serving either a summons or warrant would be included in the calculation. While this is a standard measure of court performance, the start date is often dependent on whichever date the jurisdiction has available to them consistently, so for some that could be the first appearance date and for others, it is the filing date. DA Loomis shared that using the first appearance date could be challenging because while the date of the first appearance is in the case management system, that only means a first appearance was scheduled, not necessarily that a defendant attended. Court clearance rate is also a standard measure of court performance. If this measure is over 100%, a court is actively working through clearing a backlog of cases and if the measure is below 100%, it could indicate that the court is building a backlog of cases, which will result in delayed resolution for both defendants and victims. A caveat to this measure is that a result of 100% or more does not mean that cases filed during the reporting period are being resolved during the same period.

Regarding attorney measures, DA Loomis shared that the District Court Cases Disposed measure needs further conversation to define "disposed." He shared that various circumstances can result in a case becoming reopened without being a new charge or case, so conversation is needed to clarify when a case should be included in this measure. For Caseload per Public Defender, Jessica Glendening shared that this was a new measure to BIDS to provide, but data staff are developing the methodology to provide this quarterly.

Regarding Pretrial measures, Pretrial Bond Decisions measure is similar to several measures provided during the strategic planning process. The aim of this measure is to overlay the types of bond conditions set against the risk level provided in the pretrial report. A primary caveat is that release and detain decisions are not solely made based on the pretrial report and are the result of judicial decision making based on information provided by prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial reports, and other pertinent information at first appearance. Katy provided definitions and methodologies for the Court Appearance Rate and Public Safety Rate measures. The Public Safety Rate is a new measure that Pretrial Services has not previously provided; however, Katy has worked with Shannon Young and Pretrial staff to begin collecting the fields necessary beginning in January 2026. This measure is generally on a 60-day lag, so its reporting will look different from other quarterly measures.

Direction provided by the Council for next steps with this framework is for Katy to begin the data dictionary that would accompany these measures and to update the framework to include relevant comments, definitions, or caveats for review by the council. Katy will work with the appropriate council members prior to the October meeting to review methods for beginning to provide these measures, develop and review definitions of their measures, and review any necessary caveats that will need to be included in the data dictionary.

Agenda Item 3: Review CJCC 2025-2027 Strategic Plan

Discussion: Jessica Glendening shared that due to time constraints in this meeting, this topic will be revisited in the next meeting.

Agenda Item 4: Future Agenda Items

Discussion: Susan Benkelman shared that Veteran's Treatment Court can provide the council with an update on its operations as it approaches its first year of operating.

Agenda Item 5: Open Discussion/Agency Updates

Discussion: Judge Simpson shared that the District Court was beginning to move into the new addition this week and that the move is going well.

Commissioner Sellers shared that since the last meeting, she and Katy Fitzgerald attended the NBC-LEO summer conference and thanked Katy for participating on a panel about CJCCs. Both Commissioner Sellers and Katy shared that the conference was well attended and included many panels that were well done and informative.

Agenda Item 6: Public Comment

Discussion: Kirsten Kuhn shared that it was difficult to hear in this meeting without the microphones and requested that the council reinstate the use of Zoom. Caroline Grootes shared the same comments about the difficulty hearing and requesting the use of Zoom.

Meeting adjourned at 12:19 pm.

Member Attendance