Board of Corrections Meeting
Thursday, January 16, 2003
660 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95814
Executive Director Thom McConnell introduced newly appointed Board members: William B. Kolender (Sheriff, county over 200,000 population) San Diego Sheriff’s Department; Terry D. Lee (Chief Probation Officer, county under 200,000 population), Trinity County Probation Department.
Chairman Robert Presley then asked the new members to join him next to the flag and raise their right hands for the swearing in. The Chairman read the Oath of Office and had the new members repeat the oath. Chairman Presley then welcomed members, Kolender and Lee to the Board.
Chairman Presley called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. and declared the presence of a quorum.
Chairman Presley announced that Board Member Tom Soto was unable to attend this meeting due to illness. He asked if there were a motion to excuse the absence.
A motion to excuse Mr. Soto was made by Ms. Silbert and seconded by Mr. Mann. The motion carried.
Executive Director Thom McConnell welcomed the new members and said it is great to have them on Board. Mr. McConnell stated that he would give a brief presentation on the State’s proposed budget and its impact on the Board of Corrections.
Mr. McConnell quoted the following statement from the Governor’s proposed budget outline “Proposed reductions are necessary to address the $34.6 billion gap between expenditures and revenues for fiscal years 2003-2004. The plan calls for specific action directed at closing the gap and the largest single action being state program reduction, which is slated to be 40% of the overall solution or $13.8 billion.”
Listed below are two programs addressed in the Governor’s proposed reduction plan that would impact the Board of Corrections:
1. local juvenile detention inspections – the proposal lists a decrease of $176,000 to eliminate on-site local juvenile detention facility inspections in California; and
2. the Standards and Training for Corrections Program – the proposal is to eliminate $16.8 million in local assistance funding distributed through the Board of Corrections, Standards and Training for Corrections Program.
These reductions are in addition to the three Board of Corrections current year program reductions which are 1) the Challenge Grant Program, which was decreased by $12.3 million to reflect the elimination of fourth year grant funding; 2) the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act to reflect the elimination of $275,000 for the administration and oversight of that program; 3) the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Program with a decrease of $17.3 million in local assistance to reflect the elimination of third year funding.
Under the proposed FY 2003/2004 Governor’s Budget, the Board of Corrections will experience between current and budget year the following reductions:
The budget plan was distributed on Friday, January 10th. The Legislature has pledged to begin immediate deliberations and, in fact, is holding hearings this week. Staff at the BOC also began a comprehensive review of the proposed changes immediately upon receiving a copy of the Governor’s budget. As these proposals work their way through the budget process, Board staff will be working with all affected counties in developing alternative approaches to the implementation of these reductions. The BOC will make every effort to keep the counties and staff informed regarding their approach, will continuously update information on the BOC website and post bulletins on a regular basis. But most importantly, be assured BOC staff will be available by phone, email, or in person to answer any questions the counties may have.
Chairman Presley asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.
A motion to adopt the minutes of the September 19, 2002, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.
Deputy Director Toni Hafey welcomed new members Mr. Kolender and Mr. Lee. Ms. Hafey stated this action item is Orange County’s request for a revision to its construction project scope and a one-year timeline extension (from May 31, 2004 to May 31, 2005). This is for its $8.4 million co-educational Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy grant to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that were beyond the control of the County that added time to the project.
Ms. Hafey stated that in May 1999, the Board of Corrections awarded Orange County a state grant of over $8.4 million to construct a 90-bed co-educational Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy. This project was to be located in the rural Trabuco Canyon area of Orange County and adjacent to the existing Joplin Youth Center. However, almost immediately upon grant award, significant issues developed around environmental concerns, and there was public opposition that resulted in a lawsuit challenging environmental documents prepared by the County as well as the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). On August 16, 2002, the San Diego County Superior Court (the court assigned to hear the case) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and barred construction of the project in Trabuco Canyon. Although the Orange County Board of Supervisors has approved legal action to appeal the ruling, the timing to litigate will move the construction and occupancy timelines beyond May 2006.
Because Orange County has an immediate and ongoing need for additional juvenile bed space, they feel the plan that they have presented to the Board would compliment the kind of treatment options available within the Juvenile Hall Complex. The County is recommending the project scope be modified and moved to the Juvenile Hall Complex. The proposal, which is included in the Agenda packet, would require some changes and modifications along with a one-year timeline extension to complete the project.
Chairman Presley asked Ms. Hafey if staff from Orange County was in attendance today. Ms. Hafey stated that Chief Probation Officer Stephanie Lewis was in attendance. Chairman Presley asked Ms. Lewis if she had any concerns. Ms. Lewis stated no.
A motion to 1) approve a project scope change to increase the number of beds for the Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy from 90 to 120. Amendment of the project scope to consist of a) demolition of three 20-bed linear housing units; b) two 60-bed wet new generation design living units; c) 6 new classroom; d) a 60-space parking area; e) administration building; and f) security fencing. 2) authorization for an extension of the construction completion date from May 31, 2004, to May 31, 2005, was made by Mr. Curtis Hill and seconded by Mr. Donald Sheetz.
Construction Project Progress Report – Contra Costa County (Agenda Item C)
Ms. Hafey stated that at the September 19, 2002 meeting, the Board of Corrections approved Contra Costa County’s request for a nine-month extension to the construction completion date of its 240-bed facility. The BOC approved the time extension (from June 30, 2003 to March 31, 2004) and required the County to submit written progress reports for BOC review and to appear at each subsequent meeting to address project progress. Approval also required staff to conduct on-site monitorings of the project to ensure progress and to reimburse the County based upon performance consistent with the expenditure and specific targets approved by the BOC.
The County has met those performance targets and as a follow-up to the information-only agenda item, staff conducted an additional monitoring on January 8th to verify compliance with those targets. Staff is prepared and will release funding based upon escalating that time schedule. Ms. Hafey stated that Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista is available for any questions the Board might have. The Board had no questions for Chief Bautista.
Field Representative Darryl Datwyler stated that this agenda item would provide the Board with an overview of the Solano County Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) demonstration project. Mr. Datwyler stated that Solano County’s program exemplifies the commitment and the collaboration necessary to successfully implement and manage this project. Mr. Datwyler introduced Mike Meduedoff, Sheriff’s Director of Administrative Services, and the Telecare Solano Administrator, Tom Quinn. He stated that Sheriff Gary Stanton and Undersheriff Rick Fuller are also in attendance.
Mr. Meduedoff thanked the Board for its interest in the Mentally Ill Crime Reduction program on behalf of Solano County and for the opportunity to speak before the Board. He also thanked Ms. Lynda Frost and the BOC staff for all the assistance and support they have provided. Mr. Meduedoff stated that in undertaking a project like this, it is important to create relationships between and among agencies, departments, and individuals. Those relationships must be maintained through the planning process as well as the implementation phase. He stated that Sheriff Gary Stanton has committed and authorized the necessary resources to ensure that the project is successful. The accomplishments made up to this point have been, in great part, because of Sheriff Stanton’s commitment.
Mr. Meduedoff stated that he served on the Strategy Committee that helped develop the program design for this project and he now serves as the project’s financial officer. He stated his greatest contribution to the project was to hire a very good project manager, Mr. Ernie O’Connor who has done a great job. Because of Mr. O’Connor’s efforts, the program is programmatically and operationally working well. Mr. Meduedoff stated that the Mental Health Court has been in operation for a year. Currently serving as the Mental Health Court Judge is Superior Court Judge Gary Itchikawa, who has a background in psychology with a real subject matter interest in the project; district attorney’s chief deputy, Kathy Cauford, handles each mental health court case personally; Lori Berliner, who is a deputy with a lot of experience, represents the public defender; and Vanessa Perry, the conflict public defender, also handles cases. Mr. Meduedoff stated they have some experienced probation staff on the Court as well.
Mr. Meduedoff stated that the program is an experimental design. The participants go through an assessment and are put into either the treatment as usual (comparison group) or the program (treatment group) on a 2 to 1 ratio. There are approximately 47 in the program group and approximately 23 in the comparison group. The program has not quite achieved the number of clients anticipated. As a result of budget cuts, the program will not reach its original goal, which 190 (program) and 80 (comparison) participants, respectively. Mr. Meduedoff believes however, they will reach half the goal. At this point, and for the foreseeable future, they are enrolling participants and getting them through the program as rapidly as possible. At the same time, they do not want to have an abrupt ending, where participants get dropped out of treatment.
Chairman Presley wanted to know how many participants are currently in the program. Mr. Meduedoff stated they currently have 70 participants. Two thirds are treatment and one third is treatment as usual. Chairman Presley also asked how much time is left on the grant. Mr. Meduedoff stated for planning purposes, they are saying September 30, 2003. However, because of the lower numbers, they are able to find budget savings and may be able to extend a couple of months past September.
Chairman Presley asked whether the program produces any periodic reports to measure success. Mr. Meduedoff stated there is an evaluation component, but he is not prepared today to present any statistics other than to say that the preliminary data looks positive. Chairman Presley asked what they use to measure what looks good. Mr. Meduedoff stated they measure recidivism, homelessness, and a psychological test is used to measure the whole person and how they are improving. He said there are about five variables being measured in addition to all of the data that is required by the Board of Corrections, which is quite extensive. They also complete a process evaluation and a cost-benefit evaluation.
Chairman Presley asked if the idea of this is to demonstrate or provide a roadmap for other jurisdictions. Mr. Meduedoff stated that, as a matter of fact, that is the term they have used internally from time to time. This is new and is a roadmap of how it can be done. This has been a learning process and the program is being fine-tuned as they go along. They have implemented all components of the original program design, but before they can present any meaningful data there has to be more history.
Mr. Meduedoff stated that there is an aftercare component of this program, which is a less intensive phase. The Solano County Fact Team is in charge of this part of the program. The aftercare phase can go on for an unlimited period of time, but is meant to run for about a year. When participants have completed the aftercare component they are expected to be on their own.
Chairman Presley asked Sheriff Gary Stanton if he had anything he would like to say. Sheriff Stanton stated that the Solano County Mental Health Court program is a very good program and he has seen some positive results.
Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that at the November 15, 2001 meeting, the Board of Corrections directed staff to begin the Minimum Standards for the Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers Review Process. Chairman Presley appointed Board Member Taylor Moorehead as Chair and Board Member Linda Duffy as Co-Chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to facilitate this process. This report provides the Board with the recommended revisions from the 13-member ESC and incorporates the efforts of the 26 individuals who participated on the three workgroups including the workgroup chair who also served on the ESC.
Mr. Sida stated that at the September 19, 2002, meeting the BOC adopted for the purpose of the public comment period, the revision to Title 15, Subchapter 1, Sections 100-358, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as recommended by staff. With this approval, staff prepared a packet containing the proposed revision for submittal to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and initiated the 45-day public comment period.
The 45-day public comment period began on October 7, 2002 and ended on November 20, 2002. Public hearings were held on October 29, 2002 in Los Angeles, chaired by Board Member Curtis Hill and on November 20, 2002, in Sacramento, chaired by Board Member Gary Mann. With the conclusion of the public comment period, staff prepared the analysis and recommendations necessary for this rulemaking file’s submittal to OAL. No additional oral or written testimony was received during the public hearing period.
Mr. Sida stated it is staff’s recommendation that the BOC approve the proposed changes to the Standards and Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers, Title 15, Subchapter 1, Sections 100-358 of the California Code of Regulations and authorize submittal of the rulemaking file to the OAL.
Chairman Presley wanted a descriptive summary of the changes. Mr. Sida stated the recommendation addressed non-substantive (primarily language clarity) changes. He said there were also some policy changes i.e., compliance exemption for persons called to active military duty or serving in the military during any portion of an STC program year. Mr. Sida stated that the exemption was approved at the last Board meeting, but members requested additional clarifying language be developed regarding what constitutes active military duty. He said active duty is defined as a call-up of reservists from the military command in response to a national emergency. The ESC refined the language to indicate that active duty does not include regular reserve meetings or annual reserve obligations; therefore, regular activities of the military reserve are not considered as eligibility for an exemption from STC requirements.
A motion to approve the proposed changes to the Standards and Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers, Title 15, Subchapter 1, Sections 100-358, of the California Code of Regulations and authorize submittal of the rulemaking file to the OAL was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Curtis Hill. The motion carried.
Request for Change in Use of Grant-Funded Construction Project-Kings County (Agenda Item F)
Ms. Hafey stated that staff has, at the request of the County, talked with federal officials about changing the use of the grant-funded construction project from adult to juvenile. On December 8, 2002, staff received authorization from federal officials for the County to convert the facility to one suitable for juveniles. The change is allowable under the grant funding provisions of the State Budget Act and the legislative declaration relevant to the critical need to provide adequate county facilities and space for juveniles.
Staff recommends the Board approve a change in scope to allow the County to commence planning and design efforts to convert this Branch Jail into a juvenile camp. The County will submit complete plans and specifications for staff review pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 6029 and the applicable provisions of Titles 15 and 24, CCR. Ms. Hafey stated that Chief Probation Officer Dorothy Van Den Berg is in attendance today representing the Administrative Office, the Probation Office, the Sheriff, and the Judiciary. There were no questions for Chief Van Den Berg.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations for a change in use of the completed grant-funded construction project to allow Kings County to proceed with planning and design efforts to convert the Branch Jail into a juvenile camp to be remodeled and operated in full compliance with juvenile facility standards contained in Titles 15 and 24, CCR was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky. The motion carried.
Chairman Presley asked whether the County would be building a new jail and, if so, how would it be funded. Ms. Hafey responded yes to a new jail being built and funding is primarily with County money as well as some bonding debt.
Board Member Gary Mann asked if compliance for Titles 15 and 24 for juveniles be met without a pilot project. Ms. Hafey responded it would be met without one. This is, of course, preliminary because what the Board is approving today is the ability for the County to proceed. At this point, it is not envisioned that a pilot project would be necessary on this project; however, staff has not seen any specific drawings from the County.
Mr. Thom McConnell stated that the agreement adopted with today’s vote is that the County will proceed on the condition that they meet all of the Title 15 and 24 requirements. If a pilot project was needed the County would have to come back to the Board, because the approval of this request is contingent on the County meeting all juvenile minimum standards.
Mr. Sida stated this agenda item provides an update on the progress of the Second-Generation Selection Exam for all three corrections disciplines: 1) adult corrections, 2) juvenile corrections, and 3) probation officer. The exams currently being used throughout the state were developed about 15 years ago; and, while these exams performed well over the years they have become dated. In May 2001, the Board authorized the STC Program to develop second-generation versions of each exam to ensure the continued effectiveness and legal defensibility of the exams.
Mr. Sida stated he is pleased to announce the completion of Phase III of the project’s five-phase process. He said there was a tremendous amount of support from the local agencies. Over 1,000 incumbents from approximately 70 agencies assisted with the critical component of Phase III, which was to test the test that was developed. STC is working with Psychological Services, Inc. to get the test developed and on line. The next phase will be the validation inventory. The test should be administered to applicants by July 2003.
Mr. Sida stated he is pleased to report the project is on schedule and within budget.
Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that the Board of Corrections is mandated under Penal Code, Section 6030 to establish and biennially review regulations for local detention facilities. The intent of this regulations review is to:
· meet the legislative mandate;
· refine and clarify issues that have developed in the field;
· identify any new issues that might have arisen regarding needed improvements in current regulations; and
· meet the needs of California and its rapidly growing and changing local detention system.
This is accomplished through the enhanced regulation revision process, which includes staff review and public hearings, by incorporating the expertise of local correctional practitioners to form an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to review the issues that are raised by both the field and staff.
With Board approval, the ESC will then meet and develop a strategy to continue the process. Typically, one or more workgroups will be formed consisting of subject matter experts, to address identified Titles 15 and 24 issues and to return with recommendations to the ESC.
Mr. Crout stated that staff recommends that the proposed standards review and regulation process begin in January 2003, commencing with the appointment of two Board of Corrections members to chair and co-chair the ESC.
Chairman Presley appointed Board members Kolender and Mann to chair and co-chair the ESC.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations for 1) the Board to direct staff to begin the Local Adult Facilities Titles 15 and 24, CCR review and revision process; 2) the Chairman to appoint a Board member to chair an ESC; and 3) the Board empower the chair of the ESC to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a proposed timeline for consideration at the April 17, 2003 meeting was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Mr. Crout stated that at the January 2001 BOC meeting, a history was provided of San Bernardino County’s Central Juvenile Hall (CJH) chronic crowding with population levels reaching over 200% of its Board rated capacity. In addition, information was provided about the BOC’s responsibility regarding the determination of suitability of all detention facilities that detain minors. The County was very responsive with efforts to mitigate the crowded conditions in the juvenile hall with the development of a Suitability Plan and Emergency Response Plan. Subsequently, the County allocated resources to implement these plans.
With this information, the BOC determined that the CJH was a suitable place to confine minors and asked the Chief Probation Officer from San Bernardino County to provide a status report at each of its future Board meetings. Mr. Crout introduced Chief Probation Officer Ray Wingerd, of San Bernardino County, who would present the county’s report.
Chief Wingerd stated that he is providing the Board with an update on progress on the Suitability Plan, which has been in place for about two years. Chief Wingerd stated he intends to follow today’s briefing with a formal letter to the Chair of the Board of Corrections requesting that San Bernardino County be relieved of the Suitability Plan. He stated that all commitments made in the Suitability Plan are completed and in place, and the County has reached the point where they can comfortably request the Plan be dissolved.
Chief Wingerd stated that in the past he has complimented the Board of Corrections and its staff and he wants to do that again today. He said Thom, Toni, Bill, Darryl, Charlene, and Len have all been extremely helpful. He stated that this has been a very creative interchange of ideas between the County of San Bernardino and the BOC. Chief Wingerd stated he felt the BOC and the County were true partners in trying to resolve a very difficult situation. When San Bernardino County implemented the Suitability Plan, they were 200% over population. The juvenile hall at that time was rated for a population of 281 minors. They had over 600.
Chief Wingerd stated, as of today, the population for the two juvenile halls in San Bernardino County is 388 with a total rated capacity of 463. He said there are actually some empty beds in their juvenile halls, which he is pleased to report. Chief Wingerd said this did not come about without hard work and advice, and stated he would brief the Board on some of these situations.
Part of the plan for the 281-bed juvenile hall was to safely and securely exceed the rated capacity of that hall by 60 beds. This plan was successfully implemented with no adverse consequences. Second, the County was to complete construction and open the West Valley Juvenile Hall in Rancho Cucamonga. The construction on this building was completed and the Juvenile Hall opened this month with 80 beds available and with 80 additional beds becoming next month. Intake will begin in February 2003.
Chief Wingerd stated he was pleased to see Board member Gary Mann at the dedication ceremony along with Deputy Director Toni Hafey who gave a brief speech. The groundbreaking for the High Desert Juvenile Hall in Apple Valley took place in August 2002. Again, Ms. Hafey participated in the ceremony. The High Desert Juvenile Hall will open with 200 beds in July 2004 and will provide San Bernardino County with some growth potential. The High Desert Juvenile Hall is funded with a construction grant from the BOC.
Chief Wingerd said he is happy to report that the tents or “soft-sided structures” that were opened in December 2001 are now closed. He said they are attempting to relocate the tents to another part of the county. Unfortunately, at this time, there have been no takers.
Chairman Presley wanted to know what the costs of the tents were. Chief Wingerd said there were six tents and that each tent cost approximately $45,000.
Chief Wingerd said they added six modular classrooms that became operational in December 2001. The house-arrest program that started in April 2001 has been very successful. The County has reached a 14.2% of the targeted population with the original goal set at 12%. He said there has been over 25,225 detention day beds saved through this program.
The County was asked to remodel the infrastructure of the CJH plumbing system. It was determined that the existing sewage system did not need to be replaced; however, the underground galvanized iron piping system will be replaced as part of this project. In addition, all fixtures in the common restrooms, the ceramic tile on the walls and floors in all common restrooms and shower areas will all be replaced. This project will start in Spring 2003 and will be complete in October 2003. The funding is in place to move forward.
The Ward B remodel project is targeted for completion in the first quarter of 2003 with a projected opening date in March 2003. The remodeled facility will house 80 minors, 40 boys and 40 girls in separate programs. The 40 boys are from the Regional Youth Education Facility and the 40 girls are from the Kuiper Youth Center. Upon completion of the Ward B remodel project, the units where these programs are currently located will revert to CJH for future housing.
San Bernardino County continues to place 30 minors at Fouts Springs Boys Ranch in Colusa County. The County has also contracted with VisionQuest to meet pre-placement needs. A groundbreaking ceremony for the Fred D. Jones Youth Center in Hesperia, a VisionQuest residential assessment and treatment center, was held on December 3, 2002. Construction of the 144-bed facility is now underway and completion is estimated for Fall 2003. Out of the 144 beds available, San Bernardino County will contract for 72 assessment and placement beds.
Chief Wingerd stated that mental health services at Central Juvenile Hall are provided by a combination of Probation Department psychologists/clinicians and clinical staff. There are currently two licensed psychologists/clinicians from the Probation Department. The Juvenile Justice Outpatient Clinic (JJOP) has an authorized staff of a Clinic Supervisor, Clinical Therapist II, seven Clinical Therapists I’s, a child psychiatrist and two clerical positions.
Chief Wingerd stated the County feels they have addressed the significant part of the overcrowding issue, demonstrated by the fact that they have been able to reduce their crowding to the point where they have empty beds. With what they have completed, and have in progress, they will put in a formal request to dissolve the Suitability Plan.
Chairman Presley requested the house-arrest figures. Chief Wingerd stated that they originally targeted 12% of the population and in fact reached 14% in reductions. Over the two years the County saved over 25,000 bed days in juvenile hall.
Board Member Silbert asked whether public safety was negatively impacted. Chief Wingerd said that public safety was never negatively affected. He said that only a handful actually committed new offenses, and that a few went back in for violation of their terms of house-arrest. He also added that minors confined to the tents had no significant behavioral problems, or any escapes.
Chairman Presley quoted “if you build it they will come.” He wanted to know about the excess space the County now has. Chief Wingerd stated they do expect an increase in population and will be closely monitoring the situation.
Field Representative Fred Morawcznski stated that this item reports on the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant II (JCE & ACG) project activities since the last update provided to the Board of Corrections at its May 16, 2002 meeting. Demonstration grants totaling over $56 million were awarded to 17 counties at the May 1999 BOC meeting. The FY 2000-01 authorized grant operations be extended to June 30, 2003, and allocated an additional $14 million to be distributed to counties for local assistance and for BOC administrative costs. Reporting responsibilities for the BOC were also extended at that time until March 1, 2004, for a final project report to the Legislature.
The FY 2002-03 Budget Act reduced the grant by $12.3 million and mid-year proposals eliminated an additional $43,000 in JCE & ACG II local assistance. These are funds that were unspent when Solano County submitted its final invoice to close the program effective September 30, 2002. In July 2002, staff met with Challenge II Chief Probation Officers and negotiated reductions for each of the projects. Reductions have been formalized through amended agreements and, despite these cuts, five counties will complete all four years of programming and conclude operations on June 30, 2003. Three counties will continue through the end of January 2003; six counties concluded program operations in December 2002; and three counties concluded operations in September 2002.
During the balance of this fiscal year, BOC staff will continue to provide technical assistance as required for all programs, complete contractual compliance monitorings, review and pay invoices, and assist counties in project closeout activities.
Ms. Hafey stated this agenda item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes.
Ms. Hafey reviewed staff’s action projects since the Board meeting on September 19, 2002.
Mr. Sida stated that this agenda item provides a statistical report on the activities of the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program for fiscal year 2001-2002 as well as a report on agency compliance for the same reporting period. In accordance with Section 6036(b) of the Penal Code and Section 318 of the California Code of Regulations, Board of Corrections staff is required to monitor participating agencies’ administration of the STC Program on an annual basis. The compliance documents include a statement from the CEO, Sheriff, Chief Probation Officer, and Chief of Police identifying the number of staff in the program and identifying which staff have not met all of the compliance regulations.
The monitoring process consists of taking a 10% random sample, or at least 30 individuals (except in departments with less than 30, all records are reviewed) from each department, whichever provides the largest sample. In addition, each department administrator is required to review his or her department’s compliance status and report any compliance problems to STC staff. All individual training records are monitored for program eligibility, valid certification of courses attended, training hours required for compliance, training hours actually received, special or out-of-state certifications granted, and intensified format training.
Chairman Presley asked whether compliance monitoring is a responsibility of the Board. Mr. Sida said that it is.
Mr. Sida sated this report addresses the 164 agencies that were funded by the Board for their participation in the STC Program during FY 2001-2002, and although all the attachments include the 16 CCFs under contract, staff’s recommendations are directed toward the 164 local participating agencies. He said that only three agencies this past year were out of compliance. Of the funded agencies, 87 were found in Full Compliance with their ATPs and the STC regulations, policies and procedures.
Chairman Presley wanted to know how the BOC addresses an agency when they are out of compliance. Mr. Sida stated STC staff go out and visit that agency and put together a compliance plan. Sanctions for agencies out of compliance come in the form of 1) First year-notice to department head and respective county CAO; detailed ATP; compliance progress plan; quarterly on-site technical review; regular quarterly allocation; 2) Second year-notice to department head and county CAO; detailed ATP; comprehensive compliance progress plan; quarterly on-site STC monitoring; retroactive allocation of funds on a quarterly basis if the department is in compliance with their approved training plan; and 3) Third year-deny department participation in the STC Program for one year.
Chairman Presley asked whether the Board receives good participation. Mr. Sida stated the Board receives outstanding cooperation. There has never been an agency out of compliance for three years.
Board Member Mann asked if they expect compliance to continue if the funds are no longer available. Mr. Sida stated his hope is that agencies will continue meeting the standards. He believes it will become difficult for sheriff, probation, and police departments given the competition for resources. The STC Program specifically identified funds for sheriff and probation departments. It is a program that has been in existence for 23 years with a proven track record. Mr. Sida said there would be an impact, but there is no way to assess what that will be.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to find all departments listed on Attachment B in Substantial Compliance and having met the Board’s criteria for successful participation in the Standards and Training for Corrections Program was made by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.
Mr. Sida stated that this item is an informational report regarding litigation brought against the Board of Corrections. On December 10, 1997, Judy Tousignant filed a complaint against the County of San Bernardino for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) alleging wrongful termination. On October 7, 1999, the complaint was amended to add the State of California, Board of Corrections as an additional defendant in the matter.
A jury trial was conducted in San Bernardino on November 4, 2002. On November 25, 2002, the trial judge ruled that the State of California was relieved of any liability in the matter, due to a lack of evidence.
Chairman Presley asked what the argument of evidence was against the State. Mr. Sida stated that the plaintiff’s attorneys were alleging that the Board’s selection and training criteria were not fair and that they discriminated against the defendant.
Chairman Presley wanted to know the position Ms. Tousignant was hired for. Mr. Sida said that Ms. Tousignant was hired for the position of juvenile corrections officer.
Mr. Sida acknowledged Shelley Montgomery and Dr. John Kohls for their hard work, with attorneys from the Department of Justice, on the successful disposition of this case.
Mr. Crout stated that this action item is a request by Fresno County Probation Department for a pilot project to operate a 30-bed co-located juvenile detention facility for adjudicated minors within one pod of the Fresno County Jail North Annex. Like many probation departments Fresno County is experiencing significant crowding in their juvenile halls, especially over the last three years. BOC field representatives worked very closely with Chief Larry Price and his staff to address those issues and developed a Suitability Plan in December 2001.
At the May 2002 BOC meeting, Fresno County was awarded a $24.1 million grant for the construction of 240 beds in a new 480-bed juvenile justice complex. This new juvenile justice complex is projected for completion in March 2006. It is anticipated that these new beds will alleviate the current crowding problem upon opening.
In the interim, the county understands it will need to continue to examine all possible measures to alleviate the crowding at the current juvenile hall. Section 207.1(h) Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), allows for the co-location of a juvenile facility within an adult facility providing certain criteria are met. Fresno County stated that there would be no contact between the adults and juveniles within the facility. The only shared program space will be the recreation yard located on the same floor, and there are adequate policies and procedures in effect to ensure that these spaces will be “time-phased” to ensure there is no contact between the minors and adults. The probation department agrees to provide the staff and management dedicated to operation of the juvenile unit, as required in Section 207.l(h)(3) thus meeting all necessary criteria.
Mr. Crout stated that the North Annex Jail was designed and constructed to comply with current Title 24 CCR regulations for adult detention facilities. Therefore, a pilot project, pursuant to Section 13-201(c) 7, Title 24, CCR is necessary because the current physical plant minimum standards for juvenile facilities differ from adult facilities. This pilot project request is consistent with a similar and highly successful BOC approved pilot project for the Theo Lacy facility in Orange County. In the opinion of BOC staff, this pilot project meets or exceeds the intent of the related regulations and is recommending its approval.
Chairman Presley asked whether there was representation from Fresno County. Mr. Crout stated that Chief Larry Price was in attendance.
Board Member Nettles stated that he is not opposed to the pilot project, but he has some concerns regarding the use of recreation space and the impact of scheduling for showers. Mr. Nettles said he understands that concessions are being made in order to implement the pilot project (i.e. 1,800 square feet as opposed to 9,000 square feet in the recreation area). He was concerned that scheduling extended time periods, and the impact it will have on the scheduling, will have a negative impact on the staff and the minors being housed.
Chief Price stated that they have looked at those issues very closely. Because of the good layout of the pod they have determined that they can run groups of 10 or 15 minors in the recreation yard by extending the recreation time periods. Chief Price said he believes it will work well. It is a brand new facility with a beautiful recreation area that is well laid out. He said by organizing the time periods, they can accommodate the large muscle activity as well as other types of exercise (i.e., basketball and volleyball by using the shift schedule of 10 or 15 minors at a time).
Board Member Nettles asked whether regular programming would be impacted because of extending the recreational time periods and adding additional shower periods. Chief Price stated that he does not foresee a problem in these areas for running a 30-bed operation. He said there are three showers instead of six and is very confident they will work out a schedule to shower the 30 minors without impacting the program component.
Board Member Nettles asked what the staff ratio would be. Chief Price stated the day shift would have a ratio of 1 staff per 10 minors. The graveyard shift would have a ratio of 1 staff per 15 minors, which is an enhanced staffing pattern.
Board Member Mann stated that because inspections maybe no longer a BOC responsibility how would we know if the County is complying with these requirements? Chief Price said the County has a very active juvenile court judge and Juvenile Justice Commission that provide reliable inspections similar to the BOC.
Board Member Lee stated that he had a few questions he would like to ask. He was unclear as to how the County was going to achieve the sight and sound separation between the minors and adults. Does the facility design accommodate this? Chief Price answered that the sheriff is not going to occupy the units directly adjacent to the juvenile pod right away, and he is not sure when the sheriff would be able to provide staff to accomplish this. As the minors move in, at least for the next year, they will be the only ones on this floor, which typically can accommodate about 300 individuals. If the sheriff does decide to move in adjoining pods, because of the way the facility is designed minors and adults cannot achieve contact.
Chief Price stated the sheriff has made some very good accommodations regarding transporting minors out of the hall to the jail, so there is no sight and sound contact between minors and adults. He has also worked out the visitation schedule. Board Member Lee asked whether Fresno County would replicate what Orange County has at the Theo Lacy facility with regard to the training of staff. He said what he has seen has worked very well. Chief Price complimented Sheriff Pierce in Fresno County for his generosity and cooperation with the pilot project. He is confident it will be a good joint project between the sheriff and probation departments.
Board Member Lee stated that he has looked at the selection criteria for candidates entering this type of facility setting and it seems to him that a most likely candidate would be a post-adjudicated Prop. 21 minor, or a minor that has been found unfit by the juvenile court. He asked whether there was any consideration to these types of minors when the criteria was being developed. Chief Price said yes. The criteria will be sentenced minors serving approximately 90 days. The court has requested that the County give them some flexibility as to the type of minors that will be housed at the facility.
Mr. McConnell stated that even though the juvenile inspection process, which is currently the normal approach to inspecting juvenile halls throughout the State of California, would be eliminated in the current budget proposal, this particular proposal has, as a part of the proposal, a requirement that BOC staff conduct site visits as long as this pilot project was underway. Mr. McConnell clarified even though the BOC will not be performing the normal inspections, if the current budget cuts are enacted, the individualized inspection included as a component of this proposal will occur onsite at the facility evaluating the County’s ability to honor the pilot project.
A motion to approve Fresno County Probation Department’s request for a pilot project to allow the use of a unit contained within the Fresno County Jail North Annex as a co-located juvenile detention; and require the Fresno County Probation Department to collect, review and analyze incident reports and provide the BOC with status reports at six months and one year after implementation of this pilot project was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Field Representative Fred Morawcznski stated that this item provides the Board with an update of activities associated with administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) since the BOC meeting on September 19, 2002.
Since being enacted in 2000, the JJCPA has made a total of $353.9 million available to counties for collaborative efforts providing programs ranging from prevention to intensive supervision to in-custody programming. There are 56 counties participating in the program operating approximately 186 programs statewide. The counties are responsible to create a comprehensive juvenile justice plan, and collect data demonstrating the effectiveness of the programs. The BOC is responsible for approving the county plans and reporting to the Governor and the Legislature on the expenditures and effectiveness of the program on a statewide basis.
Mr. Morawcznski stated that the first annual report is due on March 15, 2003. Enclosed in the agenda packet is a draft of the report, which covers the period of fiscal years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The report indicates that the counties expended $118.6 million during this period representing 98% of the initial allocation. Additionally, although a match is not required, counties contributed over $17 million to support these programs. The report also shows that over 98,000 minors received program services at a state cost of approximately $1,200 per minor. Although outcomes are preliminary, it appears this program is making the positive impacts listed below:
· 60% of programs met or exceeded goals for rate of arrests;
· program minors had lower arrest rates (23% vs. 31%)
· over two-thirds of programs met or exceeded goals for completion of restitution and community service; and
· programs also reported increased school attendance, improved academic performance, and decreased drug use. The county has had positive impact in these areas with the program minors.
Finally, the Governor’s support for this program is again demonstrated in his proposed budget for FY 2003-04 with $116.3 million dedicated to JJCPA. The BOC staff will continue to provide technical assistance to counties to: a) implement approved projects; b) review and approve modification requests; c) address evaluation and reporting responsibilities; and d) re-apply for funding for the next funding cycle.
Mr. Crout stated that this agenda item is a request by the Riverside County Probation Department to convert two pilot projects to alternate means of compliance status. At its November 12, 1998 meeting, the Board of Corrections approved the county’s request for a pilot project to house 20 detained minors in a dormitory as part of their Violent Offender Incarceration Grant (VOIG) project at the Indio Juvenile Hall. At its May 18, 2000 meeting, the BOC approved the county’s request for a pilot project to house 20 detained minors in a dormitory as part of their VOIG project at the Southwest Juvenile Hall. Mr. Crout identified this agenda item as a status report on both pilot projects and a request to convert these two pilots to alternate means of compliance status.
BOC staff has visited both of the sites and has spoken with both staff and minors, and they report that these projects are working very well. The Juvenile Regulations Revision Executive Steering Committee used these pilot projects during the current Title 15 and Title 24 Standards Revision Process as examples of the successful application of this modified regulation. The workgroups also reviewed them and determined that the present requirement to limit pre-adjudicated minors in a dormitory setting to 15 juveniles is unduly restrictive, and therefore; the new proposed standards which will be presented at the April 2003 Board meeting will include a provision to allow 30 minors in a dormitory setting.
Mr. Crout stated that both pilot projects, in the Board’s opinion, meet or exceed the intent of the regulation being impacted. Both pilot projects employed enhanced counseling in education and recreation, and considerable direct supervision in conjunction with closed circuit video monitoring. Should the new regulations become effective, which would allow 30 minors to be placed in a dormitory setting, it would render this alternate means of compliance mute. Until that time, staff recommended that the Board approve Riverside County’s request for alternate means of compliance for both the Southwest and Indio Juvenile Halls.
Board Member Sheetz wanted to know the definition of a “wet room.” Mr. Crout stated that a wet room is a room that contains a toilet and washbasin. A dry room does not have wither. Mr. Sheetz wanted to know who determines which minors are to be housed in a wet room. Mr. Crout stated that there is a classification system in place that makes this determination and the system also decides which minors are amenable to being placed into a dormitory setting. Mr. Sheetz asked if the dormitory setting is used as an incentive. Mr. Crout stated that he has been told that it is.
A motion to convert the pilot projects for the increased size of the dormitories at the Indio and Southwest Juvenile Halls to an alternate means of compliance was made by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky and seconded by Mr. Terry Lee. The motion carried.
Ms. Hafey stated that the focus right now is the budget, as well as discussions about trailer legislation to implement the budget. Budget bills have been introduced in both houses of the Legislature. The Senate bill is SB 53 and the Assembly bill is AB 100.
Mr. McConnell wanted the members and audience to take note that the Board has four meetings scheduled for the year 2003. The Placer County Sheriff’s Department and Probation Department will host the next meeting, which is scheduled for April 17. The Sheriff and Probation departments are planning tours of both facilities.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Edward S. Alameida, Director, Department of Corrections (absent)
Judy Weiss, Assistant Deputy Director, represented Department of the Youth Authority
Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
Robert Hoffman, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (absent)
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Terry D. Lee, Chief Probation Officer, Trinity County Probation Department
Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Bill J. Nettles, Deputy Probation Officer, Los Angeles County Probation Department
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises (absent)
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, FSOD
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Darryl Datwyler, Field Representative, FSOD
Toni Hafey, Deputy Director, CPPD
Fred Morawcznski, Field Representative, CPPD
Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Field Representative, CPPD
Brian Anderson, Butte County Juvenile Hall
Steve Bautista, Contra Costa County Probation Department
Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Les Breeden, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Mike Burridge, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department
Craig Cass, Riverside County Probation Department
Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Department
Michael Corbett, Legislative Advocate, Kings County Probation Department
Dan Cunningham, Napa Department of Corrections
Steve DeRoss, Sacramento County Probation Department
Bob Dotts, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Bryan Flecker, Butte County Sheriff’s Department
Rick Fuller, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Cora Guy, Sonoma County Probation Department
Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
David Keyes, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Myron Larson, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department
Stephanie Lewis, Orange County Probation Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Michael Leonardo, Fresno County Probation Department
Mike Meduedoff, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Harvey Nyland, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
Fred Olguin, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department
Gary Papras, San Bernardino County Probation Department
Susan Patterson, Mariposa County Sheriff’s Department
Bill Pedrini, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department
Larry Price, Fresno County Probation Department
Tom Quinn, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Philip A. Revolinsly, Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
William Shinn, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department
Gary Stanton, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
Dorothy Van Den Berg, Kings County Probation Department
Ron Wilborn, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Cliff Winant, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Ray Wingerd, San Bernardino County Probation Department
Tom Wright, Orange County Probation Department
Barry Zuniga, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department