Welcome to California California Home
Home
About Us
Facilities
Programs
Training
Research
Directories
Links
Navigation Tips
Publications
Recruitment
Regulations
Travel Info
Feedback
Archives


    My CA     This Site 
 Minutes of Board of Corrections Meeting, 1/18/2001

Minutes
Board of Corrections Meeting

Thursday, January 18, 2001
Board of Corrections
660 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA  95814

Chairman Robert Presley called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and asked the Executive Assistant to call roll to establish the presence of a quorum.  Answering present were Robert Presley, Steve Cambra, Jerry Harper, David Lehman, Taylor Moorehead, Zev Yaroslavsky, Lou Blanas, Curtis Hill, Timothy Jenkins, Mimi Silbert, and Tom Soto.  Noting that a quorum was present, the meeting proceeded.  Chairman Presley announced that members Silbert, Jenkins, and Hill were reappointed by Governor Davis to three-year terms.  All three remain subject to Senate confirmation, along with Messrs. Blanas, Moorehead, and Yaroslavsky.  Chairman Presley asked that new members Cambra and Lehman step forward to receive the oath of office.  He welcomed them both to the Board and noted that Mr. Cambra had been appointed acting Director of the Department of Corrections following Cal Terhune’s retirement.

Approval of the Minutes of the November 16, 2000, Board of Corrections Meeting (Agenda Item A)

Chairman Presley called for a motion on the minutes of the November 16, 2000, meeting.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the November 16, 2000, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Yaroslavsky and seconded by Dr. Silbert. The motion carried.

Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grants – Presentation by Solano County (Agenda Item B)

Field Representative Fred Morawcznski introduced Mike Barber, the Board’s Field Representative who works with Solano County’s Challenge program.  Mr. Barber said the county actually has two Challenge programs:  the Day Reporting Center and the Intensive Community Action Program.  He introduced Mike Robak, Chief Probation Officer of Solano County, to describe the two programs.

Mr. Robak was pleased to appear and thanked the Board’s staff for their help with the programs.  He said the county had enthusiastically started the Challenge I process with a plan and a coordinating council, yet were unsuccessful in the bid for funds.  Through mentoring by the Board’s staff, however, Solano County was granted funds for Challenge II.  He specifically acknowledged the assistance of Thom McConnell, Toni Hafey, Mike Barber, Al Lammers, and former staff Les Johnson, as well as the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for conducting the research component.

Day Reporting Center

Mr. Robak said the idea for the Day Reporting Center came from Attorney General Janet Reno, who said that 70% of juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.  The Center operates until 8:00 p.m. as a supplement to the school program.  Youths are picked up after school and transported to the Center by program staff.  Since the Center is located on the grounds of the Juvenile Justice complex, lunch and dinner are provided by the kitchen at Juvenile Hall.  In the evening hours, youths are transported to their homes.  The program includes vocational counseling, family counseling, life skills, anger management, substance abuse, tutoring, recreation, etc.

The target population, from the cities of Fairfield/Suisun, are youths on probation after serving at least 10 days in detention.  Most program participants have served between 30-45 days in detention. 

The program follows a true experimental design, with half of the youths in a control group and half entered into the program.

Mr. Robak was particularly proud to have met the grant application goal of admitting the first juveniles into the program by December 1999 – quite an accomplishment in the three and a half months between grant award and program implementation.

The Day Reporting Center is run by a community-based organization and three probation staff sited at the facility.  About 25 youths are currently involved, from different backgrounds and affiliations all in a single room, yet there has been no negative incident in 13 months of operation.  Over the summer, many of the youths worked part-time in the community, and most went to summer school.

Mr. Robak reported that the Juvenile Court Judge was extremely pleased with the program, which will be replicated in Vallejo and has become a cornerstone of the county’s proposal under the Crime Prevention Act of 2000.  The county has considered the success of Day Reporting Centers in its projections for detention beds.

An important reason for its success is that the youths assigned to a caseload are actively supervised.  Preliminary figures indicate that roughly three-fourths of program participants attended alcohol and drug counseling, anger management, and/or conflict resolution, and over half received some type of mental health counseling.  The control group had less than 5% receiving these services. 

Community Probation Program – Vallejo

This program, modeled after Alameda County’s Challenge I program, is based on positive rewards for meeting expectations rather than reacting when youths don’t meet expectations.  Youths placed on probation for serious felony offenses and probation violators returned to the community after juvenile hall detention are randomly selected for assignment to either the experimental group or the control group.  Two senior probation officers are sited at and work closely with the court schools and community-based organizations to ensure immediate involvement in activities that promote positive behavior.  The officers set high standards and also work closely with families.  Program participants are obliged to attend summer school and achieve passing grades for which rewards such as field trips are given, and they are involved in Life Skills groups.  With a high success rate, recidivism to date has involved only two participants with minor offenses.

Chairman Presley asked what age group was most involved.  Mr. Robak said ages ranged from 11 to 17, with most participants about 15.  Chairman Presley asked if many had no family.  Mr. Robak replied that most do have extended family, and after release from the program are returned to the community under the care of their families.  Chairman Presley asked how many had stayed out of trouble during the 13 months of operation.  Mr. Robak said that in the Community Probation Program, none have been in trouble.  Preliminary figures from the Day Reporting Center show that about 48 minors have been in trouble.  The recidivism rate, however, is about equal for the two programs.  The violation of probation rate is about 50% less in the Day Reporting Center treatment group than in the control group.

Mr. Moorehead asked whether the county had applied for and received any grant funds to build juvenile facilities.  Mr. Robak stated that in 1997, the county received Violent Offender grant funds from the Board to build a 28-bed expansion.  Those beds went on-line in 1999, raising the juvenile hall capacity from 60 to 88.  Mr. Moorehead wondered if they currently had an application for additional funds.  Mr. Robak said the county was preparing an application to replace its 1959 juvenile hall and to expand the 30-bed treatment program on-site.

Chairman Presley thanked Mr. Robak for his presentation on an encouraging program.

Federal and State Consent/Information Items (Agenda Item C)

Deputy Director Toni Hafey advised the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and listed timeline changes for nine counties on ten separate projects.  The changes ranged from additional time to meet environmental requirements to value engineering to meet project scope.  Two project scope changes will increase the number of beds in two counties and one county grant award was modified to enable the funds to be spent on a federal contract to meet federal environmental requirements.  Ms. Hafey noted the process was consistent with the Board-approved policy pursuant to the Penal Code, which allows for delegation to staff for these specific situations.  The policy was designed to expedite project implementation timelines.  There were no questions from Board members.

Suitability Assessment – San Bernardino County Probation Department (Agenda Item D)

Deputy Director Bill Crout presented this agenda item relative to the declaration of “suitability” for the San Bernardino County Probation Department Central Juvenile Hall project.  As this was the first such proposal to be brought before the Board, Mr. Crout provided some background.

In 1995, the Board of Corrections was assigned responsibility for inspecting juvenile halls and conducted a comprehensive review of all statutes and regulations affecting the Board’s responsibilities.  Section 209 of the Welfare and Institutions Code implemented a zero tolerance policy for the suitability of juvenile halls in the state; i.e., if a juvenile hall was out of compliance with even a single Title 15 or 24 regulation, the Board had no other option than to declare that facility as unsuitable for the confinement of minors.  Based upon Board of Corrections inspection data at that time, 46 of the state’s 58 juvenile halls were unsuitable.  The standard was unrealistically high given previous case law on crowded jails.  Consequently, the Board found itself responsible for a statute that was not enforceable. 

To remedy the situation, SB 2147 (Chapter 694, Statutes of 1998) amended Section 209 by providing that the “suitability” of a crowded juvenile detention facility be based upon a “totality of conditions.”  Simply stated, a juvenile hall may be crowded, but it may also meet constitutional minimums for conditions of confinement.  For example, in a juvenile facility where the population has exceeded its rated capacity, if all exercise time, school time, medical/mental health services, nutrition, and staffing requirements (to name a few) are met, then the facility could be found to be suitable.

Recognizing the need to develop a process for assessing suitability, the Board, at its May 1997 meeting, directed staff to form a Juvenile Facility Crowding Work Group.  This work group consisted of subject matter experts who developed the “Crowding Assessment Process,” which was pilot tested in six counties and further refined.  The Board formally adopted the process in November 1998 and directed staff to begin its implementation on January 1, 1999. 

For the past two years, Board staff has worked to continually assess the suitability of California’s local juvenile detention facilities through the Crowding Assessment Process (using instruments developed by the work group), the biennial inspection of facilities, and through inspection reports forwarded to the Board from the counties’ juvenile justice commissions and health departments.  The process involves two forms: a Crowding Assessment Report that provides a brief look at each county that reports crowding during the month and a Comprehensive Crowding Assessment Report for more detailed information provided by counties with chronic crowding.  Staff have worked with a number of chief probation officers and juvenile hall superintendents with crowded facilities to develop Suitability Plans that identify ways to mitigate their crowding.  Because each facility is unique, each plan is tailor-made.

San Bernardino County Central Juvenile Hall

Staff recognize that detention facilities have a finite holding capacity and at some point will be unable to use any mitigating factors to reach suitability without reducing the population.  San Bernardino County has thus come to the attention of the Board.  The county’s Central Juvenile Hall (CJH) has experienced crowded conditions since the 1996-97 inspection cycle.  During the latest biennial inspection in October 1999, Board staff observed the ramifications of the crowded conditions.  The housing units at CJH each have a Board-rated capacity of 20; but on the date of the inspection, all but one of the housing units held 30 minors or more, and one held 60 minors.  This impacted the ratio of minors to wash basins, toilets, showers, etc., which put stress on plumbing and other systems, and decreased the amount of available program space. 

On March 17, 2000, as a result of the inspection as well as issues identified in the county’s Crowding Assessment Reports, Board staff sent a letter to the county requiring the development of a Suitability Plan.  The letter identified areas that did not comply with Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations, and addressed concerns regarding the totality of conditions at CJH.  The plan was to include, at a minimum:  a description of how the county intended to remedy noncompliance issues, a timely implementation schedule, and a description of methods the county would use to reduce the crowded conditions of the juvenile hall.

The county provided the Suitability Plan on August 9, 2000.  Upon reading the plan and subsequent interactions with county staff, Mr. Crout reported that San Bernardino County has been extremely responsive to Board staff’s recommendations.  They have updated policies and procedures, added extra staff, added training for staff, and repaired physical plant deficiencies.  The Board of Supervisors has also responded by providing the financial resources to accomplish these changes.  A review of the Suitability Plan itself indicates that the county is doing everything possible, both programmatically and with long-range building plans, to meet the needs of the present and the future.  However, more action is required to ensure that the facility is a suitable place to confine minors.  Consequently, and with continued collaboration, the county has developed the Emergency Response Plan for outstanding issues of suitability. 

Mr. Crout invited staff from San Bernardino County to describe the Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan.  Present were Chief Probation Officer Ray Wingerd, Assistant Chief Probation Officer Claude Potts, Juvenile Hall Superintendent George Post, and Architecture/ Engineering staff Ken Taylor.

Mr. Wingerd thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan.  He said he especially appreciated conversations with Mr. McConnell and Ms. Hafey of the Board’s staff in working with the county to achieve a common goal – to provide a secure, safe, and properly designed facility for housing probation youths.  Since the county has fallen so far behind in terms of capacity, it has become necessary to develop the Suitability Plan and Emergency Response Plan, which is far from acceptable for the long-term, but nevertheless necessary to meet the current emergency.  The county fully recognizes this fact.  Alternatives considered included modulars or quickly constructed wooden barracks that could accommodate between 30 and 90 youths.  However, the county felt that this was an unsatisfactory building design and this type of construction would require frequent on-going maintenance into the future, and would still not be safe and secure for either youths or staff.  With the Board of Supervisors, the Probation Department discussed at length these quick-fix alternatives versus using a short-term emergency plan for a few years until a suitable long-term facility could be constructed.

Mr. Wingerd also thanked Mr. Crout and Field Representative Charlene Aboytes for their wise and helpful input and their willingness to meet on short notice in order to arrive at this plan.  This intense collaboration occurred over a year’s time since the county received the Board’s letter notifying them of the seriousness of conditions at CJH, and the subsequent request for a Suitability Plan.  Mr. Wingerd also commented that the standards that are in place do, indeed, work by forcing counties to face the fact that they have a problem and to get serious about funding, proper staffing, etc. 

Mr. Wingerd used a PowerPoint presentation containing the following highlights.

History:  Suitability Issues

March 17, 2000           BOC notifies county on issues and conditions at CJH

August 8, 2000             County submits comprehensive Suitability Plan

December 19, 2000     County submits letter to Secretary Presley for Emergency Suspension of Standards and outlines emergency housing plan

January 18, 2001          Chief Probation Officer presents Emergency Response Plan to BOC

Problem Statement – Crowding

·        Since 1996 the average detained population at CJH has increased 15% each year

·        Population increase in the year 2000 was 26%

·        Peak population of 606 minors reached on October 29, 2000

·        BOC approved capacity at CJH is 277 beds

County’s Operating Bed Needs Assumptions Based on Projects

1990    Year 2000 detention bed need – 466

            Year 2010 detention bed need – 505

1997    Year 2000 detention bed need – 474

            Year 2010 detention bed need – 625

1999    Year 2000 detention bed need – 435

            Year 2010 detention bed need – 672

Average of three assessment studies  –  458 detention beds in the year 2000

Year 2000 average daily population – 535

County’s total population capacity – 299

Year 2001 detention bed projection – 696

  • Year 2005 bed need   –  875
  • Year 2010 bed need – 1,152

Pursuit of Detention Housing Options – Off-Site

·        Insufficient capacity in the state to mitigate county’s overcrowded conditions

·        County officials visited 16 separate buildings and sites

·        County team toured a “hardback tent” complex

Mr. Wingerd said the county found 200 empty beds in California, but they were for very specific uses; i.e., emotionally disturbed youths, sexual offenders, etc., and not appropriate for San Bernardino’s population of minors.  Additionally, no replacement beds were available for San Bernardino County to place surplus youths.  A further consideration was that the 535 average daily population includes over 150 youths who have been adjudicated and are awaiting placement.  Of the 16 possible alternative housing sites identified within the county, all were rejected due to several reasons, but mostly because they would require the county to put millions of dollars toward making a site suitable.  These sites included an old, former post office and a former Costco building that would ultimately remain unsuitable or inadequate and would amount to an off-site annex presenting security and administrative issues. 

At the March Air Force Base, the team toured a hardback tent complex similar to those used in Desert Storm during the Gulf War.  The tents appeared to be the most viable alternative for a short-term “bridging” solution.  Mr. Wingerd displayed a slide of the proposed site plan showing the proposed location of six soft-sided structures or tents within the existing CJH boundaries and a slide detailing the internal structure of one of the 18x72-foot tents designed to hold 20 youths.  The site would use a mobile restroom and shower facility and would be fenced separately within the overall grounds.  The inside fenced area includes space for four additional tents if needed; however, Mr. Wingerd understood the county would need to receive Board approval of any additional tents.  He said the tents would have wooden floors less than a foot off the ground, canvas over the framework, telephones, air conditioning and heating, lighting, ten bunk beds, and a day room area for program and dining. 

In addition to increased staffing and the use of temporary structures, the third component of the Plan is a House Arrest Program and Public/Private Sector Placement Beds.  Fortunately, through the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000, San Bernardino County will receive approximately $5.9 million, which will be used for the House Arrest Program.  The county already has the approval of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to use the funds for this program, but must still submit the proposal to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Corrections.  The county proposes using $2.2 million annually to provide house arrest for juveniles who would otherwise be detained in juvenile hall.  To date the county has had up to 24 youths on house arrest; the new program would allow up to 70 youths who would be diverted at intake to house arrest.  The county is designing the program, which will be taken to the presiding judge in February for probable implementation by April. 

The other part of the plan is to contract with private providers for placement beds.  A request for proposals (RFP) was sent out and two proposals were received and are under discussion; i.e., Vision Quest and the Family Service Agency of San Bernardino.  Vision Quest could accommodate up to 150 youths, 124 in a short-term, 90-day program, and a possible residence hall for another 24 youths at George Air Force Base near Victorville.  The Family Service Agency of San Bernardino is considering a 60-bed long-term program.  Although details remain to be resolved, the county is excited about the potential for getting these youths out of juvenile hall, into placement, and reducing the crowding at CJH.

Progress on Suitability Plan – January 2001

·        County has funded full time Juvenile Corrections Officer positions to meet standards

·        Psychiatrist position increased to full time

·        Facilities maintenance staff has been increased by two full time positions

·        All plumbing, maintenance, and electrical repairs are completed

·        Funding for new infrastructure and new unit plumbing has been allocated

·        Funding for a new fire alarm system has been allocated

·        Storage standards are met

·        Staff and program for the assessment and appropriate placement of minors were added

·        160 new beds are under construction

·        Remodel program is underway, which will add 69 detention beds

·        Funding for new classrooms is approved

·        Funding for “hardback tents” is approved

Managing the Hardback Tent Housing Annex

·        Appropriately classified post-adjudicated minors

·        The Board of Supervisors has authorized:

    • Full time Division Director for design, implementation and ongoing management
    • Staffing ratio increase from 1:10 to 1:8
    • Two additional staff on each shift for security and program support
    • Four additional supervisors
    • All staff will be qualified corrections officers
    • Security cameras and fencing
    • Transition training
    • All program standards will be in place

Request for Emergency Suspension of Standards

·        Four strategies to mitigate crowded conditions

    • House Arrest Program
    • Expanding placement beds
    • Authorized beds in existing units
    • Hardback tent housing annex

Chairman Presley thanked Mr. Wingerd and asked if any Board members had questions.

Mr. Yaroslavsky asked who owned March Air Force Base.  Mr. Post replied it was the City of Victorville.  Mr. Yaroslavsky asked if there were old barracks on the site that could be used.  Mr. Wingerd said there were three-story concrete residential structures on site, and Vision Quest was negotiating for the lease of at least one structure.  He said the RFP contained authorization to use this as a long-term solution.  Mr. Yaroslavsky wondered if the site had been considered for the short-term solution as well.  Mr. Wingerd said they had actually looked at the site a couple of years ago, but were denied use as a juvenile hall because that did not fit into the site’s overall business plan.  In addition, remodeling of the less-than-suitable structure would have cost millions and millions of dollars.  Had the county put that kind of money into making the structure workable, it would have to have served as the juvenile hall for 30 years.  By buying time and taking pains for a few years, the county will instead have a beautifully designed, “real” juvenile hall of approximately 400 beds billed out at $106 million.

Dr. Silbert said she was glad the Board had pushed the issue for the county to realize the depth of their problem, and she wished the same had been done for San Francisco County years ago as their juvenile hall is an abomination.  She commended San Bernardino County for working together through this process and, while the tents may not be the most desirable, they provide the best temporary solution.  She commented that not much was said about programs, and suggested that perhaps more programming could alleviate the poor physical situation.  Mr. Wingerd said the county would meet all of the program standards, but not all of the physical plant restraints.  Dr. Silbert said that San Francisco County has a high percentage of youths in juvenile hall awaiting placement and presumed that situation to be widespread.  She hoped the Legislature could be made aware of this issue, which currently remains unaddressed.  Dr. Silbert supported Vision Quest developing something locally, but believed they already had a number of programs in place and wondered if they couldn’t accept a number of youths immediately on a county placement.  Mr. Wingerd answered that Vision Quest placements were out of state, which presents many difficulties.  Dr. Silbert reiterated the desperate need statewide to develop residential placement, which is clearly illustrated by San Bernardino’s projections for youths going into juvenile hall.  Using juvenile halls for youths to just sit and wait for placement is creating a time bomb and, without a solution, juvenile halls will explode, even while more are being built.  She hopes the county can find placement for more than the 150 youths planned for and that the community supervision program, aside from house arrest, perhaps will arouse the community.  Perhaps the Board could use its leverage by sitting on counties facility-wise to force development of community-based punishments.  She said many counties could be standing where San Bernardino is today, and stressed again the importance of “placement – placement – placement.”  In Dr. Silbert’s experience with counties, a high percentage of youths going home to families are going to crime-involved families or drug-involved families.  Counties try to keep youths with their families, but too often theirs is not a family structure that necessarily can do what is envisioned or hoped for.

Mr. Soto asked:  1) how can the Board ensure the long-term funding capability of the county to meet the growing demand of San Bernardino County; 2) acknowledging the current facility crisis, what was planned from a programmatic and preventative point of view to assure mitigation with respect to exceeding the projected numbers; and 3) what was the legal precedent being set that allows the Chairman to waive and provide an emergency status to the current crisis (what legal vulnerabilities might surface in the future; i.e., discrimination lawsuits, etc., due to inadequate facilities).  Regarding funding, Mr. Wingerd said all funding was in place to build 160 beds at West Valley.  The county is also submitting two grant applications for state construction funding from grants currently available; i.e., for the High Desert Juvenile Hall in the Victorville area for 200 beds and also for an additional 240 beds at the CJH.  They plan to use the same design model as in West Valley.  If not successful in obtaining these grants, the County Administrative Officer has informed Mr. Wingerd that the county is beginning to build funds anyway as the county recognizes that the problem is real and it must be addressed.  Receiving the grant funds would, of course, allow the county to go even further with needed construction.  Mr. Wingerd noted that the projections shown did not take into account any success in placement or alternative detention.  He agreed with Dr. Silbert that the county must take a much stronger stance and look further – to the courts, the judges, etc.; and that it cannot build its way out of the situation.  Mr. Soto said he referred more to the prevention issue, such as with the programs described earlier by Mr. Robak.  Mr. Wingerd said San Bernardino also does have Challenge Grant I and II programs.  Their particular issues have involved county philosophy, court orders, and not being able to develop alternatives.  This current process has, however, forced the county to take new steps.  Overall, he believed that, with regard to nonsecure, out-of-home placements, the state, through the Department of Health and Social Services, continues to have funding issues regarding appropriate placements of minors in the juvenile justice system because it is so tied to and focused on dependent children. 

Mr. Crout answered Mr. Soto’s question regarding the legal precedent.  There is clear authority within California statute and the Board’s regulations that allows the Chairman to grant an Emergency Suspension of Standards.  Regarding liability:  to not take any action would indicate “deliberate indifference” by the Board, which is the standard used by courts to determine liability.  The Board is meeting its statutorily mandated obligation to determine the facility suitable and apply the totality of conditions.  Mr. Crout said that, during informal discussions, attorneys from the Youth Law Center indicated they were watching this situation closely and concurred with the Board’s approach in addressing the suitability issue.  Mr. Soto said that was what he wanted to hear – legal assurance.  Mr. Crout believed it important to note again that the Board realizes this is not the best solution – which would be to open a brand new juvenile hall immediately.  It is, however, the best of all the available solutions, and it drastically improves the quality of the conditions of confinement for the minors currently held in CJH.

Dr. Silbert realized that lawsuits almost always focus on the facility, yet she believed that most persons in a residential facility would be happy to sleep 100 to a room if they were spending their time productively.  She again urged more consideration given to increased programming.  Mr. Crout agreed, and said that the Crowding Assessment Report had focused on programs as a way to mitigate the crowding of the facility.  Mr. McConnell commented that one of the conditions of extreme concern during San Bernardino’s evaluation was that the crowding had reached a point where people were sleeping in areas needed for programs.  Use of the soft-sided tent structures for sleeping will free space to again be available for program at the level that is absolutely critical to bring about positive change; hence the focus on construction at this point.

Mr. Crout summarized staff’s recommendation that the Board determine the San Bernardino County Central Juvenile Hall a suitable place to confine minors contingent upon the following:

  • the Chairman’s approval of an Emergency Suspension of Standards;
  • the county’s conformance to the agreed-upon elements of the Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan;
  • the county’s continued bimonthly submission of staffing information revised to include the soft-sided structures AND continued submission of Crowding Assessment Reports;
  • progress reports presented by probation staff at each bimonthly Board meeting beginning in March, and including the following specific information, at a minimum:

o       unit-specific statistics regarding: average daily population; assaults (on staff and minor-on-minor); escapes (including attempts); the number of instances of the use of force and the use of restraints; self-inflicted injuries; suicides (including attempts);

o       a status report from the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools indicating that all minors at the CJH receive the required 240 minutes of school program each school day;

o       a status report indicating that all minors at the CJH receive the exercise and recreation time required by Title 15, Section 1371, Recreation and Exercise;

o       a status report indicating that all minors at the CJH receive adequate mental health services; and

o       maintenance issues (including damage to the soft-sided structures and toilet/shower facilities as well as on-going maintenance issues related to the existing units at CJH);

  • continued cooperation between Board staff and San Bernardino County.

Chairman Presley called for a motion.  Dr. Silbert asked if an addition could be made to the recommendation to focus on immediate community-based placement of the 150 youths by a certain date, perhaps by August as suggested by Mr. Wingerd.  Mr. Wingerd said he did not know whether all 150 could be out by August, but that is their goal, and suggested dropping the number slightly.  He also said he would include the status in the bimonthly progress report.  Dr. Silbert revised her suggestion to include an urgent focus on immediate community-based placement.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations, with an urgent focus on immediate community-based placement, was made by Dr. Silbert and seconded by Mr. Moorehead, who added that the bimonthly progress reports be presented by the Chief Probation Officer rather than probation staff.  Dr. Silbert agreed.  The motion carried.

Jail Profile Survey – Request to Establish Executive Steering Committee (Agenda Item E)

Mr. Crout presented a request by Board staff to establish an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to review the five years of Jail Profile Survey (JPS) data and data collection methods, appoint a chair to the ESC, and approve the recommended timeline for the project. 

Data on local jail populations have been collected by the Board since the early 1970s.  The current JPS was fully implemented in 1996.  It was designed to expand upon past data collection efforts by gathering data more frequently and by significantly expanding the information collected on the demographics of jail populations.  It has evolved into a process where disposition, classification, medical and mental health needs, contract housing, and booking data are collected on a monthly basis and reported quarterly.  Each year, an annual report is published which serves as a resource for local jail administrators and state and local policymakers when making jail-based decisions.

Staff recommended a comprehensive review of this information to ascertain its continued relevance to future data collection and policy-making efforts.  In addition, the Board has acquired a state-of-the-art software system specifically designed to improve data collection and analysis and make the process more user-friendly, which holds out the possibility of pursuing additional information if deemed relevant.   It is critical to involve counties in the analysis of the system’s utility and design because they will soon be able to enter and access data on-line, and Board staff will be able to produce streamlined ad-hoc reports for interested parties in a fraction of the time previously required.

With Board approval, a newly convened ESC will work with staff to review and make recommendations, if appropriate, for the improvement of the JPS.  Mr. Crout provided Board members with a timeline for status reports, regional workshops, and, if warranted, implementation of a revised JPS instrument by July 2001.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations was made by Mr. Yaroslavsky and seconded by Dr. Silbert.  The motion carried.

Chairman Presley appointed Board Member Curtis Hill as chair of the ESC.

Juvenile Detention Profile Survey – Request to Establish Executive Steering Committee (Agenda Item F)

The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) has been operational for two full years (1999 and 2000).  In March 2000, the original JDPS Executive Steering Committee (ESC) met to review the first data collection instrument and identify reporting problems.  They pilot tested a revised survey in eight counties beginning in July 2000.  Initial review of this pilot indicates that a comprehensive reexamination of the JDPS instrument is necessary to improve the validity and usefulness of the survey.  Staff recommended that the Board reconvene the JDPS ESC to thoroughly review the JDPS system, including the 2000 JDPS pilot test; appoint a Board member to chair the ESC; authorize the new chair to appoint additional members as necessary; and approve the recommended project timeline (provided to Board members).

The JDPS was modeled after the successful Jail Profile Survey and was fully implemented in 1999.  The first annual report was published in March 2000 and provided meaningful information on the average daily populations and highest one-day counts in local juvenile facilities during 1999, as well as figures relating to nonfacility-based custody, gender, age, type of offense, disposition, and mental health needs.

Contingent upon the Board’s approval, the ESC will meet by the first week in March 2001, and will be charged to evaluate the history of the JDPS, review the 2000 pilot, and establish a course of action that will ensure relevant and consistent reporting by the JDPS.  The timeline also provides for status reports to the Board, regional workshops, and implementation of a revised instrument by July 2001.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations was made by Dr. Silbert and seconded by Mr. Yaroslavsky.  The motion carried.

Chairman Presley appointed Board Member David Lehman as chair of the ESC.

Request for Project Scope Change, Juvenile Construction Grant – Fresno County (Agenda Item G)

Ms. Hafey presented Fresno County’s request for change in construction project scope, continued from the November 2000 meeting.  Fresno County had requested to redirect the grant of $10,604,025 awarded in July 1999 for a 200-bed juvenile facility expansion project of five 20-bed dorms and 50 double rooms at the Elkhorn Juvenile Corrections Center to a 100-bed stand-alone, full service facility.  The request was due to cost estimates higher than anticipated.  Recognizing the precedent-setting nature of the request, the Board requested detailed information from the county by December 15, 2000, for staff to perform an analysis of the competitiveness of Fresno County’s original grant award in the proposed 100-bed construction reduction in project scope.

Ms. Hafey provided Board members with a chronology of key events, tracing the county’s project from the original grant award submittal in March 1999, the granting of the award in July 1999, and to the present day.  Since preparing the chronology, Executive Director McConnell received a letter dated January 15, 2001, signed by seven legislators and supporting the county’s request.  Ms. Hafey read the letter into the record as follows:

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

January 15, 2001

Mr. Thomas E. McConnell

Executive Director

California Board of Corrections

600 Bercut Drive

Sacramento, California  95814

Dear Mr. McConnell:

We would like to thank the Board of Corrections for considering Fresno County’s request to redirect grant funds toward a proposed project alternative.  As the Board is aware, Fresno County has a juvenile crime rate greater than in most areas of the state.  In addition, due to an inadequacy of juvenile detention beds, a large number of offenders are released into our community on a daily basis.

Recognizing the significant need to alleviate the pressure to release offenders, we urge you to exercise the discretion available to the Board to approve Fresno County’s request for the redirection of grant funds to expand the Elkhorn facility.  Expanding this facility will help Fresno County improve safety within our community by not releasing juvenile offenders due to the lack of space.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Costa                                                        Senator Dick Monteith

Senator Charles S. Poochigian                                   Assemblymember Mike Briggs

Assemblymember David Cogdill                               Assemblymember Dean Florez

Assemblymember Sarah Reyes

After thorough review and analysis of the county’s December 15 response to the Board’s request, coupled with additional information received following a December 20 request by Board staff, questions remained.  Staff compared the original $10,604,025 grant award against the county’s request for a reduction in project scope.  This comparison was against seven evaluation categories on the 100-point scale adopted by the Board and used by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) in reviewing, rating, and ranking proposals:

1)      Need for the Project (25-point maximum);

2)      Impact of Scope of Work (15-point maximum);

3)      Construction and Administrative Work Plan (10-point maximum);

4)      Overall Quality of Proposal (15-point maximum);

5)      Cost Effectiveness (15-point maximum);

6)      Cash Match in Excess of 10 percent (10-point maximum); and

7)      Net Gain in Beds (10-point maximum). 

While it is difficult to predict how the ESC would have rated and ranked the reduced scope project, staff’s analysis concluded: 

1.   A Needs Assessment Study is Essential to Support the Project as well as the Impact of Scope of Work. 

Two rating criteria were involved, for a maximum possible of 40 points, and would have produced evidence to support that the identified needs guided the scope of work and/or any mitigating factors related to any potential unsuitable conditions. 

Title 24, Section 13-201(c) 2, California Code of Regulations, requires a needs assessment for new facilities.  The needs assessment should include an analysis of the corrections systems trends and characteristics which influence planning assumptions about future change, a description of the current population, analysis of performance in using programs which can reduce secure facility requirements, projections of population and program costs based on continuation of current policies, projections of the impact of alternative policies or programs on growth and program costs, and a discussion of unresolved issues.  The county did not submit this information for the original project scope as it was for a facility expansion versus a new, stand-alone facility. 

Although Board staff attempted to obtain additional statistical information from the county, it was not available due to inaccessibility of the data.  The information available appeared to conflict with the November 1999 inspection of Fresno’s facilities by Board staff, who observed that 21 of 195 dormitory beds were empty at the juvenile hall, while 106 minors shared 57 single rooms (up to three in a room) at 186% of rated capacity on three separate units.  The current 200-bed Elkhorn Facility had 44 or 22% empty dormitory beds at the inspection.  Due to the lack of information, the county was asked to provide some supporting documentation to establish the need for single and double rooms as well as dormitory beds.  The county has indicated the need, but cannot delineate the bed type.

2.      The Additional Time Requested by the County to Begin and Complete Construction Leaves Only Five Months (from April 30, 2004, to September 30, 2004) to Meet the Spending Authority Deadline for the Expenditure of Funds. 

This period of only five months affects rating factor 3), Construction and Administrative Work Plan, accounting for a maximum of 10 points in the rating and ranking process.  Simply stated, the county is running out of time.  Over 18 months has elapsed since the grant award.  While the county was notified in August 2000 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements that would need to be completed and approved for the Elkhorn Expansion Project, no work has commenced on the project.  Federal funding requirements prohibit counties from going out for bid or starting construction until federal officials have issued a final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or other federal approval.  The county maintains that all environmental issues will be completed with no time extensions beyond those requested.  Staff has no evidence to support or refute this information.

3.      In the Absence of a Needs Assessment Study it is Not Possible to Compare the Current Proposal to Rating Factor No. 4 - Overall Quality of Total Proposal.

This comparative analysis would have accounted for a maximum of 15 points in the ESC’s rating and ranking process.

4.      Any Allocation of Funds to Reduced Project Scope Would Need to be Capped at $53,000 Per Bed.

The remaining rating factors examined by Board staff – 5 through 7 – were cost-effectiveness, cash match in excess of 10%, and net gain in beds.  Collectively, these factors account for 35 points of the total points.  It was clear from examination of these factors that the county’s request for a reduced project scope would need to be capped at a maximum per-bed cost submitted under the original project request at $53,000 per bed or a total project cost of $5.3 million.  Points would have been lost in the rating and ranking process for the current request, which is $65,000 per bed or $6.5 million. 

Approval of the county’s request would set a precedent that would have major ramifications on the Board’s construction projects throughout California.  Since the beginning of the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing grant funding in 1997-98, no county has returned a grant award due to an inability to proceed based on higher-than-expected costs, nor has any county requested a reduction in the number or type of beds to be built.  Over 90 projects have received grants, 37 adult and juvenile projects are complete, 19 are under contract and are proceeding with construction, and 6 adult and 31 juvenile projects in 28 counties are in the development phase.  While it is understandable that Fresno County would prefer to use the funds for an alternate project, the county has been aware of the restrictions on the use of the funds since before submitting an application.

Before providing staff’s recommendations, Ms. Hafey invited Fresno County Chief Probation Officer to address the Board and to answer questions.

Chairman Presley first asked for verification that a needs assessment is required by law before proceeding with construction of a new facility.  Ms. Hafey said that was correct; the requirement is contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.  Chairman Presley said that if the Board were to approve this request with no needs assessment in place, it would be in violation of its own regulations.  Ms. Hafey said that was correct.

Mr. Price said Ms. Hafey had provided an excellent presentation of the situation.  To expand upon the needs assessment, however, he said the county had done a master plan of its entire criminal justice system in 1998.  At the time of their original application for an expansion, that master plan was not expanded.  As this new project request is some two and a half years after the most recent master plan, Mr. Price said the county would be committed to updating the juvenile portion of that master plan as soon as possible if required by the Board. 

Mr. Price said the need is great, as it is with every county in the state.  Fresno has reduced its scope from 200 to 100 beds.  He said the county had backed off the original project primarily because of the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) problem with citizens of the small community in the area of the post-adjudicated facility of Elkhorn.  The citizens had been supportive of the boot camp program and the 100-bed dormitory for post-adjudicated treatment through specialized programs, but they were outraged when they learned of the proposed “harder” facility on that site to house alternatives to levels 5, 6, and 7 of the Youth Authority.

Mr. Jenkins asked whether, as noted in the November inspection, 65 beds were open in the juvenile facility.  Mr. Price explained that finding.  The county’s juvenile hall is rated at 265 beds, and with the exception of approximately 50 beds, all are dormitory.  The hall is 50 years old and built to house runaways and misdemeanors.  Far too many minors coming right off the street are placed in single and double cells, sometimes leaving vacancies in the dormitory.  This situation ebbs and flows (that morning had 314 youths in the hall) as a matter of daily classification and where the movement is.  For example, the AA unit with a capacity of 20 may house 44 some days, and a dormitory with a capacity of 30 may house only 18.  The hall is generally about 50 over the rated capacity.  The Elkhorn facility cited as having empty dormitory beds may be clarified as follows:  The county remodeled the facility three years ago with two 50-bed dorms, added a third 50-bed dorm, and then a fourth, for a total of 200 beds.  It is filling to capacity, but on the date cited, the county was not yet into the full program cycle to bring it up to capacity.

Chairman Presley wondered why a needs assessment was not provided.  Mr. Price said that it was not required for their original submittal, and the county simply did not have time to do one for this new request.  Chairman Presley commented that it was a crucial requirement of the revised proposal. 

Mr. Hill asked what problems were experienced on the start-up of the environmental impact study.  Mr. Price said the main difficulty was getting the final clearance to go forward with the project.  Mr. Soto asked who authorized that final clearance.  Mr. Price answered it was the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Harper wondered if the county had had discussions with Board staff regarding how long an updated, suitable needs assessment would take.  Mr. Price said they had not, but he estimated it to take about 90 days.  Mr. McConnell concurred with the 90-day estimate.

Mr. Cambra said it appears that the Board is wondering whether the plan for dormitories versus room housing is a good one, based on a lack of information and on the inspection findings.  The plan before the Board raises the question of whether it is a good plan.  Mr. Price said the master plan includes a plan to move forward with replacement of the current juvenile hall and build a new 600-bed hall.  The Board of Supervisors is in the process of hiring an architect for the design and has secured a realtor to locate a site.  Metropolitan Fresno envisions a new juvenile hall with single wet cells.  The plan for the Elkhorn site is to have a 300-bed post-adjudicated facility.  It is hoped that, within three to five years, Fresno County’s juvenile justice system would have at its disposal a 900-bed juvenile complex. 

Mr. Moorehead commented it is apparent that a better master plan is necessary, which is essentially what Mr. Price had said.  It is also apparent that the county’s original request, if evaluated today, would not have garnered the points necessary to receive the award in the first place.  It is additionally apparent that the scope of the original project is nowhere near the same, having changed from an expansion to new construction.  Mr. Moorehead said he appreciated the anguish of Fresno County.  However, it was difficult for the Board as well because the members certainly recognize the need of the county.  While more funding is becoming available down the road, the Board understands Fresno County’s situation today.  Nevertheless, the Board’s concern must remain with the other counties who have asked for money and did not fare as well based on the point system developed by the ESC.  

Chairman Presley asked what it would take to get a needs assessment within 90 days.  Mr. Price said he was confident that, with approval of the Board of Supervisors, the county could complete the needs assessment within 90 days.  Chairman Presley pondered the possibility of asking for the needs assessment and considering the county’s request again at the May 2001 meeting.

Mr. Moorehead expressed concern that the money is desperately needed in many counties – and admittedly, Fresno is certainly one of those.  Postponing the decision would continue to hold these funds when they could, instead, be allocated in short order to the other counties who had applied and, under the point system, would have been awarded these funds.  Mr. Moorehead was wary of continuing the process when Fresno County has already had 18 months and, as indicated by Ms. Hafey, had several opportunities to provide the information necessary.  The requirements are well known and, while he realized that the county had diligently tried and that there was no malfeasance, he did not believe a further delay is justified.  Mr. Moorehead suggested it might be best to deny Fresno County’s request, ask for a new master plan and needs assessment, and a new proposal.

Chairman Presley asked if there was any further discussion, noting the seriousness of the issue for Fresno County, as well as for other counties who may be in line.

Mr. Soto said he believed in following the rules of a procedure, but needed to understand the overall direction of the program.  Although a difficult decision, he would be willing to support a recommendation to award Fresno not more than a $5.3 million grant for the requested project, provided the county meet all specified state and federal grant award criteria, including a needs assessment that satisfies Title 24 regulations.  He emphasized the need for an aggressive timetable on the needs assessment because of the unique position Fresno is in.  Mr. Soto said he was not fully comfortable with the available alternatives; and he asked for suggestions from other members on how to get beyond this.  He suggested that in 90 days Fresno County could return with a plan that both views could accept.  He believed that these are not policy problems, but political problems that must be addressed in a wider political forum.  Again, he would support awarding Fresno County the $5.3 million with an aggressive timeline to assure that all of the Board’s concerns were met.

Mr. Moorehead agreed that this is a tough decision judging that Fresno County would not have the $5.3 million.  He noted the original request was for even more – $10.6 million

Dr. Silbert asked, if the request were denied, how quickly funds could be redirected to other counties.  Mr. McConnell said the funds would be reallocated by going down the existing rank-ordered list and, if approved by the Board at the March meeting, counties would have a grant award in March.  Dr. Silbert wondered, if this request were denied at this time, could Fresno County come back and be added and reconsidered as well?  Mr. McConnell said there may not be enough time left; however, Fresno could come back next year.  He noted the federal government will have more funds available next fiscal year, and that may be the best option.  Dr. Silbert, referring to upcoming Board meetings, said there is a May opportunity and an opportunity next fiscal year, and wondered if it might be better to do the needs assessment and come back in July or later when the Board takes action on any federal funds included in the 2001-02 State Budget.  Mr. Price noted that, regardless, the needs assessment would take 90 days. 

At this point, Ms. Hafey stated staff’s recommendations for available options as follows:

1)      Deny Fresno County's request to redirect grant funds; or

2)      Award Fresno County not more than a $5.3 million grant for the requested project contingent upon the county meeting all specified state and federal grant award criteria, including a Needs Assessment Study consistent with the requirements of Title 24, California Code of Regulations; and

3)      Direct staff to provide a recommendation at the Board’s meeting in March 2001 on any reallocated funds.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McConnell about going down the funding list for other counties.  Mr. McConnell explained that the rank-ordered list contained counties with significant projects that did not score high enough to receive funds in the initial allocation, but they would be prepared to move forward with the dollars available.  Mr. Harper asked if it would be fair to say that they have needs as great as those of Fresno.  Mr. McConnell said no, because they did not score quite as high as Fresno; however, the scoring was very close at only four-tenths of a percentage point difference.

A motion to deny Fresno County’s request was made by Mr. Hill and seconded by Mr. Moorehead.

Dr. Silbert asked if Fresno could still be asked to return in May or July with a needs assessment.  Ms. Hafey replied that, in order to be considered in May, the county would have to submit a proposal by February 20 that would include a needs assessment.  Another option would be to come back next fiscal year if California’s application for federal funding is approved.  Mr. Price said the county is not submitting a request by February 20 that would include a needs assessment to qualify for consideration.

Mr. Lehman asked Mr. Price how confident he would be to deliver a project on time.  Mr. Price replied the county would require an extension of four to six months.

Chairman Presley requested a roll call vote on the motion on the floor.  Answering aye were Board Members Cambra, Harper, Hill, Jenkins, Lehman, Moorehead, and Yaroslavsky.  Answering no were Board Members Silbert, Soto, and Presley.  (Board Member Blanas had left the meeting early.)  The motion to deny Fresno County’s request was passed.

A motion to authorize staff to provide a recommendation on fund reallocation was made by Dr. Silbert and seconded by Mr. Jenkins.  The motion carried.

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Update and Presentation by Sacramento County (Agenda Item H)

Field Representative Darryl Datwyler announced that staff from Sacramento County would make a presentation on their Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant project:  Project Redirection.  He introduced Ms. Frances Freitas, Mental Health Program Coordinator, and Deputy David Guthrie to describe the program; he also introduced Dr. Tracy Herbert, Mental Health Treatment Planning, who conducts the research.

Mr. Guthrie said that the Sacramento County Strategy Committee formulated its Local Plan in an effort to address three critical components missing from existing services: 1) the capacity to coordinate services and broker resources among the public and community providers for this high-risk, high-consuming population, 2) the capability to perform extensive jail in-reach, engaging the consumer in the jail setting, and seamlessly moving them into the community for stabilization and service delivery, and 3) the ability to provide coordinated mental health and substance abuse treatment services upon release. 

Ms. Freitas reported that Project Redirection, designed to reduce recidivism, is an integrated treatment agency providing intensive case management and wrap-around services to 100 mentally ill adult, nonviolent, repeat offenders released from the county jail.  Staffing is multidisciplinary and includes case managers, psychiatrists, nurses, and law enforcement personnel.  Services include:  service coordination and resource brokering; assigning case managers and a probation officer to provide intensive case management; acquiring emergency and supportive housing; and crisis management.  Comprehensive evaluation and assessments addressing the psychosocial, psychiatric, and substance abuse issues of the participants are conducted. 

All participants are identified while incarcerated.  Eligible participants must meet the target population criteria of severe and persistent mental illness (schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, major depression), and must not have a history of felony violent crimes.  Eligible participants sign an informed consent for participation and are randomly assigned to either Project Redirection’s treatment group, or to Sacramento County’s existing treatment services.  Treatment group participants are assigned a case manager, and a release plan is developed identifying housing, medical, and mental health needs.  Upon release, the case manager meets the individual at the jail and, if no safe or appropriate housing is available, is taken to Southside House, the project’s 12-bed, short-term housing component.  These two initial steps – the pre-release planning and immediate, safe housing – are believed to be critical steps to engaging participants in treatment and recovery.

After release from jail, the client undergoes a comprehensive psychiatric and nursing (health) evaluation, along with a psychosocial assessment addressing mental health and substance abuse treatment issues.  Participants on formal probation meet with the probation officer, and the terms and conditions are reviewed and incorporated into the treatment plan.  A treatment team meeting is held with all participants to ensure a shared knowledge of the treatment objectives.  Treatment interventions include but are not limited to the following:  individualized and structured dual diagnosis treatment plans, anger management training, medication education, self-esteem groups, life skill training, and drug testing when indicated.

Outcome analysis evaluates the two randomly assigned groups of 100 each.  Outcome variables include the number of arrests and jail days, severity of crimes, number and length of inpatient psychiatric admissions to the jail and Mental Health Treatment Center, housing stability, addiction severity, symptoms, and quality of life.  It is the hypothesis that intensive, comprehensive mental health services will reduce recidivism and are cost effective in redirecting the mentally ill away from the criminal justice system.  As with all grantees, Sacramento County is collecting common data elements that will be used by Board staff in developing the statewide evaluation of the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant program required by statute.

Chairman Presley noted the late start for Sacramento’s program.  Ms. Freitas replied that it was delayed due to neighborhood problems.  Chairman Presley also noted that all participants were already out of jail.  Ms. Freitas said that was correct.  The program is all voluntary and participants are actively involved by their case managers with life skills programming to understand their illness.  Chairman Presley asked what was meant by “actively involved.”  Ms. Freitas said that case managers saw their clients frequently.

Chairman Presley said he believed these programs are very necessary and that one need only look at those persons currently in the news who had recently been in jail, were released without treatment, and committed other crimes.

Mr. Harper asked how many staff were involved.  Ms. Freitas replied there was a 1 to 10 ratio of case managers to clients, in addition to a nurse and a psychiatrist.  She also referred to the presentation of Mr. Guthrie regarding the community policing approach that mitigated the concerns of the neighborhood.

Dr. Silbert asked whether those with dual diagnosed problems were on medications.  Ms. Freitas said that they all were.

Mr. Lehman said he agreed with Chairman Presley regarding the importance of these programs and suggested that it is time to start looking at mentally ill juvenile offenders before they become adult offenders with the same problems.

Alternate Means of Compliance Request:  Orange County Probation Department – Living Unit Size (Agenda Item I)

Mr. Crout presented a request by the Orange County Probation Department for approval of an Alternate Means of Compliance pursuant to Title 24, Section 460A.1.5, which requires that a living unit not exceed 30 minors.  On September 21, 2000, the Board awarded the county $1,112,354 to proceed with a 30-room/60-bed expansion of their Juvenile Hall.  Their proposal was to replicate the successful design of Unit T, a 60-bed, direct supervision podular unit at the Juvenile Hall, which, after a successful pilot testing period, the Board approved for an Alternate Means of Compliance on May 20, 1999.  Approval of this request would allow the county to replicate the successful Unit T design for their proposed Unit Q housing on the same Juvenile Hall grounds.  He noted county representatives were available to respond to questions.

Mr. Crout said staff recommended the Board grant an Alternate Means of Compliance to allow the Orange County Probation Department to exceed in Unit Q the 30-bed living unit maximum allowed by Title 24.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation was made by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Yaroslavsky.  The motion carried.

Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 – Update (Agenda Item J)

Mr. Morawcznski provided a brief update of activities regarding the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000).  He briefly reviewed the application and approval process in which counties first form a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC), assess existing programs and needs for at-risk youths, and develop a Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP).  After obtaining Board of Supervisors approval, the plan is submitted to the Board of Corrections for approval and release of funds.

Outcome Measures Workshops

Pursuant to the requirements of CPA 2000, counties are required to annually report program outcome and expenditure information to their respective Boards of Supervisors and to the Board.  The Board is responsible for submitting an interim report, reporting the county information and an assessment of the statewide effectiveness of the CMJJPs, to the Governor and the Legislature by January 15, 2002, with a final report due by July 15, 2003.

In an effort to familiarize counties with CPA 2000 and the outcome measures and reporting requirements, workshops were held in Ontario on November 30, 2000, and in Sacramento on November 29, 2000, and January 3, 2001.  These workshops provided an opportunity to review draft reporting documents developed by Board staff, respond to questions, and consider recommendations by counties regarding the reporting and evaluation process.  Upon finalization, reporting formats will be available for county use, on-line, through the Board’s website, which should be operational in Spring 2001 and will ensure consistency and accuracy in the development of required reports to the Governor and the Legislature.

Provide Pre-Submission Technical Assistance

Since the regional and outcome measures workshops counties have diligently embarked on the CMJJP development and approval process, and Board staff has provided varying levels of technical assistance to counties.  Staff has encouraged counties to submit draft CMJJPs and Applications for Approval prior to obtaining Board of Supervisors’ approval to ensure technical compliance and to avoid possible delays in the approval process.  To date staff has responded to questions and provided technical assistance to 51 counties, including reviewing seven complete or partial CMJJPs and five on-site visits. 

Summary

With the exception of one small county, 57 counties have indicated they will apply for CPA 2000 funding; 33 counties have begun meetings with their JJCCs, and 10 counties are in the process of forming JJCCs.  Draft CMJJPs have been received from 13 counties, and Orange and San Diego Counties’ CMJJPs have been approved.  El Dorado County’s CMJJP has been conditionally approved. 

Future Funding

The Governor’s FY 2001-02 Budget includes $121.3 million to extend CPA 2000 for an additional year.  Staff will continue to work with the Governor’s office, the Legislature, and counties to develop the extension of this program.

Next Steps

Staff will continue to review and approve the CMJJPs as they are received.  Staff will also provide post-submission technical assistance; i.e., if local CMJJPs submitted by counties are determined to not meet the requirements of CPA 2000, the counties will be advised of specific areas requiring correction.  Counties not in compliance will be offered technical assistance to correct deficiencies, either directly by Board staff or by outside consultants depending of the nature of issues requiring correction.  Board staff will work with the counties until the CMJJPs meet legislative requirements and are approved.  In addition, technical assistance for program implementation will be provided as needed.

Standards and Training for Corrections:  Computer-Based Training – An Alternative Training Delivery System (Agenda Item K)

Deputy Director Jim Sida reported that the Board has established policies that will enable counties to receive training credit for Computer-Based Training (CBT) under the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program.  The Board’s CBT program for nontraditional training courses provides an alternative training delivery system in a virtual classroom that eliminates the constraints of time and distance.  Alternative hourly equivalents through this training methodology apply to annual training only, with trainees receiving full training credit upon approval of the course by the Board.

Use of CBT involves the following key concepts:

  • CD Rom
  • Intranet
  • Internet
  • Cognitive learning
  • Soft skills
  • Psychomotor skills
  • Benefits of cost, better use of workforce, achievement testing

During the past year the STC Division has developed the policies and procedures that provide a path for agencies to take advantage of emerging technologies designed for the delivery of training.  CBT is a viable alternative training solution that can meet some identified agency training needs and individual skill development. Additionally, CBT offers the capability of addressing specific individual learning at the convenience of the learner and the employer.

CBT may include a job-related course of instruction provided on interactive CD Rom or distributed learning courses delivered over the Internet or agency intranet (i.e., web-based training). These nontraditional training opportunities are not meant to replace instructor-led performance-based training, but rather to complement the available range of training alternatives specific to the needs of local corrections agencies. The core mission of the STC Program is to raise and maintain the level of competence of the state’s local corrections personnel.  Toward that end, the goal is to include CBT in order to facilitate that core mission by expanding alternative training resources commensurate with new technologies and information delivery systems that enhance and add to the existing training methodologies

Presentation of the course may include text, audio, video and/or demonstration simulations; and the course must offer the trainee the opportunity to practice, explore and/or interact with the program or communicate with the instructor. Courses must contain some level of interactivity (as an example, exploration of the subject material or simulation of a procedure or process). Instructor-led online courses must provide the opportunity for the trainee to interact or ask questions with a qualified instructor via email or other method of communication. All STC certified CBT courses must include some form of testing in order to measure skill or knowledge transfer.

The STC Division will conduct an evaluation of CBT through a review of the course certifications and random monitoring of course content. At the conclusion of the pilot period, staff will evaluate the effectiveness of CBT in skill building and cost effectiveness. While the total impact of new technologies on training delivery is in the pioneering stages, Board staff anticipate that these policies will enable agencies to take full advantage of new opportunities as they develop based upon the needs and resources identified by local corrections agencies.

Chairman Presley asked if CBT would remain only a part of the training curriculum.  Mr. Sida answered that it would. 

Dr. Silbert commented that she had spent 35 years training for cognitive skills and is vehemently opposed to CBT because of the importance of human interactions.  Mr. Sida agreed with the importance of human interactions, but said that training is multidimensional and CBT offers an alternative that provides some on-line interactions.

Legislative Update (Agenda Item L)

Ms. Hafey reported that staff is tracking SB 39 (Poochigian), which would authorize the Board of Corrections to expend funds on a competitive basis for the construction, expansion, renovation, and reconstruction of local adult and juvenile detention facilities. 

Adjournment

Chairman Presley adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilyn Coombs

Executive Assistant


ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE

Board Members

  • Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
  • Steve Cambra, Jr., Acting Director, Department of Corrections
  • Jerry L. Harper, Director, Department of the Youth Authority
  • Lou Blanas, Sheriff, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
  • Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
  • Timothy B. Jenkins, Senior Deputy Investigator, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department
  • David L. Lehman, Chief Probation Officer, Humboldt County
  • Taylor K. Moorehead, Chief of Custody Operations, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
  • John B. Robinson, Chief Probation Officer, Orange County
  • Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
  • Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises

Board Staff

  • Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
  • Marilyn Coombs, Executive Assistant
  • Mike Barber, Field Representative, CPPD
  • 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
  • Ken Ventura, Field Representative, FSOD

Guests

  • Kevin M. Acebo, Los Angeles County Supervisor’s Office
  • Antonia Albany, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
  • Doug Ausin, Colusa County Sheriff’s Department
  • Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
  • Kelly Biegler, Sacramento County Mental Health Department
  • Les Breeden, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
  • Terryl Bunn, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department
  • Richard Cardoza, San Bernardino County Probation Department
  • Joe Davis, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
  • Claude Dechow, Fresno County Public Works Department
  • Ollie Dimery-Ratliff, Fresno County Probation Department
  • Frances Freitas, Sacramento County Mental Health Department
  • Randy Grasmuck, Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department
  • John Green, Sacramento County Probation Department
  • David Guthrie, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
  • Michael Hackett, Santa Clara County Department of Correction
  • Matthew Hamel, Kitchell
  • Tracy Herbert, Sacramento County Mental Health Department
  • Kelly Holm, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
  • Veronica Keller, San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department
  • David Keyes, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
  • Ken Kipp, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department
  • Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
  • Michael LaFave, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
  • George Lahargone, Sacramento County Probation Department
  • Michael Leonardo, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
  • Susan Leonardo, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
  • Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
  • George Malim, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
  • Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
  • Cheryl Munyon, TRG Consulting, Inc., Indian Wells
  • Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting, Inc., Indian Wells
  • Doug Papagni, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
  • Tim Pearce, Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department
  • Bill Pedrini, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department
  • George Post, San Bernardino County Probation Department
  • Claude Potts, San Bernardino County Probation Department
  • Larry Price, Fresno County Probation Department
  • Steve Reader, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
  • Tim Reinhold, Napa County Probation Department
  • Mike Robak, Solano County Probation Department
  • Tom Sawyer, Merced County Sheriff’s Department
  • William Shinn, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department (retired)
  • Bruce Simpson, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department
  • Dallas Stahr, Orange County Probation Department
  • Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
  • Ken Taylor, San Bernardino County Architecture/Engineering Division
  • Arthur Turnier, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
  • Michael Walker, Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department
  • Randall Walker, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
  • Marilyn Weldon, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department

Back to Top of Page

© 2003 State of California. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor. Conditions of Use Privacy Policy