California Board of Corrections

Chairman Roderick Hickman stated that he considered it a real pleasure to be in San Diego for his first Board meeting. He thanked the Board staff for their patience and what the Board of Corrections has been doing to help him with his very fast indoctrination into the Agency Secretary position. He stated that it has been a wonderful opportunity and a whirlwind for him. He wanted to once again thank the Board, their staff, and Executive Director Thom McConnell for being very patient. Chairman Hickman also thanked Chief Probation Officer Vincent Iaria, of San Diego County, for hosting the Board of Corrections meeting. He then introduced Chief Probation Officer Iaria for opening remarks.

Chief Iaria welcomed the Board to San Diego and the newly built East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. He stated that San Diego County appreciates the Board of Corrections for all their help and especially thanked BOC staff Doug Holien, Barbara Fenton (formerly Baker), and Bill Crout. He said they are not only thankful for the financial support that was given to the county, but also the technical assistance.

Chief Iaria stated that this 185,825 square foot facility is located on 25.7 acres in the Otay Mesa area, has 360 parking spaces, and includes a half-mile access road. This is a $55 million project, which $35.5 million was awarded by the Board of Corrections. He thanked the Board of Corrections. The plans contain a blue print for a 240-bed expansion and a juvenile court complex with two courtrooms. The facility currently will have 380 beds (with 240 beds that can be added); central control with direct visual contact through all detaining corridors and a touch screen panel control with video recording and playback capabilities; self-contained housing units for detainees with direct access to a recreation yard and two classrooms; security control room for each of the 40-bed housing units; and a toilet and sink in each cell eliminating the need for movement at night.

Chief Iaria stated that with all this planning, he believes the Board will agree; they have achieved their goal of having the single best stand-alone juvenile facility for their budget. He said this is going to be a showpiece for the county of San Diego, and he is really proud to show it off today. Chief Iaria stated that he believes the Board will be very proud with the outcome and, once again, thanked Chairman Hickman and the Board for all their help. He wanted to especially thank Sheriff Kolender for his help and Louise Matthews and her staff for providing a wonderful breakfast. He said after the meeting there would be tours available for the Board members and those in attendance.

Chairman Hickman called the meeting to order and announced that Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky was unable to attend this meeting because of a conflict in schedule. He also stated that Board Member Tom Soto was unable to attend because of a death in the family. He asked if there was a motion to excuse the absences.

A motion to excuse Mr. Yaroslavsky and Mr. Soto was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.

Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2003, Board of CorrectionsMeeting (Agenda Item A)

Chairman Hickman asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.

Federal and State Construction Grants – Consent/Information Items (Agenda Item B)

Field Representative Doug Holien stated that since 1998 the Board has awarded and staff has administered 107 construction grants that were provided to counties. Under the provisions of Penal Code, Section 6025.6, the Board approved a delegation policy for staff to exercise ministerial authority to make decisions on approving minor or nonsubstantive project changes that do not have a material impact on construction projects and do not have significant policy implications. This agenda item advises the Board of staff decisions on five state and/or federally funded construction projects that were made pursuant to that policy.

Mr. Holien stated that there was one minor scope change in Lake County. The number of beds added was increased from 24 to 35 due to architectural design and construction that enabled existing space within the jail to support 35 added beds in compliance with state standards. He stated that there were also four minor timeline changes for the reasons listed in the agenda packet involving Mendocino, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties. He stated he was available for any questions. There were none.

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program – Presentation By San Diego County (Agenda Item C)

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that this agenda item discusses the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program, which at one time had over $104 million and funded 30 different demonstration grant projects in 26 counties. He stated the Board is coming to the end of the funding of those grants. The first two funding streams, which amounted to roughly $54 million, is referred to as MIOCRG I. All MIOCRG I projects are going to be concluded by March 30, 2004 and another 15 projects known as MIOCRG II are going to be concluded July 1, 2004. The BOC staff is working very diligently to collect significant data that has been compiled as a result of these programs. A final report will be completed, which will show that many of the demonstration grant programs have been highly successful. One of those programs is the San Diego County project.

Mr. Crout stated that following a highly competitive Request for Proposal process conducted in May 1999, the Board awarded San Diego County a demonstration grant totaling $5 million to support the implementation and evaluation of the “Connections Program.” This program uses principles of the Assertive Community Treatment model to provide intensive case management and wraparound services to severely mentally ill offenders on probation. Mr. Crout introduced Richard “Dick” Conklin, LCSW, Detentions Chief Mental Health Clinician and the grant Project Manager, for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

Mr. Conklin stated that he would briefly discuss the implementation of the grant, some of the partnerships and collaboratives that have been developed, and the outcomes. He stated that they have worked very hard with their probation partner to establish specific case management teams comprised of Sheriffs, Social Workers, Deputy Probation Officers, and Correctional Deputy Probation Officers. Each team managed a caseload of 30 probationers, with a 1:10 staff-client ratio, and weekly contact in the community. They provided services to people with significant and serious mental illness who were identified by jail psychiatrists.

He stated that each client had a global assessment of functioning. This is an overall description of a very serious impairment in an individual’s ability to function in society as well as a serious mental illness. Mr. Conklin stated that their clients are predominantly schizophrenic (40%), suffer from major depression (30%), bi-polar mood disorder (25%), and the remaining 5% are a variable diagnosis.

Mr. Conklin stated that they focused on community reintegration for these individuals. They used an adaptation of the Assertive Community Treatment model, which means they follow a client-driven service plan. “What the client says he needs and what he perceives he needs,” is where they start. He stated that meeting immediate needs gives staff credibility and helps them with immediate survival situations because many of these individuals, they found, end up in custody because of what is called “survival crimes.” He said team responsibilities include pre-release planning, connecting the client with community resources, teaching living skills such as money management, arranging for medical care and medication management. They found a tremendous positive outcome when they provided these services.

Mr. Conklin stated that the research has not been completed, but he does have some preliminary information based on the 127 individuals who have completed the program. The program is one year of intensive case management and probation supervision, with a six-month follow up by the San Diego Association of Governments, who is the research partner in this project. He stated that what they found is that clients who successfully completed the program were 10% less likely to be booked in jail on new charges. He said what that translates to be is a savings of $260,000 of cost avoidance in jail days alone. This does not include any arrest or court costs.

Mr. Conklin stated that for the six-month follow up period, 13% of their study clients were in jail for only two days compared with 25% of their controlled group and the treatment as usual group, who were in jail for almost 20 days. They had significantly fewer clients rearrested, they were in jail significantly less time, and they are looking at a cost offset of jail days alone of about $56,000.

Mr. Conklin stated that homelessness, which is a significant problem in all of their communities, decreased by 22% through this program. He said the level of supervision decreased from an average of 31 at intake to 22. Once clients complete the program they are connected with community resources to help them in the areas of financial resources, social security, and health insurance. Mr. Conklin stated the major goal of getting clients successfully transitioned into the community, established with some ongoing care and supervision was met. Overall, clients are less likely to be booked and convicted of new offenses, less likely to recidivate, less use of drugs and alcohol, less homelessness, and improved functioning in the community.

Mr. Conklin stated that an additional benefit has been the establishing of positive working relationships with community agencies. He said what is important to them is to get the community to see these individuals not as criminals, but as citizens of the community who happen to be in jail, and who are going to return to the community. Mr. Conklin asked the Board if they had any questions.

Board Member Silbert asked whether any clients fell out of the program before the year ended? Mr. Conklin responded that he did not have that information on hand. He believes that about 5% were AWOL or went to prison in that initial year period.

Board Member Mann thanked Mr. Conklin for the report and stated that what they have done is amazing. He asked whether they would be able to continue with these programs considering the fiscal situation in California. Mr. Conklin stated that one thing that has come out of this is a stronger collaboration with the probation department. They did attempt to access federal money through targeted case management. They were only marginally successful with that attempt, because they did not have sufficient eligible clients to justify continued positions (social workers) within the department. Mr. Conklin stated that he understands that the probation department and sheriff’s department plan to continue focusing on the mentally ill.

As county funding gets cut, there are also other agencies that do not have services available. Mr. Conklin stated that in October they received a $1.3 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Correctional Educational Unit, for life skill classes. Classes are scheduled to begin the end of February. This is a collaborative effort with agencies that provide aftercare in alcohol, drug, substance abuse, and domestic violence. This however does not focus on the mentally ill clients.

Board Member Lee asked how many times chronically mentally ill clients find themselves back in jail because of medication management; is part of the focus on intensive supervision and making sure that clients stay on their medication? Mr. Conklin stated that was certainly a central part of the Connections Program. In San Diego County the United Behavioral Services has a data collection system, which the department has access to. Anyone that is seen in a mental health agency, be it a private contract agency, a county operated agency, or the jails is identified in that system as a psychiatric patient. Through our contractual agreement with Health and Human Services the confidentiality issues are addressed. Mr. Conklin stated through the Connections Program those identified as potential candidates (85%) had only received medication management prior to their arrest. He said what that means is they are probably seen for about six weeks to two months by a psychiatrist for approximately 15 minutes.

Chairman Hickman stated that this is a wonderful example of collaboration. As we go down the path of more difficult fiscal times these collaborative efforts are going to certainly pay more dividends.

Chairman Hickman introduced two new Board members, Walter Allen III newly appointed Director for the California Youth Authority, and Richard Rimmer, acting Director for California Department of Corrections. He said on behalf of the administration, he thanked Mr. Allen and Mr. Rimmer for providing the leadership in those organizations - welcome aboard.

Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) Mid-Year Report (Agenda Item D)

Field Representative Karen Stoll stated that the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) is a program we should all be very proud of. It incorporates lessons learned through other BOC funded programs including the construction program, challenge programs, and ROPP. She stated that they have incorporated the best of those programs into this effort. Originally, it was called the AB 1913, Schiff-Cardenas Act or CPA 2000 and was slated to be funded for only one year. Counties had the quandary at that point of what kind of program could they create that would only run for one year. Mid-way through the first year legislation was passed to extend the program for a second year. The sunset clause was removed, and counties are currently in their third year of operation and funds are committed for a fourth year.

The implementing Legislation indicates that this is not a demonstration grant like previously funded juvenile programs. JJCPA is for programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. The grant is for tried and true programs where there is evidence of success. It includes a program-evaluation outcome component. The BOC has developed a system that makes it easy for counties to apply/modify their plans and applications. They have developed a system that is entirely on-line for reporting. Staff does provide considerable technical assistance to evaluators and county staff on evaluation and measurement tools and processes. Every October 15 the counties report their expenditures and outcomes for each of their programs.

Ms. Stoll stated that they have approximately 193 programs operating this funding year. Program funding started at $121 million the first year; decreased to $116 million in the second year; third year (currently) is at $116 million; and the fourth year is $100 million, a 14% reduction. Counties are in the process of holding meetings and completing an assessment of their programs. They are considering some very hard program cuts.

Ms. Stoll stated that the second year report shows that $116 million expended earned about 51/2 million in interest that was put back into the programs. Additionally, another $19 million was added to the programs out of other resources. The counties were able to leverage local funds with JJCPA funds for a total of about $140 million for the second year.

The number of minors served increased to 110,000 in one year, which includes both kids and families that were served by the program. It also showed a drop in per capita costs per minor from $1,300 the first year to $1,100 the second year. Ms. Stoll stated that the legislatively mandated data outcomes include arrests, incarceration, probation violation, restitution, and community service. Restitution and community service show an increase, while arrests and incarceration rates decreased. There have been positive results with the programs. The funded programs run the gamut from prevention to incapacitation. The majority of the programs are in the intervention area; followed by prevention; then suppression programs that include law enforcement and collaboration between the social service agencies and law enforcement; and last, incapacitation programs.

There are a number of community-based agencies being funded that are working in collaboration with the probation department and law enforcement. The money is not all going to probation. It is being disseminated to schools, community-based organizations, social service agencies, and law enforcement. The online reporting system allows counties to choose tailored performance indicators such as higher school attendance, fewer truancies, decreased drug use, and decreased gang involvement etc. Ms. Stoll stated that the programs are showing decreases where you need to see decreases and increases where you want to see increases, such as in school attendance. Ms. Stoll stated that the data shows the program is performing as intended. She stated that the second year report is included in the agenda packet and she is available to answer any questions.

Mr. McConnell stated that the draft report is to be reviewed by the Board members for suggestions and revisions. The report is currently at YACA and is not scheduled for release until March 15, 2004. The BOC would entertain any suggestions or revisions by the members for adjustment before the final distribution of the report.

Approval ofRevised STC Policies and Procedures for Participating Departments (Agenda Item E)

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that this agenda items includes revised STC Policies and Procedures for Participating Departments, contained in the agenda packet as Attachments A-G, based upon the recommendations made by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and approved by the Board to mitigate the impact of budget reductions on agencies that participate in the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program. Mr. Sida stated that Sheriff Hill and Chief Probation Officer Terry Lee chaired the ESC and Board members Gary Mann and Bill Nettles also served on the ESC. Mr. Sida thanked Chief Norm Hurst and other workgroup members for their hard work through this process.

Mr. Sida stated that just about a year ago, then Governor Davis, announced in his budget the elimination of local assistance funding for local corrections. These are local monies that are derived from the State Penalty Fund and transferred to the state through the STC Program for distribution to all of the participating agencies. Upon learning of that information, BOC staff came to the Board in April 2003 to establish the ESC. The goal was to take a look at life without funding, look at some ways and means to mitigate; at least, some of the issues involved with helping agencies meet their training obligations. Mr. Sida stated that, of course, in any kind of economic troubling time, there are always bright spots and opportunities to change and to do things that you haven’t done before. From April through the summer, STC staff assembled ESCs and workgroups to take a look at current operations, and how can we help during these tough economic times.

Mr. Sida stated that staff came back to the Board on October 16, 2003, with a number of recommendations from the ESC. The Board returned them to staff for review and to see how the recommendations could be incorporated into the current policies. This has been done. Staff’s recommendations are included in the agenda packet, as Attachments A-F. There is one item, Attachment G, which staff is recommending not be approved. Attachment G is a recommendation for correspondence training. He stated that one of the issues made very clear by the ESC was that of maintaining quality control. And as we looked into these correspondence courses, we found that it would be very difficult to maintain course quality and the demand was not high, so we are recommending that correspondence courses not be included.

Mr. Sida stated that another issue addressed back in October was concern about the Intensified Format Training certification. This training is very short in duration, usually between thirty minutes and two hours, and is most commonly known as roll call training. In the past, the BOC only provided half credit for this type of training. Staff will do a desk review and plans to get out in the field to monitor the courses. There is a questionnaire that will seek responses back from the participants and, importantly, their supervisors.

Mr. Sida stated that as soon as we have gathered sufficient information, we intend to have our research staff and field representatives review it, compile it into a report, and then present it to Board. He said STC would make a further recommendation at that time whether full training credit should be continued or whether they need to review it further. Upon approval of the recommendations, STC’s plan is to compile the materials, put it into written form, disseminate the new policy manuals, both via computer disk and on the BOC internet website. Staff will also be out in the field contacting training managers as well as administrators and executive officers to inform them of the new tools available for them to help meet their training requirements.

Mr. Sida stated that staff recommends the Board 1) adopt the recommendations by staff for the revised policies and procedures contained in the attachments to this agenda item; 2) direct staff to assemble and distribute STC Policies and Procedures manuals with the updated material approved by the BOC, with the exception of the correspondence course.

Board Member Mann stated that he did have the opportunity to participate in some of the process, and he thanked Mr. Sida and his staff for the tremendous job they did, especially when the subject of Intensive Format Training came up for review. He said the job was presented, and STC created a plan that he never dreamed possible. Mr. Mann stated “good job.”

Request for Construction Time Extension–Contra Costa County (Agenda Item F)

Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this action item is an interim request by Contra Costa County to extend the grant contract agreement from March 31, 2004, to April 30, 2004, for its 240-bed juvenile hall project in Martinez, in order for the county to have time to finalize a plan and timetable with the surety and bonding company to complete construction. If the Board approves this interim request, a final plan and timetable will be provided to the Board for its consideration at the April 2004 meeting.

Mr. Holien stated that if the Board approves an extension now, or in the future, staff will proceed to execute a grant amendment as soon as the Department of Finance approves staff’s pending request for an exemption to a recent Budget letter that bans state agencies from extending local assistance grant contract agreements due to the budget crisis. Mr. Holien stated that the request is working its way through the administrative process.

Mr. Holien stated that on November 18, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors terminated the contract with its construction contractor for a variety of material defaults including alleged defective work that was not corrected, schedule delays, and inability to achieve performance improvement. Construction then ceased on the project. Since this time, the county has engaged outside legal counsel and is negotiating with the surety and bonding company to develop a plan to complete construction. Attachment A, in the agenda packet, is a detailed letter from the county that outlines these issues in more depth.

In summary, construction is over 80% complete and Board grant reimbursement to the county is 80% complete. As is standard for all construction grant projects, all 107 that the Board has administered, the final 20% of grant funds is being retained by the state as security and will be released when construction is 100% complete, the grant audit is done and accepted, and detainee occupancy occurs. Mr. Holien stated that Mr. George Roemer, County Construction Administrator, Steve Bautista, Chief Probation Officer, and Mark Tortorich, Project Management Consultant are in attendance today and are available to provide an update and answer any questions the Board might have.

Chairman Hickman asked whether the staff from Contra Costa County had any remarks or comments. Chief Bautista stated that it was not his desire to be here in front of the Board with this issue on the table. He said he would much rather be here with news of having a completed facility. Chief Bautista stated that as reported to the Board in October, they had completed over 80%. He stated that items were discovered that made it necessary for the county to move in a direction that no one would have wanted to go. The county made every effort that they could to work with the project contractor, and it finally became apparent that to continue in that vein would only result in a substandard facility.

Chief Bautista stated that they moved in a direction they felt necessary to protect the county’s investment, as well as the investment made by the Board. Since this decision was made, the county has hired a general contractor to ensure that any modifications needed during the interim (i.e., weatherization, fire suppression, presently being removed and reinstalled because of its deficiency) are made to protect the county’s interest. He said this week the county is interviewing three potential general contractors who wish to finish the project, and they have kept ongoing communication with the subcontractors who are interested in finishing the project. The bonding company is working with the county also to find a general contractor that can be secured to finish the project. Chief Bautista stated that he feels confident that the facility is going to be built, and it will be completed.

Chief Bautista asked whether the Board had any specific questions they would like to ask, and that he would do his best to answer. Board Member Sheetz wanted to know how close are they to finalizing discussions with the surety company. Chief Bautista responded that the county took an emergency action that gives them the authority to proceed with or without the concurrence of the surety company. He stated that they are working with the surety company, and there is one general contractor that they would like the county to interview. He stated once that is complete they are going to move ahead and hire their own general contractor to finish the project. He said they expect within the next three weeks, barring any unforeseen circumstances, there would be a general contractor under contract.

Mr. McConnell stated that staff is requesting approval for an extension that will be contingent upon a firm plan and timetable for construction completion, but the county is confident that they will have that done and staff is recommending that the Board grant this extension until April 30, 2004, to give the county time to come back to the next Board meeting with a clear plan.

Request For Construction Time Extension–Santa Clara County (Agenda Item G)

Mr. Holien stated that this agenda item provides the Board with Santa Clara County’s request to change the construction completion date from June 21, 2004, to June 30, 2005, for the grant portion of its juvenile hall replacement housing units construction project. If the Board approves this request, staff will proceed to execute the amendment as soon as the Department of Finance approves staff’s pending request for an exemption to the recent Budget letter that bans state agencies from extending local assistance grant agreements due to the budget crisis. Again, the request is working its way through the administrative process.

Mr. Holien stated that Attachment A, in the agenda packet, is a detailed letter from the county indicating the reasons for the extension request, which include delays due to unknown site conditions encountered by the site preparation contractor, and as-built drawings that did not accurately reflect the site conditions. Mr. Holien stated that there was excessive rain in 2002/03, and there were some design errors and omissions that had to be remedied. The letter also indicates that as of November 2003 construction was over 30% complete and has continued to progress to this date. The contractor’s workmanship is reported to be at a high level and is making satisfactory progress in accordance with the revised project schedule that the county believes is achievable.

Mr. Holien stated that Ann Clark, Chief Probation Officer, Larry Jinkins, Director of GSA Facilities Department, Kathy Duque, Deputy Chief Probation Officer, and Rudy Castelo, County Project Manager are in attendance today to provide additional comments/update and to address any questions the Board might have. Mr. Holien introduced Chief Clark.

Chief Clark stated that as her colleague, Chief Bautista, she prefers not to be here but prefers to be closer to moving into their juvenile hall. She thanked BOC staff Susan King and Barbara Fenton for all their help. She said they are doing an excellent job of monitoring the state’s money, but also helping them complete their building project. She stated that when the county first approached the Board for funding they informed the Board that they have a complex project on a crowded urban site. Chief Clark quoted this favorite saying, which dates back many years, “this project is like changing your socks with your shoes on.” They have very little ground, very old buildings, and they have to get from the old to the new.

Chief Clark stated that this is a simpler version of some of the problems they have had i.e., unknown site conditions, inaccurate as-built drawings, and untimely rain, which happens to all construction projects. She stated they do not have any room to work around these conditions, so when a plumbing line turns out to be under a building, instead of next to it we have no place to move it. With all that, the team is doing very well and as the letter indicates they are moving at 30%, and now they are at about 45% completion. Chief Clark stated they are confident that the revised schedule will work. They have good project communication. Rudy Castelo, Project Manager, has done an excellent job of keeping people working together and things moving. She stated they are looking forward to being in their brand new facility. Chief Clark asked whether the Board had any questions.

Board Member Sheetz stated it seems as though Santa Clara County has hired the same contractor as Contra Costa County. In the Contra Costa County letter to Executive Director Thom McConnell, by Scott Tandy, he writes that during the course of the construction the contractor exhibited an unwillingness or inability to properly supervise or execute the completion of the job. Do you feel the same way about their attitude toward your project and whether or not a year is going to keep you on schedule? Chief Clark replied, no sir. They do have a different project superintendent. She stated she is not aware of the details of the Contra Costa project; however the superintendent that the contractor has on their site is the same superintendent who helped build their Phase I building. She stated they maybe in a different position with regard to some of the internal communication.

Board Member Silbert asked with these delays in time are there concomitant cost overruns? Chief Clark stated that on the county side of the project they would be seeking additional funding from the Board of Supervisors to deal with project management costs. In terms of the contract and state money, they will be well within budget. She stated that the overall project is going over budget. Board Member Silbert asked by how much do you anticipate it going over budget? Chief Clark stated the construction portion is not over budget, but what they will need is additional project management funds in order to continue management of the project.

As of this date, for the grant portion of the work they have change orders totaling $460,000 with a total contingency of $1.8 million, and they are already five eighths through the project. On the county side of funding, for the extension they are requesting $2.8 million for administration costs, construction management costs, AE costs, and other county costs. Board Member Silbert asked whether they feel assured that the county will be able to provide the additional funds? Chief Clark stated one is never sure until the Board of Supervisors says yes. She said they have carefully kept the Board informed as they have proceeded through this and are positive that the funding will be made available and, if not, they will have to propose a contingency plan for completing the project.

Chairman Hickman introduced Kevin Carruth, Undersecretary for the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Mr. Carruth was the former Santa Clara County Director for GSA, and he is glad to have him as the Undersecretary.

Mr. McConnell stated that in addition to Member Sheetz question, it is his understanding that Santa Clara County has conversed at extensive length with Contra Costa County both sharing what the issues were and what the concerns might have been. He said, it is the opinion of staff from Santa Clara County that they are well forewarned, and believe they can mitigate those circumstances because of the collaboration they have with Contra Costa County. Mr. McConnell asked Chief Clark whether that was correct? Chief Clark responded yes.

Status Report Concerning the BOC’s 2nd Generation Selection Examination for Local Corrections and Probation Officers (Agenda Item H)

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that in May 2001, the Board of Corrections authorized the STC Program to develop a 2nd generation version of each entry-level selection examination one for Adult Corrections Officers, one for Juvenile Corrections Officers and one for Probation Officers. The development of the original exams occurred in 1982, and it was time to update those instruments. The field has changed and is much more sophisticated with a new generation of workers in the facilities. The STC Division was charged with completing this project and provided $400,000 to finish it. The real story is as STC took this project through the various phases that local agencies ponied up in kind by way of staff services with over the $400,000 state investment to help coordinate the testing selection, and the validation or over 2,000 local correctional officers. In terms of total costs, you add up the funding STC received plus the in kind costs the counties provided, and this process cost at least a million dollars. Mr. Sida stated he is very proud of the relationship and the seriousness in which local agencies participated in the selection examination development.

Mr. Sida stated the exams are a result of a three-year research and test development process that included the following phases:

Mr. Sida stated that they have scheduled a February 15, 2004 date to have the exams released. He is pleased to say that they may actually beat that time and have them available by February 1st. All the background is completed and the only things needed are printing the test booklets, and getting the agreements worked out between the Board of Corrections and Cooperative Personnel Services so the tests can be released to the counties.

Mr. Sida stated that one of the unique features of the new exam is that STC is currently pilot-testing the ability to provide this exam over the Internet. He said what that will mean, particularly, for small counties, and rural counties that don’t have a high job applicant pool, is they will be able to set up either in their agency or in their personnel department a proctored internet connection. The applicant will be able to take the test via the internet and scores will be returned immediately at a very low cost, high level of security and, STC thinks, over time that this will be the testing mechanism of the future. Mr. Sida stated that, of course, written booklets will be provided for the large counties such as San Diego and Los Angeles.

Mr. Sida stated that another positive aspect of the exam development is they were able to provide a systematic and comprehensive job performance rating form. This form was used in the research to collect information about an incumbent’s job performance on all major areas of work activities, skills, and behaviors. They are very pleased that an unintended product resulted as part of this endeavor. The new exam provides local agencies a new tool that supports the selection of qualified applicants. This is in keeping with a primary element of the Board’s mission: to increase the competency of local corrections personnel. He asked the Board if they had any questions about the exam. There were none.

Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant II Program – Presentation of Draft Final Report (Agenda Item I)

Ms. Stoll stated that this is the second final report on the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant programs. The Challenge I programs were approved by the Legislature in 1996 because the Legislature and practioners in the field wanted to know what worked with juveniles. They funded Challenge I as a demonstration program with a rigorous evaluation design that followed the treatment group, as well as a control group, to find out what works. She stated that two years later, the Legislature approved Challenge II and this final report is on the Challenge II activities.

Ms. Stoll stated that Challenge II was a continuation of Challenge I, in the sense that they were able to add more counties and demonstration projects in 1999. They had 31 county programs between Challenge I and Challenge II. In anticipation of the design of the projects, planning money was offered to all of the counties in the state, and most of them took that offer and conducted multiagency collaborations with coordinating councils. They planned and put in a proposal for the Challenge I project. Not everyone was funded for program implementation. Part of the evaluation criterion in selecting the programs was a commitment to have a strong rigorous evaluation component to collect data and to have comparison groups.

Ms. Stoll stated that another part of the commitment that had to be made by the counties was a strong match commitment. She said that while we expended roughly $57 million of state funds on Challenge II, there was another $35 million, roughly 61%, match that was put up by these localities also. They have been involved in closeout activities since September 2003, which has included submission of the final program audit and final evaluation reports. Board staff has been involved in an extensive (hundreds of people and researchers involved) analysis of the information contained in these reports. She stated that Dr. Kohls would be presenting the statistical data to the Board shortly. In addition to the local staff contributions, Ms. Stoll wanted to acknowledge the work of the Board staff and consultants that contributed to the final report before the Board.

Ms. Stoll stated that they have been closing out the projects and auditing them. Out of the total funding, only $561,000 has been returned, $2.00 from Contra Costa, $1.00 from El Dorado, $502,000 from San Francisco, and $58,000 from Tehama counties. The types of programs that have been funded have ranged from intervention to incapacitation, mental health, gender-specific, family-based, restorative justice, intensive supervision, day treatment, placement avoidance, placement assessment, as well as transition and aftercare programs. A listing of the programs is included in the report. Also in the report is a summary in the appendix, which gives more details on the research.

Ms. Stoll stated that 10 of the 17 Challenge II projects funded have continued, or a major component of the program has continued, through other funding sources such as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) or blended funding from Medi-Cal/education funding. She stated, all in all, the programs have worked. She then introduced Dr. Kohls for the presentation of data.

Dr. Kohls stated it is a nervous daunting task to do justice to four years of research and the hard work of hundreds of people. He said the Board of Corrections was charged with the responsibility for designing research to evaluate Challenge program effectiveness, or what works to reduce juvenile offending. The research was unprecedented in its scope involving 9,000 juveniles. The research included individual local evaluations in 17 jurisdictions and a statewide evaluation program using a common set of data elements collected by all programs for all juvenile participants.

Dr. Kohls stated that the research began in 1999 and ended in 2003, and he will present the results of the common data element statewide research. The question that was addressed in the research was “what works” in terms of reducing juvenile offending and increasing completion of court-ordered obligations. Dr. Kohls stated that the common data element research model used by each jurisdiction was either true or quasi-experimental design, involving a relevant comparison group. He stated this is very difficult to do in this particular setting. There was a uniform set of personal characteristics, background, intervention and outcome variables that was used by all the programs.

Dr. Kohls stated that the data were gathered for each treatment and comparison juvenile as he or she progressed through the study, the data was collected into the BOC statewide database, updated every six months throughout the program, and then the data was analyzed by the BOC researchers. He stated that not all the jurisdictions’ data is included in the statewide research.

He stated that a jurisdiction’s program data was included in the final common data element research if:

When they applied these criteria 10 of the original 17 jurisdictions satisfied the criteria for having their data be included in the common data element research. That resulted in 4,000 juveniles in the research, approximately half participated in Challenge II programs and about half received standard services. Dr. Kohls stated that the research he is reporting on today addresses outcomes for the six-month period following program completion. He stated that to figure out what works they looked at the following outcome variables (in follow-up periods after program completion):

Dr. Kohls stated that these were the variables mandated by the enabling legislation that created the Challenge II projects. The 4,000 juveniles that were included in the research and the characteristics of the sample were:

Dr. Kohls stated, the results – did the programs work? Yes! The results indicate that Challenge II programs had a significant positive impact on juvenile behavior. He stated that before he gives the specifics of the results, he would speak about certain research issues. The first research issue has to do with subgroup differences. The first fact is that older juveniles behave differently than younger juveniles. He said taking that fact into account before analyzing the data, they split the file into: 1) under 15 years of age, and 2) 15 years of age and older. The finding for criminal justice variables is that Challenge II had a greater effect on older juveniles than on younger juveniles, by far. The second fact is males offend more often than females. They split the file into males and females. The finding is that there is a greater impact on males than females given the same risk factors. The third fact is that juveniles with risk factors offend more often. They split the file into juveniles with an important risk factor and those without that factor (drug problems). The finding is that Challenge II had a much greater impact on juveniles with significant risk factors. In terms of considering risk factors they looked at a fairly large range including abuse/neglect; past institutional commitment; criminal family influence; drug problems; referral for felony offense; gang affiliation; not living with natural parent; school attendance problems; and 602 wards at program entry. He stated that they could only choose one, because if you chose two or more the research sample just shrinks to an impossibly small level. He stated that the best factor they chose to explore for this issue was drug problems. It seemed to be the most pervasive across the different subgroups and it seemed to correlate most highly with the other risk factors.

Dr. Kohls stated that the second research issue had to do with the false positive problem. Presumably, juveniles in the comparison group were likely to offend, without the Challenge II Program. They are predicting that juveniles who receive standard services would re-offend. The table, included in the agenda packet, list the percentage of comparison group juveniles not arrested in the first follow-up period. The sample that they had in Challenge II showed the rate of non re-arrests was quite high, from 62% to 79%. Dr. Kohls stated that for the total sample 70% were not arrested in the first follow-up period. He said what that does in their research is it provides the baseline for improvement. The Challenge II Program would have to do significantly better than 70% in order to prove that Challenge II programs work. That is a very high standard. The fact that juveniles who are predicted to offend don’t, we call that the false positive problem. Dr. Kohls stated that when he presents the research results to keep in mind that he is presenting the results against a very high standard of non-offending juveniles.

Dr. Kohls stated that if they did a better job of predicting who should be in the Challenge programs the rate of improvement would be much more significant than what he is going to be presenting today. He said by way of example, if 90% and 95% of the comparison and treatment groups, respectively, did not get arrested, the treatment group rate of improvement would be about 6% with the false positives included, and 50% with the false positives excluded. He stated that one of the big points he would like to make today is that the very next thing they should be working on is the prediction problem.

Dr. Kohls stated that he would now be presenting the findings. He said with regard to the subgroup results, the programs produced significant effects for older males. The results for younger males were not significant. The programs produced significant effects for older females, but only if risk is taken into account. He stated that therefore, he would be presenting the results for three groups: older males irrespective of risk; older males with drug problems; and older females with drug problems.

Dr. Kohls stated that the first Challenge II results were the percentages not arrested in the follow-up group. He said the table, in the agenda packet, is shown with three columns: older males in general, older males with drug problems, and older females with drug problems. The Challenge II rate of improvement rate for older males was 6.7%. He said one of the first things he would like to point out is the difference between males and females. The rate of females with drug problems not being arrested in the follow-up group is 69.9% higher than the rate of males not offending in general. He stated that for different risk levels males and females behave quite differently.

The results show that there is a highly significant improvement due to Challenge II in terms of reducing the rate of offending, and the rate of being arrested in the follow-up period. The second is older males in general versus older males with drug problems. The Challenge II rate of improvement almost doubles. He stated that if we could do a better job of prediction based on risk factors, we could do even better than that. He said this was with a baseline of not offending of upwards of 60% to 70%. Please take that into account as well.

Variable two: percentages for no sustained petition. The rate of improvement for older males is not significant (2.7%), but for juveniles with drug problems there was highly significant improvement due to Challenge II (8.1%). Dr. Kohls stated that the third variable is number of arrests per 100 juveniles. If we look at the number of arrests per 100 juveniles, there is a pretty striking improvement due to Challenge II, 25.5% for older males; juveniles with drug problems experienced a 38.2% improvement; and females with drug problems a 33.3% improvement. Dr. Kohls stated, as a preview, the results for all the variables for juveniles with drug problems all showed significant improvement due to Challenge II, except in one case, which was very close to being significant.

Variable three: the number of sustained petitions per 100 juveniles. It was not significant for males in general, but significant both for males and females with drug problems.

Variable four: percentages for no arrests for a felony offense. The striking thing about these data is how high the non-arrests for a felony offense was for females with drug problems, 94.6%. He said across the board there is significant improvement except for older females.

Variable five: percentages for no sustained felony petitions. Once again, there were significant results for juveniles with drug problems, but not significant for any other group, including males in general.

Variable six: juveniles with no institutional commitments. There was significant improvement due to Challenge II for older juveniles with drug problems.

Variable seven: For completion of probation in the first follow-up period, there was significant improvement due to the Challenge II programs.

Dr. Kohls stated in summary, there was significant improvement due to Challenge II for males and females with the drug problem risk factor. For males in general, there was significant improvement for about half of the variables. As a side note, if you look at younger males, there was improvement due to Challenge II (not significant, but in the right direction). If you look at younger females you cannot see very much going on. In terms of outcomes for younger juveniles, there is a need to look at different outcome variables to judge success, rather than criminal justice variables.

Next, Dr. Kohls dealt with the relationship between risk levels and arrests for older males. He said to explore this issue a little further they came up with a risk scale that was based on a statistical combination of all the risk factors. It is kind of an optimum risk factor. Every juvenile was given a risk factor score and the juveniles were divided into the top 25% in terms of risk (very high risk), the second 25% (moderate risk), the third 25% (lower risk), and the bottom 25% (very low risk). Dr. Kohls stated that if you look at the bottom group, the comparison group actually did better than the Challenge II group. When you go to the next risk level, you get improvement due to Challenge II. As you go into the higher risk groups, the amount of improvement increases upwards of 17%. He said this points to the advisability of them coming up with better predictors of offending in the future.

Listed below is the research summary:

Challenge II programs have proven to be effective, and they were recommended to all jurisdictions. Second, the prediction problem needs to be addressed and needs to take into account age, gender, and risk differences (Dr. Kohls stated that this is such a huge issue and he can’t over emphasize it). Third, different prediction strategies will have to be devised for each age/gender subgroup (different programming strategies as well). Fourth, a criterion of program effectiveness needs to be expanded beyond criminal justice outcomes (especially for younger juveniles) and positive outcomes (e.g., school behavior, personal adjustment) need to be considered.

Finally, Dr. Kohls had the privilege of analyzing and reporting on an amazing database. He believes this research was unprecedented in scope and sophistication. The database was the most complete and error-free that he has ever worked on in his career. He thanked the hundreds of probation staff and managers, Board staff, and researchers who did such a fine job in designing and conducting effective programs and carefully collecting the data that made this program evaluation possible.

Board Member Silbert stated that as a person who groused about having to get control groups for this kind of a project, she would have to say that she was wrong to complain because it has helped provide the most comprehensive, well-done research she has ever seen. She said hopefully, having done this research it behooves us to possibly include a note to the Legislature that once we spend years looking at what might work, and we see that we truly intervened intensively in all these ways and it really makes a difference, then maybe we can change the way the system works so that we can follow what the research has just shown us. She stated that sometimes when the money is gone that that is the end of everything and it dies a natural death. She deeply hopes that this does not happen. This is strong data for every probation department, little, big, rural, urban, with all different approaches.

Dr. Kohls stated that he really appreciated Board Member Silbert’s comments because he thinks he has fought more battles and lost more hair over that argument about a true comparison group than any other research issue ever. Board Member Silbert asked for applause for Dr. Kohls.

Mr. McConnell stated to Board Member Silbert that she is absolutely right and one of the things that has occurred as a part of this, and by no means a small part, is the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funding, which is $100-$116 million per year. It has stayed in the state budget and it is in the budget again this year during one of the most difficult fiscal times the State has ever seen. He stated that he thinks this research lends real credence to the fact that those funds should stay in the budget, and the JJCPA Program should adjust itself to those programs that have been found to work within this context, and we should all strongly support continuation of those funding sources so that this effort can be continued and improved upon. Mr. McConnell stated that it is an opportune time because it has never been more tenuous than it is now about how to continue a program that has been this successful. He said it does provide a forum and that forum is the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act.

Board Member Nettles stated that Los Angeles County had an opportunity to see their approach up close and even though they didn’t achieve the initial objective of reducing the amount of youth that were going to placement, what they did do was intervene with those youth who would become the second generation violent offenders. He said it accomplished a great deal.

Dr. Kohls stated that they appreciated the data from Los Angeles County. It was a prominent part of their results.

New Juvenile Justice Program Responsibilities Effective January 1, 2004 (Agenda Item J)

Ms. Stoll stated that the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) was abolished in the 2003/04 state budget. Their activities and programs were transferred to different agencies. The Board of Corrections received the juvenile justice programs that had been operated by OCJP. Unfortunately, with the advent of the abolishment of their agency, a number of activities ceased to function during the first part of the 2003/04 fiscal year prior to the transfer. BOC is in a fast paced learning process about this program and its regulations. OCJP terminated with all sub-grantees, effective September 30, 2004. All federal funds were returned to the federal government at the end of December.

Ms. Stoll stated the BOC now needs to reapply for the funds for California. The federal Office of Juvenile Justice Programs (OJJP) is requesting BOC to prepare delinquent reports due last June prior to allowing California to reapply. BOC submitted the last report yesterday. The BOC is three weeks into the transition and have been busy with setting up a filing system, budgets, audits, monitoring and programs, reapplying for the funds, and satisfying the federal monitors. She stated that there are several programs with different match responsibilities, different emphasis areas, different timelines, and different reporting areas. The Title II money focuses on delinquency and intervention and involves several sub-component requirements including jail removal of juveniles from adult detention facilities; compliance monitoring function, which the BOC’s FSO division carries out; and disproportionate minority contact (DMC). California is delinquent in the DMC area and will need to make a greater effort to collect the required federal information that OCJP committed to collect last year.

Ms. Stoll stated that if California does not comply with the mentioned areas the juvenile justice funds could be withheld. She indicated that they are quickly getting the reports, contacts, and people together. In addition to Title II money, there is Title V money, which focuses on school safety and prevention programs. Congress cut the money appropriation for the 2003-year, but the funding is reinstated at a reduced level in the 2004 federal fiscal year (FFY). During 2002 FFY we have about 17 grants. There are some issues with this program regarding match funds, and BOC will be contacting sub-grantees to advise them that they need to increase their original match amount from 20% to 50%. This was identified last August by the federal auditors.

Ms. Stoll described another program, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, which is based on criminal justice expenditures. She said that approximately 75% of the money is distributed to the localities. The federal government has notified the states that they want performance indicators going back to October 1, 2003 to be gathered on every project receiving over $10,000. She stated that the federal government realizes that in order to continue these programs they need to show some outcomes. She stated that she has every confidence that the inherited problems and issues will be straightened out and corrected.

Ms. Stoll directed her attention to Board Member Allen who once served on the State Advisory Group (SAG) and has some knowledge about this process. Board Member Allen stated that there were some problems with the way things were handled, but not with the members of SAG. He stated that when he was first appointed to SAG in 1998, under Governor Wilson, the committee was somewhat of a rubber stamp. He feels that the changes being made, i.e., monitoring and program evaluation are for the better. He stated that this will be a different way of doing business.

Ms. Stoll stated to Chairman Hickman that he could expect recommendations from staff. Staff has already streamlined the processes for grantees to claim funds. They are now online. She said they are going to try and line up procedures to match the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act.

Board Member Allen asked how many staff members have been transferred from OCJP to the Board of Corrections to assist with this arduous task? Ms. Stoll stated that they were given 9.8 program staff, but no budget, legislative, auditor/monitoring, or administrative staff. There were approximately 19 positions shown for this program originally, but the BOC received 9.8. Board Member Allen asked whether the SAG membership was transferred as well. Ms. Stoll stated that there would be a SAG, because it is required by the federal government as well as a JCEC, which is a subcommittee of the SAG. She stated that they are in the process of preparing a discussion paper for consideration that looks at the coordination/relationship between this Board and the SAG; and how recommendations, composition, and chairmanship of that organization occurs. California has been out of compliance with the SAG membership composition for several years.

Mr. McConnell stated that staff would have a recommendation to the Chairman on the SAG, shortly, assuring him that the Board has overall responsibility for the decisions and, at the same time, creating an environment where they meet federal requirements, which have not been met for several years. He stated they are trying to work through how all that is going to come together.

Ms. Stoll stated that she is also in the process of working with the Department of Finance, Office of State Audit, to audit OCJP’s functions. Last week Ms. Stoll received a report from the federal government with some audit disallowance recommendations for the program. She is working on cleaning those up.

Chairman Hickman asked whether they have a timeframe in mind to report that they have a clear understanding of the direction in which the BOC must go in order to provide all the necessary services. Ms. Stoll stated that she has some ideas right now. There are some outstanding fiscal issues to clean up and expects those things to be completed within the next few weeks. The last of the past due reporting requirements have been delivered to the federal government. She said the federal government is working closely with us and that the federal officials are pleased with the discussions and direction the BOC is taking, which parallels in many areas what we have done with JJCPA. There are quite a few funding commitments that we must honor because decisions have already been made for sub-grantee programs for the next year or two. Ms. Stoll stated that as those program funds become available, we can begin putting them into a more coordinated approach that looks at needs, gaps in services, and also has some evaluation outcome data tied to it. This doesn’t currently exist with most of these programs.

Mr. McConnell assured Chairman Hickman that staff would have a proposal to him by the April 2004 Board meeting. The proposal will include recommendations for the problems inherited and discussion of steps taken to correct the problems, and also what the design looks like for the future. He stated that they will be asking Chairman Hickman to consider the recommendations and approve or adopt what he thinks is appropriate to move forward with this program.

Chairman Hickman stated that any assistance staff might need from the chair to please let him know. He stated that he really appreciates the additional work that Ms. Stoll is doing. Mr. McConnell stated that Ms. Stoll is certainly the right person for the job.

2003/04 Adult Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations Revision Process – Updated Timeline (Agenda Item K)

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that he wanted to take the opportunity to say what a privilege it is to be in this new juvenile hall. Mr. Crout stated that this agenda item is a request for the approval of an updated timeline and a status report on the 2004 Adult Regulations Revision Process for Titles 15 and 24 for the California Code of Regulations (CCR). At the January 16, 2003 meeting, the Board directed staff to begin the standards review process for the Minimum Standards for Adult Detention Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations, which is required by statute to be accomplished once every two years. Chairman Presley, at the time, appointed Board members William Kolender as chair and Gary Mann as co-chair of the ESC for this process. In addition, the BOC directed staff to work with the chair and co-chair to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a timeline for consideration at the April 2003 Board meeting.

Mr. Crout stated that on February 26, 2003, Board members Kolender and Mann met with staff to develop a list of recommended members and the proposed timeline. The Board approved the ESC membership and the proposed timeline. On June 18, 2003, the ESC met and reviewed Titles 15 and 24, CCR, and reviewed comments that were submitted from the field on any revisions, or additions/deletions that needed to be accomplished. The ESC identified those regulations and issues where additional examination was warranted. The ESC identified three workgroups, recommended their composition, provided direction on areas of examination, and directed the workgroups to meet and provide recommendations on any revisions to the regulations.

Mr. Crout stated that in September and October 2003, the three workgroups (Management, Medical-Mental Health-Nutrition Environmental Health, and Physical Plant) met and examined each regulation with an emphasis on those that were identified by the ESC. Based on a thorough review of these regulations, the workgroups developed a series of recommendations for revision. In November 2003, the ESC met and approved most recommendations, a few were amended and in particular one was pulled (Section 1020, Correctional Officer Core Course), because it needed additional work done by the workgroup. Mr. Crout stated at the time this agenda item was prepared they had not completed the work of gathering additional information, but since then they have finished the work to the satisfaction of the Management workgroup, as well as the ESC.

Mr. Crout stated consequently, staff is requesting approval for a three month-extension on the timeline in order to give staff ample time to integrate these changes into the proposed regulations. Therefore, staff would be presenting final recommendations from the ESC to the Board at its April 2004 meeting.

Development of Regulation To Implement SB 1242 – Request For Final Adoption (Agenda Item L)

Mr. Crout stated that this agenda item is directed at the development of regulations to implement SB 1242, Statutes of 2002, amended Penal Code Section 298.1 to allow the use of reasonable force to collect blood specimens, saliva samples, or thumb or palm print impressions from inmates who, after requested to do so, refuse to provide such samples. The BOC is mandated under Penal Code Section 298.1 to develop regulations for the use of force in securing these samples from inmates of local detention facilities. The BOC is also required to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2005, on the implementation of the use of reasonable force pursuant to this act.

Mr. Crout stated that at the April 17, 2003 meeting, the BOC directed staff to begin the regulation process required by SB 1242. Acting Chair Edward Alameida appointed Board Member Curtis Hill as chair and Board Member Donald Sheetz as co-chair of the ESC for this process. At the direction of the BOC, the chair and co-chair developed a list of potential ESC members and the membership was approved by the BOC. The ESC met on June 12, 2003 and developed a framework for a regulation, guideline, and reporting process.

At the October 16, 2003 meeting, the BOC approved the proposed regulation as required by SB 1242, for inclusion in the Adult Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Section 1059. The BOC directed staff to commence the Administrative Procedures Act including the 45-day public comment period regarding this regulation. The public comment period began October 31, 2003, and ended on December 18, 2003. On December 18, 2003, Board Member Curtis Hill chaired a public hearing at the BOC conference room.

The written presentations are included in the agenda packet as Attachment B. Mr. Crout stated at the conclusion of the public comment period, staff compiled submitted written comments (no oral comments were received). These comments were presented to Board Member Hill, chair of the ESC. It was concluded that the issues raised in the comments were each considered at the ESC meeting, or were without merit, and staff was directed to proceed with preparing the final draft of the regulation and submit it to the BOC for adoption.

Mr. Crout stated that initially there was a delay in receiving funding to develop this regulation and because the Administrative Procedures Act takes a minimum of 90 days to complete, staff was concerned that there would be insufficient data to provide a meaningful report to the Legislature as required by statute. On August 25, 2003, with the approval of ESC chair Hill, a letter was sent to the field informing them of the proposed regulation and requesting that they voluntarily comply with the provisions of the proposal beginning September 1, 2003.

On November 17, 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-03-02, which directs agency secretaries to request the immediate return of any proposed regulation including emergency regulations for final adoption, amendment, or repeal or other processing by the Office of Administrative Law. It is anticipated that this regulation will qualify for the exception to this order because the enabling legislation (SB 1242) contained an urgency clause, and also required a report on the enactment to the legislation. The report is due January 1, 2005, and further delay in implementation would render the report useless due to lack of data.

Mr. Crout stated that staff recommends the BOC approve the ESC recommended regulation for inclusion in Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities and authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Section 886.5, Welfare and Institutions Code – Orange County Los Pinos Camp Expansion (Agenda Item M)

Mr. Crout stated that this is a consent information item. At the May 20, 1999 meeting, pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 6025.6, the Board approved a delegation policy to allow staff to exercise ministerial authority to make decisions on approving, or denying a county’s request to exceed the 125-minor capacity limit for camps as specified under Section 886.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The Orange County Probation Department has requested to increase the capacity of their Los Pinos Camp beyond 125 minors. Based upon the information that staff has reviewed and an onsite evaluation, the county is complying with all the statutory requirements and staff has approved their request for a capacity in excess of 125.

Legislative Update (Agenda Item N)

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that staff has no new legislative items to report at this time.

Chairman Hickman stated that he appreciates the work of the Board. He thanked the San Diego County Probation Department for hosting the Board meeting and he also thanked the Board members for a gracious first meeting. He stated that he appreciates their service and patience as he chaired his first meeting.