|
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
|
