Tompkins County ATI working group to map arrest-to-incarceration flow, gather data and hold public forum

A Tompkins County alternatives-to-incarceration (ATI) working group on Tuesday said it will build detailed flowcharts, collect targeted jail data and convene provider focus groups before holding a public meeting designed to gather community ideas for safely reducing the county jail population.

Moderator and facilitator (speaker 3) told the group that a recommendation from the CJ ATI meeting was to add a short paragraph describing each ATI program so everyone “is familiar with…what they do,” and asked volunteers to clean and complete a draft inventory of programs and services. “It was suggested that we add a paragraph or so for each of the ATI's to explain exactly what they do,” the facilitator said.

Why it matters: participants described two separate problems driving the jail census — a large number of short stays (often one to three days) and a smaller group of people who account for disproportionately high person-days in custody. The group cited a median stay of about eight days and an average near 21 days for the sample period discussed, and recommended prioritizing the points in the system where people “fall through the cracks.”

What the group agreed to do: members endorsed a two-track approach. First, they will map the arrest-to-incarceration pathway using case studies and flowcharts that trace common entry points and decision nodes (arrest, arraignment, bail, pretrial supervision, sentencing, reentry). Second, they will pull targeted data — including counts of parolees in the jail, judge-by-judge person-days and weekend versus weekday snapshots — to identify which groups and practices most affect jail population.

Participants urged the working group to pair the client perspective with provider knowledge. "Can they find housing? Are there job requirements? Are there day reporting requirements?" said Paula (speaker 12), an assistant professor at Ithaca College participating on behalf of community stakeholders, urging the group to trace obstacles a typical person encounters after release.

Possible operational changes were discussed but not adopted as formal policy: the group reviewed a local pilot that places attorneys at arraignment in Dryden, and explored whether a sobering lockup (an alternative intake site run by IPD) could hold intoxicated people overnight so they are not remanded to county jail. Magistrates at the meeting said overnight arraignments often occur with limited information, and participants recommended targeted magistrate briefings so judges know what programs and referrals are available when making release decisions.

Next steps: the facilitator committed to schedule a follow-up meeting in about a week, to ask law-enforcement representatives (sheriff or line sergeants) to explain arrest and arraignment decision-making and to gather the requested data for discussion. The group decided to defer a public forum until it can present clearer information and do community outreach to encourage meaningful participation.

The working group did not take formal votes or adopt binding policies at the session; the plans agreed to were procedural next steps to assemble information for future deliberations.