Board of Corrections Meeting
Thursday, April 17, 2003
2775 Richardson Drive
Executive Director Thom McConnell announced that Chairman Robert Presley has appointed Edward Alameida, Director, Department of Corrections as Acting Chair for today’s meeting, in his absence. Acting Chair Alameida thanked the staff of Placer County for hosting the April 17 Board meeting and for their hospitality. He then introduced Sheriff Bonner, of Placer County, for opening remarks.
Sheriff Bonner thanked the Board and welcomed everyone to Placer County. He stated that without the award of the grant funding from the Board the addition of the new wing would not have been possible. This is a $2.7 million investment for the safety of this community. He said Captain Keyes, Jail Commander, was personally singled out for his good work with the California Detention and Corrections committee at the State Sheriffs’ Conference this week. He stated that Captain Keyes asked him to say the following to the Board thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you.
Sheriff Bonner stated that Placer County staff would be offering tours after the Board of Corrections meeting. He stated, once again, on behalf of all of Placer County thank you.
Acting Chair Alameida called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. and declared the presence of a quorum.
Acting Chair Alameida announced that Board members Jerry Harper, Curtis Hill, Robert Hoffman, Donald Sheetz, Tom Soto, and Zev Yaroslavsky were unable to attend this meeting due to other commitments. He asked if there was a motion to excuse the absences.
A motion to excuse Board members Jerry Harper, Curtis Hill, Robert Hoffman, Donald Sheetz, Tom Soto, and Zev Yaroslavsky due to personal matters was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Acting Chair Alameida asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.
A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 16, 2003, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Terry Lee and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this information item is a second progress report on Contra Costa County’s Juvenile Hall construction project. At the September 19, 2002 meeting, the Board approved a nine-month extension (from June 30, 2003 to March 31, 2004) of the construction completion date of its 240-bed federal Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-In-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant. The Board required the county to complete written progress reports for review and to appear at subsequent meetings to address project progress and for staff to conduct on-site monitorings to ensure progress and reimburse the county based upon approved performance targets. Mr. Holien said he is pleased to report that staff confirmed the county met performance targets set by the Board of 62 percent to 67 percent project completion by March 31, 2003. The project is proceeding on track and without difficulty. He said staff is prepared to release funding upon receipt of the county invoices for construction activities for the past quarter.
Mr. Holien introduced Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista, Contra Costa County. Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista thanked the Board for the opportunity to be here today and on behalf of Contra Costa County he thanked the Board for the award of federal VOI/TIS construction grant funds. He said they go by the construction site on a daily basis and watch the facility literally come up out of the ground. Mr. Bautista stated that the Probation Department is very excited about this project. It will take care of a need that the county has had for many years.
Board Member Mann asked how the county was doing with the issues surrounding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the contractors. Mr. Bautista responded that there were some initial problems, but the county is very pleased with how things are going.
Mr. McConnell stated that at the end of March the county was slightly ahead of their projected plan. Mr. Bautista replied that is true and they continue to be a little ahead, construction wise. Board Member Lee stated that with the economic climate being what it is is staffing going to be an issue? Mr. Bautista stated that the county is committed to meeting the staffing requirement.
Implementation of SB 1242 – Criminal Identification – Specimen or Sample Collection – Use of Force – Request to Form Executive Steering Committee (Agenda Item C)
Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that SB 1242, sponsored by Senator Brulte, added Section 298.1 to the Penal Code, which allowed the use of reasonable force to collect blood specimens, saliva samples, thumb or palm print impressions from individuals in local detention facilities who, after written or oral request refuse to provide such samples. SB 1242 had an urgency clause attached to it and became effective September 18, 2002. SB 1242 required the Corrections Standards Authority to develop regulations for implementation of the use of force policy along with certain reporting responsibilities.
Mr. Crout stated, unfortunately, the Board did not have sufficient resources immediately available to carry out the bill’s mandate. However, the Board has been informed by the Department of Finance that the resources will become available July 1, 2003. In anticipation of the funding, staff is requesting the Board to establish an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and charge the committee with developing regulations that will be included in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
Mr. Crout stated pending Board approval, the requested regulation revision process would operate parallel to the current Adult Regulation Revision process chaired by Board member Kolender and co-chaired by Board member Mann. In the past, the Board has enhanced the regulation development process, which includes public hearings, by incorporating the expertise of local correctional practitioners to form an ESC. The ESC provides expert input to address technical aspects, and provide guidance in the overall process.
Because of the necessary delay in implementing SB 1242 and the new Penal Code Section, while adequate resources are being developed, staff is proposing that the Board consider the following approach for the implementation of this mandate:
1. commence the proposed regulation development process immediately upon the appointment of BOC members to chair and co-chair the ESC;
2. empower the chair to work with staff to identify and appoint appropriate local subject matter experts as members of the ESC and to formulate a timeline for the process;
3. authorize the ESC to meet prior to the July 2003 Board of Corrections meeting; and
4. instruct staff to update the Board, at its July 2003 meeting on the ESC’s progress.
Mr. Crout stated it is anticipated that the ESC would address identified issues and come before the BOC with final recommendations for the new standards at its October 16, 2003 meeting. After a comprehensive public review process, the Board will accept, reject, or modify the recommendations and submit the new Title 15, California Code of Regulations to the Office of Administrative Law, for review before the final standards are published. BOC staff will seek urgency status for these standards, and based upon past experience, staff projects the effective date of the revised regulations to occur in the winter of 2003.
Mr. Crout stated that staff is recommending the chairman of the Board appoint a Board member to chair, and a Board member to co-chair the ESC. He said Curtis Hill has volunteered to chair and Donald Sheetz to co-chair the ESC.
A motion to approve the appointments of Curtis Hill to chair and Donald Sheetz to co-chair the ESC was made by Mr. Terry Lee and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.
Mr. McConnell stated that in discussing this item with Acting Chair Alameida, he suggested that once the ESC chair and co-chair have decided who they will be considering for potential ESC members that the list of prospective members be sent to each Board member by email for review and suggestions/alternatives. The chair and co-chair will incorporate those recommendations in the decision-making process. Mr. Crout stated he then amends his request.
A motion to approve the amendment to the process to include sending prospective ESC members selected by the chair and co-chair to all Board members for review and suggestions/alternatives as appropriate was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this agenda item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes.
Mr. Holien stated that the information shows that El Dorado, Glenn, and San Diego counties had minor timeline changes for reasons ranging from an environmental delay in El Dorado, the county Board needing more time to re-bid the project in Glenn, and a manufacturer delay in the delivery of permanent modular school classrooms in San Diego. He said El Dorado County was also accelerating its construction schedule to finish before the 2004 winter season, which will enable critically needed beds to be brought on line earlier than planned.
There were also two budget changes. Stanislaus County completed its construction project for $98,376 less than the grant award. The $98,376 grant balance was disencumbered and reverted to Sacramento County as previously authorized by the Board and as reported in this item.
Mr. McConnell stated that this is the fifth incident in which a county has come in under bid or completed construction for less than the grant award and allowed the BOC to transfer money to Sacramento County. With the number of projects outstanding, and the current climate in the bid environment, the BOC may see more of this. It is very encouraging that the counties are doing the kind of value engineering that allows this to occur.
Dr. John Kohls stated that the BOC began collecting data for the Jail Profile Survey in the last quarter of 1995. The survey collects important data relative to the population and characteristics of individuals held in local adult detention facilities in California. This is the seventh annual report and it describes the results for the year 2002. Dr. Kohls stated that his presentation is divided into five sections: 1) jail populations and capacity; 2) jail populations and characteristics; 3) inmate classification; 4) crowding; and 5) summary and conclusions.
Dr. Kohls stated he would be discussing the average daily populations (ADP), the Board-rated capacity, peak demands for jail space, and average length of stay. He stated that the ADP has risen steadily since the mid 1970’s, when the ADP was about 25,000 inmates. When the BOC began the Jail Profile Survey in 1995, the ADP had almost tripled to 71,000. The ADP continued to rise steadily until the 2nd Quarter of 1998 where it peaked at slightly over 80,000, and then something unexpected happened – it started to decline. That decline has continued for 14 quarters, 3 ½ years. Dr. Kohls stated that the most important finding of the 2002 Annual Report is that the downward trend has now reversed itself. He said next year’s ADP data will be extremely important. If the ADP continues to rise, it will have enormous implications for California’s jail system.
He said the ADP, being an average, is a good statistic for examining trends, but not very good for identifying the demands on the system capacity. Therefore, the Jail Profile Survey also examines peak demands in terms of the highest one-day jail population. In each of the four quarters of 2002, the peak population day exceeded the ADP by about 5,000 inmates. In other words, to handle peak demands the jail capacity should exceed the ADP by an average of 6.3%.
Dr. Kohls said the question is whether we have that kind of capacity. The answer is no. While the ADP for the year 2002 was 75,156 inmates, the Board-rated capacity (beds that meet the standards of the Board of Corrections) was 73,598, about 1,500 beds lower than the ADP. The highest one-day population for 2002 was over 7,000 above the BOC’s Board-rated capacity (BRC).
Board Member Kolender asked how these figures tie into the budget and the closing of facilities. Dr. Kohls stated that some facilities have already closed, but the current Board-rated capacity is higher than it’s been in several years; however, if the closures continue, the growth in BRC is likely to turnaround, which could start to happen very soon. This is one of the factors the BOC will be watching in 2003.
Acting Chair Alameida asked if the BOC has looked at the population of different counties to determine if some are more impacted than others. Dr. Kohls said that the data are received from every county and then summed to produce the statewide results. Interesting enough, the ADP statistics for Los Angeles County accounts for about 25% of the movement from one place to another in proportion to the representation of the state. Not all counties represent the same trend, but probably more than 50% do, and the ones that don’t are usually fairly small counties. Dr. Kohls stated that this is an interesting issue the BOC has to deal with – the distribution of sizes is not a normal distribution.
Acting Chair Alameida wanted to know what counties might be closing their facilities because their capacity is less than their need versus other counties that don’t have the capacity, and whether any might be sending inmates to the Department of Corrections because they don’t have the capacity.
Mr. McConnell stated that, as you can see, there is a much larger inmate population than there are beds available. He said there is a need for increased bed space, but the critical issue, under the current state budget situation, is the ability to sustain the existing number of beds and the staffing of those beds. Mr. McConnell agreed with Acting Chair Alameida that there might be more facility closures depending on the outcome of the budget situation. Dr. Kohls stated there would be crowding, because there are currently no significant building plans on the drawing board. He said, as of this morning, the BOC would implement a new program in 2003. It will be gathering representatives from all the local jurisdictions to try and figure out what’s happening and where it’s happening within the statewide jail system.
Board Member Mann wanted to know if the inmates being released on home monitoring and work release are part of these figures. Dr. Kohls stated no. These numbers represent inmates that are assigned to beds in a facility. He said he has information about inmates that are released as well. Mr. McConnell stated that it would be a shock to most people to see how many released inmates could potentially come back to beds that don’t exist.
Dr. Kohls said nationally accepted standards for jail operations assures that a jail’s capacity should exceed the ADP by approximately 10% to create unoccupied beds for effective jail management in terms of: administrative segregation, in order to make room for inmates needing special protection, to manage racial and other conflicts, to deal with inmates with mental health and medical needs for California, this would mean the desirable current jail capacity would be 82,672 beds, which exceeds the current Board-rated capacity by over 9,000 beds. At a conservative estimate of $50,000 to construct a new bed it would cost $450 million to create the desirable jail capacity. If the ADP were to continue the current trend upward and rise to the 1998 levels, an additional quarter of a billion dollars would be needed for an additional 5,000 beds.
Dr. Kohls said the trend for bookings since 1996 does not coincide with the trend in ADP. Bookings have fluctuated somewhat over the past seven years, but have stayed within a fairly narrow range between 97,000 per month to 102,000 per month. The average number of bookings per month for 2002 is similar to the average for 1996. Dr. Kohls said they have searched, but have not found a discernable pattern in the fluctuation in bookings. They have not found any correlation between the ADP and bookings.
Acting Chair Alameida wanted to know what Dr. Kohls meant by correlating information. Dr. Kohls stated that within the data set one of the options now available (data over a period of 7 to 8 years) is to look at the relationship between a trend in one variable and a trend in another. Finding those relationships would help to predict and explain some things. It would be interesting if the trend in bookings matched the trend in the ADP. If so, one could predict the ADP using bookings.
Mr. McConnell stated that it is just as interesting that it doesn’t. Why are we seeing the increase in population and no increase in bookings is a question we can’t answer, but it is clearly an anomaly.
Acting Chair Alameida asked whether they’ve looked at length of stay in the jail facilities as well. Dr. Kohls stated he looked at a number of different scenarios and thought it might be a time lag between booking changes and the ADP. He said he looked at different types of relationships, in terms of time lag, but didn’t find any correlation. Dr. Kohls said he didn’t find any relationship between length of stay and ADP.
Dr. Kohls stated as a side note, the bookings chart demonstrates the importance of gathering Jail Profile Survey data multiple times throughout the year – at least quarterly. The second and third quarters of April to June and July to September always have more bookings than the 4th and 1st quarters of October to December and January to March. He said collecting data on a sample basis for part of the year is bound to result in erroneous conclusion. Knowing this pattern will be helpful as the Board provides technical assistance in terms of jail management.
Dr. Kohls said this is one of many examples they have found where Jail Profile Survey data is even more enlightening and useful than they had anticipated.
Board Member Mann wanted to know what we attributed the change in bookings to? Dr. Kohls stated this is another area that needs further study. Based upon discussions with staff, one speculation is that there is a holiday factor in the fourth quarter. He is not sure it would explain the first quarter; perhaps jails empty out during the holiday period.
Board Member Silbert said the increase in bookings during the spring and summer is because of good weather. Mr. McConnell responded that we don’t know this to be true, but it has been discussed. Inmates have to be out and criminally active in order to be arrested. If you are cold and miserable there is a tendency to stay indoors. This has been looked at on a national level, and for whatever reason there is more criminal activity when the weather is better.
Dr. Kohls stated they have collected Average Length of Stay data on a yearly basis since the mid 1980’s. The Average Length of Stay has increased steadily between 1986 and 1997. Since 1997, it has stayed within a fairly narrow range of 23.3 days to 24.4 days and has remained at 23.4 days for the last two years (2001 and 2002). He said this is an important variable to track since it has a direct impact on the need for jail space. For planning purposes there is a need to know whether or not to expect increases in Average Length of Stay and the resulting need for additional bed space.
Dr. Kohls stated therefore, the BOC instituted a second method of measuring the Average Length of Stay in 2002. The previous method involved estimating the Average Length of Stay by dividing the product of the yearly ADP times the number of days in the year (which equals the yearly bed days) by the yearly total bookings (in other words, the number of bed days per booking). The new method is to record the actual length of stay of every inmate who is released during a quarter. He said they are still working out some reliability problems with the new method, but preliminary results are similar to the estimates obtained by the original method. The BOC will be following this trend closely.
Board Member Mann wanted to know what they changed. Dr. Kohls stated the original method was to compute the yearly ADP times the number of days in the year to get the yearly bed days. Bed days were then divided, by the total number of bookings to get the number of bed days per booking or Average Length of Stay. The problem with that formula is the definition of who gets listed as having been booked is somewhat different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending on how long you have to actually be in a facility before you are considered to have been booked. So they have decided to ask the jurisdictions for every inmate that is released during a quarter, the average amount of time the released inmates spent in jail.
Dr. Kohls stated Section II – Jail Population Characteristics describes the results for jail population characteristics such as gender, felony versus misdemeanor charges, and sentenced versus non-sentenced. The percentage of males in 1996 was 88.2%, which dropped slightly to 87.5% in 2002 (.7% drop). The reason for the change is that the female population is growing faster than the male population (a 3.5% increase in males since 1996 compared with an 11% increase in females). If the female population in jails continues to grow at a disproportionate rate, the implications for jail design, costs, programming and management will be significant.
Dr. Kohls said that a Jail Profile Survey finding of major importance is that the percentage of inmates with felony charges is rising at a very steady rate. In 2002, an average of 73.1% of the inmates were felony inmates. If this trend were to continue at the same rate, within 10 years the percentage of felony inmates will exceed 80%. He said another important finding is that the non-sentenced ADP is also rising at a steady rate. In the 1980’s, typically the non-sentenced and sentenced percentages were about 50/50. In 2002, the non-sentenced population had risen to 62.3%. Obviously, with a fixed number of beds the rise in the non-sentenced percentage puts pressure on the jail system to accommodate the need for space for sentenced inmates. This trend has an impact on crowding, early release, and particularly the misdemeanant population.
Board Member Silbert asked whether the increase is because of bail problems or is it taking longer to get a court date. Dr. Kohls responded that one of the problems is that with the felony percentage rising there are fewer options available in terms of alternatives to incarceration.
Mr. McConnell stated the issue with felony arrests going up is it reduces the opportunities for release, particularly under the OR circumstances or under bail circumstances, because the cost of release goes way up. So inmates are staying in the facilities rather than be released, which then increases the number of pre-sentenced inmates. And with only so many beds available every additional pre-sentenced inmate means there is one less bed available for a sentenced inmate.
Board Member Silbert asked if all this legislation was in place when the data collection began in 1995. Dr. Kohls stated that the Three Strikes law occurred around the same time, just a little after all the mandatory legislation.
Dr. Kohls stated that from 1996 to 2002 the ADP increased by 3,148 inmates. The change from 1996 is a 4.4% increase. He said misdemeanor sentenced inmates decreased by 16.1%, (2,019 inmates) and misdemeanor non-sentenced inmates increased 5.2%, (513 inmates). Felony sentenced inmates increased by 189 and felony non-sentenced inmates increased by 3,765.
Board Member Mann wanted to know why the decrease in misdemeanor inmates. Dr. Kohls stated he believes the demand for bed space goes in the direction of felony non-sentenced.
Mr. McConnell stated there are a number of articles that have been written suggesting that there aren’t any consequences for misdemeanor behavior. This would lend itself to that discussion. He said that as the number of non-sentenced misdemeanor inmates has increased, the number of them receiving jail time as a consequence for their offense is going down.
Board Member Kolender stated that it varies from area to area as to what kind of misdemeanors are booked and the criteria used for “serious” misdemeanors versus “non-serious” and the decision is based on that. Dr. Kohls stated that one of the issues in collecting this type of data is we originally collected the information to get a gauge of what the need was and then found out that capacity was determining the numbers as much as the need was, so if you don’t have slots available, then maybe it’s no longer a serious crime. These are the kinds of issues that must be investigated in terms of their effect on bed capacity.
CYA representative Michael Gallegos stated that if bookings remain steady, which is the one thing that didn’t change over this period of time, then it seems as though the behavior of the officers overall remained pretty much the same. The officers see something, bring them in, and then book them. And the capacity or lack of capacity, or budgetary problems then contributes to the change in the ADP. Dr. Kohls stated that because that appears to be true and because there is no new capacity being planned we expect future increases to be primarily in the non-sentenced felony area. That is where the big change in population should be expected.
Dr. Kohls said the Jail Profile Survey estimates the number of jail inmates who are in this country illegally. The percentage of inmates who are criminal/illegal aliens is quite high at 12% of the total ADP. In construction alone, the costs of providing bed space to house criminal/illegal aliens is about one half billion dollars. The state’s view is that these inmates should be the responsibility of the federal government and not the State of California. He said, to his understanding, efforts to recoup the costs of housing these inmates are an ongoing effort.
The Jail Profile Survey also tracks the number of inmate assaults on staff per quarter. The number rose steadily, declined and then began to rise again in 2002. Dr. Kohls said it is interesting that the trend in this variable is almost identical to the trend in ADP. It will be important to determine whether the inmate assaults on staff increase as the ADP increases, and especially whether the assaults are increasing at a faster rate than the ADP that occurred in 2002.
Dr. Kohls stated there are not many juveniles in custody in adult facilities. The number has actually been declining in the last couple of years. Acting Chair Alameida asked whether the data on assaults was done on a per capita basis or just as it relates to the number of assaults. Dr. Kohls stated this is an actual count of the number of assaults that were serious enough to result in a facility report. Acting Chair Alameida stated that because these figures are not on a per capita basis, may mean that even though assaults are up may not be as significant an issue as it relates to the population. If your per capita is one assault per hundred and it remains static, your population isn’t driving your assault rate. Dr. Kohls said that would be true.
Board Member Silbert asked whether these figures were over laid as the felony population. Dr. Kohls said they have not done that yet. He said the shape of the distribution looks very much like the ADP suggesting it may simply be a constant ratio. What we are concerned about is what happened in 2002, which is a much bigger jump in assaults than occurred in the ADP.
CYA representative Michael Gallegos asked if BOC staff would take a look at the mental health profile of the inmates committing the assaults to see if that is a driving force. Dr. Kohls said we don’t currently have the capacity to look at the issues involved in these assaults, what happened, what the inmate was charged with, and whether they were designated as mentally ill.
Acting Chair Alameida asked whether the inmates were CDC or state inmates returned back to a facility. Dr. Kohls said this is another area we don’t currently have the capacity to track, but that it is another factor that needs to be looked at.
Dr. Kohls said Section III deals with Security Classification Inmates with 2nd and 3rd strikes, and inmates with mental health and medical needs. The data exemplify some of the challenges the BOC faced with the Jail Profile Survey. While the percentage of inmates reported as needing minimum security housing has not changed since 1995 (about 25%), the percentages reported as needing maximum and medium security has changed markedly. In 1995, the percentage requiring maximum security was more than double the number requiring medium security. By 2002, the percentages of maximum and medium security inmates were virtually identical.
Dr. Kohls asked what happened? Board Member Mann stated that many of the inmates are gone. It’s interesting that we have all those facilities that are assigned to hold medium security inmates and we now have all maximum-security inmates, where are they being housed? Dr. Kohls said one of the first things we found was that one of the larger jurisdictions reported to the BOC that they had concluded that many inmates had been incorrectly classified as requiring maximum-security housing and had to be reclassified. The BOC is now working to establish a new baseline for this variable in light of this change. This exemplifies the importance of the BOC constantly monitoring the reliability and accuracy of the data. He said staff spends considerable time on this issue, and they visually check each number entered into the database. They also have written software to constantly check the database for unlikely and potentially erroneous entries. There are currently four staff working on this project, one pretty much full time. Obtaining data from 58 jurisdictions each month, with the kind of turn over the jurisdictions have and with each of the variables having a specific definition, it’s a lot of work.
Dr. Kohls said one of the most consistent long-term trends concerns the decrease in the number of 2nd Strike inmates in jails. This is one of the variables the BOC intends to explore further. He said one hopeful explanation is that the number of 2nd Strike inmates is declining because the Three Strikes law is working as intended. However, the number of Three Strike inmates that reached a low level of 2,970 in 1999 appears to be on the increase. One possible explanation for this is that there will always be a small, but stable, percentage of chronic offenders who will not be deterred by the Three Strikes law. If this possibility proves to be correct, expect the ADP of Three Strike inmates to settle down to a predictable percentage of the California general population, which is rising at a steady rate of 1 to 2 percent per year and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future.
Dr. Kohls stated that while the number of medical beds has stayed about the same, housing about 1,000 inmates since 1996, the number of mental health beds has nearly tripled. In 2002, the ADP assigned to mental health beds was 3,731 or 5% of the total ADP. This steady increase is one of the most consistent trends identified by the Jail Profile Survey. If the rate of increase were to continue, the number of mental health beds will exceed 10,000 by the end of this decade.
Board Member Kolender stated he assumes the reason for this trend is because of increased knowledge of the people working in the jails, and the classification system in place as the inmates enter a facility. Dr. Kohls said there could be some awareness issues, diagnostic issues, and availability of mental health workers. These are the types of things that need to be investigated. He said because of the potential impact of mentally ill inmates, the BOC began gathering new data in 2002 and we are still working to improve the reliability of this data. The following data should be considered preliminary results. So far the data shows the average number of new mental health cases opened each month is 9,785 or 13% of the ADP. The number of inmates on psychotropic medication is 8,282 or 11% of the ADP.
Dr. Kohls stated that Section IV – Crowding is a concern because as stated earlier there appears to be a lack of necessary jail space. Each month in 2002, an average of 6,470 individuals who normally would have been incarcerated are given pretrial releases solely due to the lack of jail space. Also in 2002, an additional average of 6,220 individuals were released early from their sentences due to lack of jail space. That fact that over 12,000 individuals each month avoids being incarcerated, who would otherwise be incarcerated if space were available, is a troubling statistic. Even though the numbers appear to be declining, that is probably a temporary phenomenon given the 2002 rise in the ADP.
Dr. Kohls said there is about a quarter of a million unserved felony warrants and about two million unserved misdemeanor warrants in California. If a small percentage of those warrants were served and a small percentage of the served warrants resulted in someone going to jail, the ADP could easily double.
In conclusion, Dr. Kohls stated that on peak days the ADP exceeds the Board-rated capacity by 7,000 beds. Over 12,000 individuals each month avoid incarceration due to the lack of jail space; budget problems will reduce the number of available beds with facility closures; and the percentage of non-sentenced inmates with felony charges who are incarcerated continues to rise. In addition, the upturn in the ADP is troubling for a number of reasons. The most troubling being that all reasonable efforts to keep jail populations within the limits of the jail system capacity have been exhausted, leading to the decline in ADP from 1998 to 2001. If this speculation turns out to be the case, the BOC expects that the jail populations will begin to rise at a steady pace in 2003 and beyond. Dr. Kohls stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
Board Member Mann stated that it has been mentioned several times today that the problem is lack of beds, but isn’t it true that it is lack of staffing? He said he knows of many counties where the beds are closing because of staffing issues. Dr. Kohls said that if the staffing issues were solved, he believes there would still be a capacity problem in terms of the number of beds. Board Member Kolender stated that it is troubling to hear that the CYA has lost so many of its wards.
Dr. Kohls said that one of the other changes the BOC decided in 2002 was to look at reliable statistics that were available through other organizations and other systems like State Corrections, Federal Corrections and FBI statistics. We are looking at databases that might relate to the BOC’s data in terms of providing some explanation or correlation. He said the BOC is going to take a more interactive approach in the coming year with other databases.
Board Member Lee stated that many of the Board-rated capacity facilities are aging at a fairly rapid pace. Is there any data being collected regarding the age of those facilities and what their usable life span would be, and what type of construction in the future would need to be done? Dr. Kohls stated the BOC does not gather this type of information as part of the Jail Profile Survey, but they do in terms of the inspection process and can coordinate the data. The BOC staff could collect this information at the Board’s recommendation. He said one of the things the BOC considered was to try and estimate how many jail beds would be available in the future given the economy, given future building plans, given the age of the facilities and so forth. The BOC could do this at the Board’s recommendation.
Board Member Lee stated that some of the juvenile facilities were built back in the 1930s and 1940s, and they won’t necessarily meet current or future standards. He said because we build and design them today to be less staff intensive that maybe that’s what we need to be looking at.
Board Member Kolender stated that counties seem to be building or at least developing different programs that are alternates to going to a juvenile hall or jail facility. These programs try to help identify problems within the youth population, is that correct? He said he believes the same analogy goes to the adult population as well.
CYA representative Michael Gallegos responded that it would be critical to look at the relationship between the systems i.e. the juvenile and the adult both at the state and county level, because if there is a problem in one area no matter where you look in the system, it’s going to affect the entire system. If the Department of Corrections, for example, doesn’t release inmates early and the law does not change, you run out of capacity, and you run out of “minor misdemeanor offenders” that you could put on the streets, then all of a sudden CDC’s population is going to go up. If mental health at the juvenile or adult level continues to increase in the counties these increases could send additional inmates to the CYA. He said right now the population at CYA is half, so what alternative does CYA have with the unoccupied beds other than close an institution and lay off staff. Why can’t there be some kind of relationship to help out and take advantage of some of these other things?
CYA Representative Michael Gallegos said obviously everything is driven by cost. The reason why CYA is in the mental health business is because the cost of mental health services in the counties or cities was too much, so they closed those facilities. The issues of: cost of salaries, training staff, and the 3.0% at 50 is going to have a tremendous impact in terms of where do you find staff. The difference in salary between a state correctional officer and a deputy on the street is immense. Can we afford at the county level to build a jail/juvenile hall and staff it appropriately. If you don’t staff it appropriately what do you do with the mental health inmate, who is also a gang member, and being supervised by a correctional officer with only two years of experience?
Dr. Kohls stated that he is hearing a number of recommendations from the Board members. One is the BOC gather data more broadly, and second they look at additional variables that have not been looked at before. He said at the next Board meeting, the BOC will be reporting on similar kinds of data for the juvenile system. The reporting of juvenile data began in 1999, so the BOC has several years of data, but not quite as many as the Jail Profile.
Board Member Kolender stated that his understanding regarding the population of the CYA was it was a last resort for juveniles. He said juveniles that were sent to CYA were individuals that failed in every city and county program that was available. Board Member Kolender said as he recalls, if they did not succeed at CYA they went to the Department of Corrections (CDC). The recidivism rate was about 50%, which under the circumstances was not bad.
CYA Representative Michael Gallegos stated that one of the biggest issues was that the law changed. The fact that the legislature decided that for whatever reason, the sliding fee scale would be put into effect really changed the face of how counties could do business – who they could and could not afford to send to the CYA. The counties had to make some horrendous choices. If you send an inmate “Category 7” (burglar, thief, out-of-control) to the CYA under the sliding fee scale, as you know, the county pays the full price. Whereas if you had a juvenile inmate adjudicated for murder, rape, or armed robbery, it is only $150 a month. But that juvenile who the law sees as less violent is usually the one that has used all of the county resources. He said that is probably the juvenile that does need to be in CYA, but because of sheer cost the county can no longer afford to send them. So, either they are going to keep them out in the community until they commit a crime and they end up in the county jail on the adult side, or they are remanded to criminal court and sent to CDC.
Board Member Kolender stated that is disheartening because the purpose at the time was to place the juvenile in CYA for more extensive treatment with the opportunity for success.
Acting Chair Alameida wanted to confirm with Dr. Kohls that he would be making a presentation on juveniles at the July Board meeting. Dr. Kohls said yes. Acting Chair Alameida asked if the Board members had any other questions relative to Dr. Kohls’ presentation. Board Member Silbert stated that Board members are speculating on hypothetical reasons and it is going to be even more so when we get to the juvenile issues because, for example, the BOC has only recently been in charge of overseeing programs operating in the county. She wanted to know if it is feasible to add staff at the BOC to research the possible correlations in order to eliminate the speculation.
Mr. McConnell stated that part of the issue is there must be data available to present. It is easy for everyone to speculate, but you must have some way to verify our professional opinion. He said it may seem like seven years is a long time to gather data and establish trend data, but it is actually a very short timeframe. The BOC now has sufficient jail data to have experts work with and interpret. The BOC is not quite there yet with the juvenile data. We would certainly be willing to bring folks together who are interested to discuss the data, but it would not be much more than speculation at this point. The BOC intends to begin to bring subject matter experts together and hopefully that will create an increase in our knowledge, but data is a critical part of making that happen and with only five years under our belt, there isn’t an awful lot of data to make those types of major assessments.
Establishment of an Executive Steering Committee to Review the Impact of Budget Reductions on the Standards and Training for Corrections Program (Agenda Item F)
Deputy Director Jim Sida commented that Dr. Kohls’ presentation highlight the complexity of all the issues that the BOC is dealing with i.e. mental health, classification, and capacity as a preface in the agenda item proposing the elimination of local training assistance.
In January 2003, Governor Davis proposed to transfer $10.2 million from the Corrections Training Fund (CTF) to the General Fund and eliminate $6.5 million in supplemental funds. This will result in an overall reduction of $16.7 million used to subvent the cost of training local corrections officers. He said this agenda item requests that the Board grant staff the authority to begin the process of appointing an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to review the impact if there is a loss of local assistance provided through the STC program.
Mr. Sida stated that despite the proposed elimination of local assistance, state laws and regulations still require local corrections staff to be trained in accordance with laws, regulations, and community standards established by the courts. While the current budget is still in negotiation, the elimination of local assistance will require a change in the law. Jim stated that at this time the BOC must presume that the Governor’s proposed budget will be approved; therefore in order to meet the challenges set into motion by the proposed elimination of local assistance, BOC staff is recommending that an ESC be assembled to study the impact of the elimination of local assistance on the STC Program. The goal of the ESC is to make recommendations to the BOC that will enable the continued viability of the STC Program within the program framework that has successfully served local corrections in California for 23 years.
Mr. Sida stated that because of the extremely short time horizon for implementation of any changes to STC Program operations that may be required by the elimination of local assistance funding, staff is proposing that the Board consider the following approach to the establishment of the STC Program Review ESC:
Mr. Sida stated that Mr. Alameida recommends the BOC be updated on the progress made by the ESC i.e., members’ activities, and timelines as the July 2003 Board meeting approaches. It is anticipated that the ESC will address identified issues and come before the BOC with final recommendations for any new approach to the STC Program Policies and Procedures at the Board’s October 16, 2003 meeting. After a comprehensive review and analysis process, the STC Program Review ESC will make recommendations to the Board, the Board will accept, reject, or modify the recommendations and publish the results.
Board Member Kolender stated, speaking from his experience as the recent chairman of the POST Commission, he cannot overstate the importance of staff training. He said both agencies (STC and POST Commission) would suffer a great loss if the Governor’s budget passes as proposed. This training is mandated and needs to be done. He said the larger agencies would probably be able to handle the change because of their size and budget, but 80% of the agencies in the state will be unable to adequately train their staff if this proposal goes forward. Mr. Kolender said he is very much in favor of what the BOC staff is proposing.
Mr. Sida stated that Board Member Curtis Hill has agreed to chair the ESC and Board Member Terry Lee to co-chair. Upon the Board’s approval, they would be available to serve in that capacity. He said that other Board members are encouraged to participate.
Mr. McConnell stated that before the Board moves forward to vote on this suggested amendment to the standard ESC process that the Acting Chair is suggesting one further amendment to the process. He said that the additional amendment would be that once the chair and co-chair have made their selection of recommended ESC members that the names be faxed to all Board members giving them an opportunity to review and make proposed changes/additions to the ESC, and then back to the ESC chair and co-chair for their recommendation to Chairman Presley for his final approval.
Acting Chair Alameida approved the recommendations of appointing Board Member Hill and Board Member Lee as chair and co-chair of the ESC.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to direct staff to begin a process that will enable the review and analysis of the proposed loss of local assistance funding on the continued operation of the STC Program; and the Board empower the chair and co-chair of the ESC to appoint additional members of the ESC and, as necessary, empower the ESC to appoint workgroup members to conduct the review and analysis of the impact of the proposed elimination of the CTF local assistance funding on the STC Program was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Bill Kolender. The motion carried.
Field Representative Darryl Datwyler stated that this agenda item would provide Board members with an update on activities associated with the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) Program.
In 1998, the Legislature initiated a major effort aimed at reducing crime, jail crowding, and criminal justice costs associated with mentally ill offenders. Chapter 501, Statutes of 1998 created Penal Code (PC) Article 4, Section 6045 et seq, which in turn established the MIOCRG Program. The law requires the Board of Corrections to award, and administer, competitive grants supporting locally developed strategies for curbing recidivism among mentally ill offenders. The law also requires the Board to evaluate the effectiveness of this program and to report its findings to the Legislature annually.
Initially the Board awarded $50.6 million to 15 grantees, which are referred to as the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant I projects (MIOCRG I). In fiscal year 2000/2001, the State Budget Act provided an additional $50 million for the MIOCRG Program, and these funds were awarded to an additional 15 counties, which are referred to as the MIOCRG II projects. MIOCRG I and MIOCRG II now consist of 30 demonstration projects in 26 counties. However, in the 2002/03 State Budget Act, the third year funding for MIOCRG II projects was eliminated, reducing available grant funds by $18 million.
Mr. Datwyler stated that in order to serve the projected numbers for the MIOCRG I project and gather useful, statistically significant outcome data, the counties requested that the California State Sheriffs’ Association seek legislation approving a one-year unfunded extension on the demonstration grants. The Legislature recognizing the counties’ needs for adequate time to operate and evaluate their projects supported that effort.
Mr. Datwyler stated that Board staff developed a process for creating contract amendments associated with the extension of the grant period for MIOCRG I projects. Fourteen of the counties have elected to extend their project from June 30, 2003 to June 30, 2004. At the same time, staff continues to examine MIOCRG I project expenditures to date, projecting through the end of the grant period.
Mr. Datwyler said with respect to MIOCRG II projects, Board staff has been assisting in the development and completion of amended contracts, reducing the amount of grant awards, and where necessary, amending certain aspects of the projects in view of the reductions. Eight of the projects have completed amended contracts.
Mr. Datwyler said as part of the technical assistance program, Board staff has conducted regularly scheduled Project Managers’ meetings. These meetings, which have been hosted by counties on a rotational basis, provided Board staff an opportunity to share information on grant management issues and to receive updates on project implementation efforts. The meetings also provided an opportunity for project managers, financial personnel, and other key staff to exchange information about program challenges and successes. He stated that in response to State budget restraints, and the fact that all the projects are well along in the operation of their programs, Board staff has elected to discontinue the Project Managers’ meetings. In its place, Board staff has provided additional technical assistance to individual projects, when needed.
Mr. Datwyler stated that an essential component to the funding effort is the evaluation of the effectiveness of these projects. As of the last reporting period, which was June 2002, the MIOCRG I projects served nearly 2,400 clients of the anticipated 5,400 clients. Board research staff will be comparing reported data on these clients to reported data on 4,645 individuals receiving treatment as usual.
Mr. Datwyler stated for the MIOCRG II projects approximately 2,300 clients were to be served over the term of the grant and a total of nearly 1,400 individuals were to receive treatment as usual. He said these numbers would be reduced due to state funding reductions. Mr. Datwyler commented that on March 15, 2003, the Board received the first data sets from the MIOCRG II projects, which contained the initial outcome data on those projects, and that data is currently being analyzed. He said that while the data reported to date is insufficient to draw any definite conclusions regarding this grant program, preliminary data on the approximately 4,600 MIOCRG I clients does indicate some promising trends that relate to criminal justice outcomes.
Mr. Datwyler said the overarching goal of the MIOCRG program is to reduce jail time among persons with a mental illness. The program is clearly achieving the desired results by substantially decreasing the average number of jail days. In addition to reducing the average number of jail days by 40% for the enhanced treatment group (from 70 to 42), the MIOCRG Program has thus far resulted in a 36% decrease in the total number of jail days served by these clients – from 31,367 two years prior to program entry to 19, 962 after two years of participation. The data also show that the MIOCRG Program has resulted in a greater decrease in the total number of convictions among individuals receiving enhanced treatment compared to treatment as usual (57% vs. 47%) and in the average number of convictions (65% vs. 57%).
Mr. Datwyler stated that the average number of jail bookings for persons receiving enhanced treatment has decreased 50% (vs. 33% for the treatment as usual group). The only criminal justice variable for which the data currently show a larger decrease for the treatment as usual group is total bookings (46% vs. 38%), but this is not surprising in light of the fact that the MIOCRG projects are using intensive probation supervision (with very low caseloads) to closely monitor clients in the community. He said intensive supervision inevitably results in more probation violations (thus bookings) than regular probation supervision, which involves caseloads in the hundreds.
Mr. Datwyler said Board staff also analyzed the fiscal impact of the MIOCRG Program on jail costs. There has been a 36% reduction in jail bed costs for the enhanced treatment group (a savings of $659,095), over twice as much as the reduced costs for the treatment as usual group ($307,558). He said the cost was determined by a 1999 survey that was conducted by Board staff, which found that throughout the state the average bed costs in adult facilities was around $58 a day. In closing, the Board staff continues to be encouraged by the outcome data.
Acting Chair Alameida asked what the two years since the program means? Mr. Datwyler responded it means operating in the program two years with treatment. The counties have also experienced savings across the board in the treatment as usual groups. He said it is a little early to say, but the speculation the counties are giving to Board staff is that the treatment as usual groups are receiving more services than previously available, as a result of new treatment programs coming into place. But the services are not as full a treatment package as the enhanced group. It is clear that treatment as usual is enhanced, even though it is not as enhanced as the programs themselves.
Board Member Silbert stated that, in other words, there was no treatment before but now there is. Mr. Datwyler said that is correct.
Board Member Lee stated that the data is very similar to the Prop 36 data, which indicates the more probation supervision is involved with the client, the more successful the client. Even though the bookings might be up because the probation officer reacts to technical violations, the overall end result is that there are lower days in jail. Mr. Datwyler said that is correct. The bookings are higher, but what you see usually are technical violations that result in relatively less jail time than bookings for a new offense.
Board Member Silbert stated this might be early for a recommendation from the Board, but would like to have it in the minutes. She stated that as a Board member that serves the Governor and Legislature by appointment, it seems to her to be almost unconscionable to take people and give them this level of service for a couple of years, document that it makes a difference, a significant savings as well as helping people turn their lives around, and then dump them from the program so they can all fail significantly after having been helped. Ms. Silbert stated that if you do a pilot program that really involves something this significant i.e., changing human lives, I think they (Governor and Legislature) have an obligation to continue the funding to provide the services that they just evaluated as effective if, in fact, the evaluation continues to demonstrate that enhanced treatment makes a difference at every level, which so far it does.
Acting Chair Alameida commented that the funding for MIOCRG I was discontinued, but the counties requested authorization from the Legislature to continue their programs beyond that period of time. He asked whether all the counties continued their programs. Mr. Datwyler stated that 14 out of the 15 MIOCRG I project counties asked for the additional one-year unfunded extension. He said the counties were having difficulty initially with the original numbers they projected to serve and also, because of late start up. There were funds available that they weren’t going to be using. This one-year extension allowed them to achieve the numbers they originally intended to serve and fully utilize the grant funds available.
Acting Chair Alameida asked whether the Board is doing any research analysis on these programs to determine if they do discontinue what happens to the individual as it relates to their future. Mr. Datwyler said no. Acting Chair Alameida asked whether they become a burden on the community and everyone else by virtue of the fact they act out and commit crimes and eventually come into the criminal justice system. Mr. Datwyler stated the BOC is not doing any studies in that area.
Board Member Silbert stated that all prior research has shown throughout the course of history that is likely to be the case. Acting Chair Alameida stated that Board Member Silbert’s point is well taken, the Department of Corrections has a large mental health population, and if they can stem the tide of that early on and not have those individuals continually commit acts of violence on the community by having them enrolled in mental health type programs, it serves the state far better than the prison system having to pick up the cost of dealing with those individuals once they enter the criminal justice system. He said sooner or later we’re going to pay for it.
Mr. McConnell stated that these pilots were intended to be four-year programs. And, what has been cut off is an additional year on the last project and, strangely enough, the Department of Finance’s rationale for recommending the elimination of the last year of funding is that the programs have already shown to be successful. Their point being how many more pilots do you need to prove that it works, which is actually true. The legislature has now put a commission together at the Agency level to address the issue of statewide mental health conditions in the criminal justice system. Deputy Director Bill Crout will be presenting to the commission both the findings and recommendations from the MIOCRG programs. He said the findings demonstrate the need for a state system approach, not just in pilot project format, but a statewide-accelerated approach for all counties. But, in the end, it will be a policy decision outside this pilot project.
Mr. McConnell stated it is indeed a strange period of time when you take successful programs and suggest because of their success we stop them.
Field Representative Karen Stoll stated that this agenda item is an update of activities associated with administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. At the January 16, 2003, Board meeting the results of the first year were presented to the Board. Ms. Stoll stated that they served over 96,000 kids in 56 counties through 185 programs last year at an average cost of about $1,200 per minor. The results of the program exceeded what staff thought they would see in the implementation year. Staff saw a drop in arrest rates, drop in incarceration rates for kids that were in the programs, an increase in completion of probation, increased restitution, and increased community service.
Ms. Stoll stated that an additional outcome that staff saw was a drop in truancy rates because kids were attending school. The monies that were expected to go to the counties ten months in advance (October 2002) were actually distributed in March 2003, which will have a minor impact on some of the counties, because they won’t earn the interest rate that they would have earned for those months.
Ms. Stoll stated that the BOC continues to improve its online reporting system and online notification system. Recently, the BOC added an e-mail notification provision to the system. The e-mail notification is sent to all Chief Probation Officers, project managers, and fiscal officers to keep them up-to-date with changes and the latest developments in the JJCPA program. She said they are receiving favorable comments from the counties. Staff has also received many comments about improved collaboration, and a sense of value in the program that they hope doesn’t go away.
Ms. Stoll read the following e-mail from Mr. Tom Frady, of Plumas County: “If anyone asks, this has been the best $70,000 the county has ever received.” She said Mr. Frady’s sentiment echoes what she is hearing throughout the counties. Currently, staff is working to provide technical assistance to the counties. The counties are flushing out any problems they may have had in the first and second year. She said they expect to continue to have good results with the program.
Ms. Stoll asked the Board members if they had any questions. Board Member Lee said he would also echo Board Member Mimi Silbert’s comment about pilot programs. It’s been stated today that there is a drop in the number of kids going to the Youth Authority. Some of that can be attributed to cost. New programs like this coming online and challenge dollars coming online really have an impact on probation officers being able to be out in the field working with some of the more high-risk kids and providing the types of programs that keep them out of the juvenile justice system. Mr. Lee stated he concurs with Mr. Frady, “I am from a small county and those are the best dollars we have out there.”
Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that nearly two years ago the BOC directed staff to begin the process to review and, if necessary, revise the minimum standards for juvenile facilities. Board Member Curtis Hill was appointed chair and Board Member Tom Soto was appointed co-chair. At the November 15, 2001 meeting, the thirteen member Executive Steering Committee (ESC) was approved by the BOC along with a timeline for how the process would proceed.
At the behest of the ESC, BOC staff brought together seventy-three professionals, with expertise in the field of local corrections, to participate in the workgroup process. Eight distinct workgroups were asked to review specific articles and regulations of Titles 15 and 24, to consider issues submitted from the field and BOC staff, and to review and respond to critical policy issues identified by the ESC. Mr. Crout explained that on June 5-6, 2002, the ESC met and considered the recommendations as presented by the chairs of each workgroup. The ESC unanimously approved the recommendations with only minor modifications.
Mr. Crout stated that at the September 19, 2002 meeting, the BOC accepted the recommendations of the ESC and adopted the proposed revisions to the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, CCR, and authorized BOC staff to initiate the 45-day public comment period. The public comment period commenced on November 29, 2002, and ended on January 13, 2002. On December 2, 2002, BOC Board Member Gary Mann chaired the first public hearing at the Santa Ana Police Department. A second public hearing was held on January 13, 2003 at the BOC meeting room, and Board Member Curtis Hill chaired that public hearing.
Mr. Crout explained that at the conclusion of the public comment period, Board Member Curtis Hill, chair of the ESC, and Chief Probation Officer (CPO) Stephanie Lewis, Orange County Probation Department, ESC member met and examined each public comment presented. Board Member Hill and CPO Lewis concluded that all issues raised in the public comment period concerning the proposed regulation revisions had been discussed in depth during workgroup and ESC meetings. Therefore, they determined no changes needed to be made, based upon any of the public comments that were received. Staff was directed to proceed with preparing the final draft of Titles 15 and 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities and to submit it to the BOC for adoption.
Mr. Crout stated that the listed attachments are contained in each Board Members’ agenda packet; Attachment A the Written and Oral Testimony from the 45-Day Public Comment Period and the Public Hearings, Title 15 Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Detention Facilities; Attachment B the Written and Oral Testimony from the 45-Day Public Comment Period and the Public Hearings, Title 24 Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities. Attachment C; Final Statement of Reasons for Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities; Attachment D is the Final Statement of Reasons for Title 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities, and Attachment E is the Final Statement of Reasons for Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities. Each item in the Final Statement of Reasons explains why regulations were proposed for change.
Mr. Crout stated that the final draft of the text for the proposed Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities is provided in Attachment F, and Title 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities is provided in Attachment G. The final draft of the text for the proposed Title 15 Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities is provided in Attachment H. All the above documents are part of the permanent rulemaking file required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
Staff is recommending that the BOC approve the proposed changes to Titles 15 and 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities and Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities and asking the BOC to authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.
Acting Chair Alameida asked whether anyone in the audience had any questions. There were none.
A motion to approve the proposed changes to Titles 15 and 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities and Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities and to authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.
Mr. Crout stated that at the January 16, 2003 meeting, pursuant to Penal Code 6030, the BOC directed staff to begin the standards review process for the Minimum Standards for Adult Detention Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR). Chairman Presley appointed Board members William Kolender as chair and Gary Mann as co-chair of the ESC. On February 26, 2003, BOC staff met with the chair and co-chair to develop a potential list of ESC members, which is attached in the agenda packet and a proposed timeline, also attached for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Crout stated that staff is recommending the Board approve the composition of the ESC and the timeline for the adult standards revision process.
A motion to approve the composition of the ESC and the timeline for the adult standards revision process was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Mr. Sida stated that he would normally be reporting on the number of agencies that have applied for STC funding, but because of the state’s budget situation this year’s funding is uncertain. The BOC is preparing for this at two levels 1) be in a position to move forward if funding is restored, and in the event that it is not 2) try to look for supportive ways to assist agencies to meet their professional training needs. Mr. Sida stated that the counties were asked to submit their Annual Training Plans (ATP) in the absence of funding guarantees. Included in the agenda packet is a listing of local county and city corrections agencies that have agreed to participate in the program on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Sida stated that the voluntary submission of the ATP, absent the local assistance funding, is a significant departure from the STC process. While subvention funding is proposed to be eliminated, there are many other significant benefits resulting from an agency participating in the STC Program. Listed below are the benefits local agencies will continue to receive:
· access to entry-level written selection examinations;
· STC course certification system;
· centralized development and on-going maintenance of CORE curricula;
· coordinated training documentation and delivery system;
· strength of numbers; and
· security of participating in a program with an established track history
Mr. Sida stated that the counties are required to submit their ATP by April 15th of each year. He said he was not able to compile the data of the voluntary participation results in time to mail them to members prior to the Board meeting. However, he is very pleased to announce that, as of today, we do have 100% participation from every agency that participated in the program last year based upon ATPs received as of April 15, 2003. Mr. Sida expressed his sincere thanks to the Board for their support of the STC program over the more than 22 years the program has served local corrections and to his staff that has worked diligently, but most importantly to the agencies that have had the confidence and faith to endure during this very difficult time. He said with the establishment of the STC Program Review ESC, he believes we will be able to work through the difficulties and continue to meet the professional training needs of the local corrections community.
Mr. Sida stated that there are no significant legislative changes that would impact the BOC.
Meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (absent)
Edward S. Alameida, Jr., Director, Department of Corrections
Michael Gallegos, Deputy Director, represented Department of the Youth Authority
Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department (absent)
Robert Hoffman, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (absent)
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Terry D. Lee, Chief Probation Officer, Trinity County Probation Department
Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Bill J. Nettles, Deputy Probation Officer, Los Angeles County Probation Department
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management (absent)
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises (absent)
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)
Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, FSOD
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Darryl Datwyler, Field Representative, FSOD
Toni Hafey, Deputy Director, CPPD
Fred Morawcznski, Field Representative, CPPD
Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Field Representative, CPPD
Doug Austin, Colusa County Sheriff’s Department
Steve Bautista, Contra Costa County Probation Department
Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Dan Cunningham, Napa Department of Corrections
Rebecca Davis, Madera County Department of Corrections
John Dietler, Dietler Group
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Bob Dotts, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Ken Duncan, Nevada County Sheriff’s Department
Cora Guy, Sonoma County Probation Department
Larry Hollingsworth, Yolo County Sheriff’s Department
Michael Hughes, Nevada County Sheriff’s Department
Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
David Keyes, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Jackie Kubin, Contra County Sheriff’s Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
Warren Nobles, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Philip A. Revolinsly, Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
George Roemer, Contra Costa County Probation Department
William Shinn, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department
Verne Speirs, Sacramento County Probation Department
Greg Trindle, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department
Ron Wilborn, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Barry Zuniga, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department