Welcome to California California Home
About Us
Navigation Tips
Travel Info

    My CA     This Site 
 Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2005


Kevin Carruth, Undersecretary, representing Mr. Roderick Hickman for the Youth and Correctional Agency, stated that Mr. Hickman was at the Little Hoover Commission hearing on the reorganization of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Because Board Members Walt Allen and Calvin Remington also need to attend the hearing, staff will first present the action agenda items that require a quorum, followed by the information agenda items. Acting Chair Carruth asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the meeting continued.

Acting Chair Carruth called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He announced the absences of Board Members Zev Yaroslavsky and Mimi Silbert due to a conflict in their schedules. Ms. Silbert submitted a written request to be excused and Mr. Yaroslavsky's staff called and asked that he be excused.

A motion to excuse Board members Zev Yaroslavsky and Mimi Silbert due to a conflict in schedules was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich and seconded by Mr. William Kolender. The motion carried.


Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the October 21, 2004 Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. William Kolender and seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth introduced Barbara Tynes as the new Administrative Assistant to the Board who is replacing Gloria Guerrero who took a position with the California Youth Authority in Modesto.


Executive Officer (A) Karen Stoll reviewed a letter from Secretary Hickman, included in the Agenda package, asking the Board to establish an independent operation and incident review panel related to the homicide that occurred on January 10, 2005, at the California Institution for Men (CIM). An inmate killed Manuel Gonzalez, a sixteen-year veteran Correctional Officer employee of CIM. Ms. Stoll stated that Penal Code section 6028.1 allows the Board of Corrections to implement special studies and panels of this nature. In the past, there have been few requests, but Secretary Hickman's request is within the responsibilities and purview of the Board to look at issues of penology and correctional studies.

The Inspector General and Ms. Stoll met with investigators from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department; the District Attorney's Office; a representative from Senator Gloria Romero's office, who is also looking into the matter; and internal affairs investigators from the Department of Corrections. All agreed that caution would be taken so that each of the independent review group's activities would not interfere with the local prosecution and homicide investigation.

Staff is recommending that the Board approve Secretary Hickman's request with the following conditions:

  • Defer commencement of the Panel's activities until the Sheriff's Department has completed its investigation into the homicide.
  • Defer the interviewing of witnesses until the District Attorney has reviewed the investigation reports. The Sheriff's Department is expected to complete its investigation this week and the District Attorney's Office will take approximately a week and a half to review it after the Sheriff's Department submits the materials to them.
  • Where feasible, the panel will rely on reports and materials from the other three investigations.
  • If additional information is needed, the District Attorney and Sheriff's Department will be advised and present during the interviews. There are valid concerns with multiple interviews of potential witnesses.

Ms. Stoll stated that an agreement was made to provide copies of reports or documents generated by each panel, and to maintain confidentiality of the Sheriff's and District Attorney's investigation reports and preserve the nonpublic records status of these reports. Staff has requested a legal opinion on whether the panel created by the Board of Corrections will have a confidentiality shield.

Staff is recommending creation of the suggested panel with the conditions and the agreements that were discussed with the District Attorney's Office. Glenn Goord, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections was suggested to chair the panel. In discussions with the National Institute of Corrections, they expressed their desire to maintain neutrality, and ability to confer with YACA, and have elected not to be part of the panel. The National Institute of Corrections has agreed to provide the funding for the travel of the out-of-state participants.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that he wanted the role of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to be clear. It is because they have considerable expertise. NIC chose not to participate on the panel. They feel that it compromises their neutrality in the situation and the ability to provide technical assistance because they will then be a participant in the event. The Board will honor that decision. Mr. Michael Prizmich asked what is the end goal of the panel. Ms. Stoll answered that the end goal of the panel is to produce an objective report with recommendations on operational and security issues around the homicide incident and other issues that have been raised regarding staff vests. Acting Chair Carruth said it would be valuable to have people from within the State of California, from local government as represented by the Board, and others to provide an objective perspective on the incident. He stated that Glenn Goord is particularly well qualified to take a look at this issue.

A motion was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann to accept the staff recommendation. The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth commented that the Secretary/Chair is asking the Board to take an active role on this issue, which is a further indicator of his confidence in the Board's staff and the Board itself. Ms. Stoll stated that Mr. William Kolender and Mr. John Scott are being asked to be on the panel.


Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated that this agenda item is a pilot project request from Contra Costa County to increase the rate of capacity of one of their holding cells at the Martinez Detention Facility from a maximum of 16 inmates to a maximum of 32 inmates. Title 24, Section 470.2.2 - Temporary Holding Cells, requires that holding cells be limited to holding no more than 16 inmates. The limitation on the maximum capacity of temporary holding cells is predicated on two basic premises: (1) the difficulty of providing effective supervision for more than 16 persons; and (2) flexibility in terms of inmate segregation. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department personnel believe they can mitigate the concerns upon which the limit is based. Title 24, Section 13-102 allows the Board to approve departures from the regulations for experimenting with building systems or new designs Captain Dave Pascoe from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office was available to answer any questions about the request.

A motion was made by Mr. William Kolender to approve the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department's pilot project request for Title 24, Section 470A.2.2 - Temporary Holding Cell, to increase the maximum capacity of Holding Cell #9 to 32 inmates and seconded by Mr. Donald Sheetz. The motion carried.


Field Representative Marlon Yarber stated that staff is recommending that the Board deny second and third year funding to the Sacramento Police Athletic League (PAL) program based on their lack of demonstrated effectiveness and failure to comply with contractual issues. Concurrent with the closure of the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) and the transfer of grant projects to the Board of Corrections, staff recommended that the Board honor existing contracts and those approved for funding by OCPJ. One of the 27 Title II Delinquency Prevention project contracts transferred to BOC was the Growing Our Own project funded through Sacramento PAL. The issue is how the funds are supposed to be used. Title II funds are designed for use primarily as startup costs, allowing a program to become operational. Within three years an outside funding source should be identified for long-term sustainability. From June 2000 to June 2003, prior to the transfer of the contract to the Board of Corrections, Sacramento PAL received one cycle of three-year funding and, as a result, should not have been eligible to receive a second round of Title II funds. Similar issues were identified in the 2000 to 2003 project, by the OCJP monitor and the independent auditor's report recommended by Board staff. The OCJP monitor was unable to verify progress report data, including how many kids were in the program, how many had completed different outcomes, and how many had completed or participated in different activities. PAL's response at that time was to prioritize development of a system to collect data and track kids in the program. This is one of the main concerns expressed by Board staff. Since the grant award was honored by BOC, staff has exercised a great deal of flexibility. The contract was backdated to include a portion of the period that OCJP administered the program, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004. Staff helped PAL finalize budget documents and get the grant award completed. Staff recommended the audit because no audit had been conducted for the first three-year cycle. Staff assisted in the repeated review and revision of financial invoices submitted for payment. An extension of progress reports was allowed, and the number of progress reports required for the project was reduced. PAL was given the opportunity to respond to the audit and develop a corrective action plan. PAL attempted to bring the project back into compliance. While staff was attempting to retrieve progress reports, PAL indicated that they were undergoing a merger with the Sacramento 911 Foundation, which spurred questions about the contract validity with BOC. In response to these questions, PAL identified a due date to produce the corrective action plan and a response to the progress reports and the delayed invoices. PAL failed to meet its initial deadline and has since supplied some of the information to us. BOC staff also met with the Sacramento PAL and the 911 Foundation to discuss options, opportunities, and potential future relationships. Subsequent to the corrective action plan being delivered to BOC on December 23 (the due date was December 15), on January 12, a crate of information was delivered that included source documentation, employee timesheets, hard copies of policies and procedures and bylaws, and updated information in relation to the progress report. The information does show that PAL has delivered the services as identified albeit the information is late. A financial invoice had not been submitted since May 31, 2004. On January 21, a draft financial invoice was submitted for the reimbursement of $69,123. Currently, there is a balance of $86,951 from the project.

Acting Chair Carruth noted that Board Members received a letter dated January 24 from David Topaz; Chief Najera; Vice Mayor Sandy Sheedy; Councilmember Rob Fong; and Kendra Lewis, Executive Director. He stated that the threshold question is a legal one regarding the eligibility for continuing funding and that his understanding is that under the federal statute a project can receive only three years of funding. Due to commitments made by OCJP, Sacramento PAL received a fourth year of funding, but should not have, according federal statutes. Regardless of PAL's performance being exemplary or not, they are not eligible to receive additional funding. Mr. Yarber stated OJJDP had confirmed that in discussions related to other projects that had received funding beyond three years.

David Topaz, President, 911 Foundation for Humanity, and also President of the Sacramento PAL, stated that the Sacramento PAL had been in operation for 30 years and has provided before and after school programs for kids in one form or another in Oak Park and other disadvantaged neighborhoods. In late March or April of 2004, the 911 Foundation for Humanity began negotiations to take over PAL. The 911 Foundation pursued funding sources outside of the grants that PAL currently has. Some programs are available to PAL, including an entrepreneurship program, and a playwriting and arts program that the Teichert Foundation has expressed an interest in. The 911 Foundation has been operating under the assumption that the funding could continue should they comply with Board staff's requests. Every effort has been made to do that. Mr. Topaz stated his great fear was that if funding were not continued, they would be able to go to the Teichert Foundation with a proposal for other programs. He stated that Sacramento PAL would like to come back to the Board in six months with a performance review. Mr. Topaz stated that Marlon Yarber did a great evaluation of the project, but there were other results the Board might be interest in. This year, the first PAL participant graduated from a four-year university. All the participants in a special sub-program at PAL, called the Math, English, Science, Language Program, were admitted to four-year colleges. Mr. Topaz asked the Board for a continuation of the funding and/or the direction to any other funding that the Board has access to help keep PAL in place to continue helping kids. He stated that there are 45 to 50 kids, on a daily basis from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, who are receiving a healthy meal, tutoring, education and athletic programs that are only starting to expand. Because of 911's involvement, Mr. Topaz has access to the police department and the sheriff's department, both who have offered to be involved.

Mr. Remington stated that he appreciated Officer Topaz's involvement and wished it had been earlier. Acting Chair Carruth offered an amendment. He stated that staff's amendment is that they not be funded for second and third year, which is actually fourth and fifth year. For the record, he suggested that the motion be that the Board does not approve it for fifth year funding given the statute's three-year limitation. Ms. Stoll stated it was appropriate.

Acting Chair Carruth asked for any discussion. Mr. Walter Allen stated that if the recommendation is that the Sacramento PAL not continue, they can come back with a different proposal; reconfigure their proposal in a different manner that meets additional or different needs. Mr. Yarber stated that in the January 21 meeting with representatives from Sacramento PAL and the 911 foundation, BOC staff said there was a potential for future opportunities along with some of the different grant programs, not just the Title II, but Title V funding or any of the other grant opportunities available to them. Ms. Stoll responded to Mr. Kolender and Mr. Allen's comments. She stated that this is one of two projects in the state that is not associated with the Cal PAL program, which does provide oversight and direction. When Board staff met with the project staff they discussed the need for a business plan, outcomes, and to develop tracking. The meeting served to lay out some of the documented information they need to organize and collect if they are going to be successful at any grant regardless of the source.

Mr. Prizmich asked if the motion included requesting money back from the 911/PAL organization. Ms. Stoll answered that staff has been able to identify through documentation how much money the Board can pay them from the first year. Mr. Yarber stated that as part of the recommendation, staff is asking the Board to allow negotiation payment out of the fourth year funds.

A motion to approve the removal of the Sacramento Police Athletic League project from the Title II Delinquency Prevention and Intervention approved projects list for fifth year funding, and approval for staff to negotiate resolution and payment of all, or a portion, of the remaining funds was made by Mr. Calvin Remington and seconded by Mr. William Kolender. The motion carried.


Field Representative Lynda Frost stated that this agenda item involves an update for proposals for the Title V Community Prevent Grant Program, which supports a variety of prevention and intervention activities designed to keep at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice system. It is also a request for Board approval of the draft rating criteria for evaluating the Title V grant proposals. Acting Chair Carruth asked if there was any discussion. He stated that there are copies of the RFP available if members of the audience are interested.

A motion was made by Mr. William Kolender to approve the recommended Title V RFP rating criteria and seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.


  1. Minimum Standards for Adult Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations Revision Process - Request for Final Adoption.

    Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated that at the July 2004 meeting, the Board adopted the proposed revisions to Titles 15 and 24 regulations that were brought forward as a recommendation of an Executive Steering Committee. The revisions were approved for the purpose of filing with the Office of Administrative Law and to begin the 45-day public comment period. As required by the Administrative Procedures Act, two public hearings were held - one in San Diego and one in Sacramento. E-mail and regular mail comments were accepted on proposed revisions to the regulations. Only two of the comments resulted in a change to the proposed modifications. There was a change to section 1029, the Policies and Procedures Regulation, and a change to 1209, the Mental Health Services and Transfer to a Treatment Facility Regulation. The changes were forwarded to the chair and co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee, Mr. Kolender and Mr. Mann. They approved the changes to the regulations. As required by the Administrative Procedures Act, there was another 15-day public comment period. No further comments were received.

    Acting Chair Carruth noted that in the Mental Health Section reference is made to a Licensed Health Personnel and asked what were the categories of licensing. Mr. Read responded that there is a definition in Title 15 that lists "licensed health personnel" requirements.

A motion to approve the proposed changes to Titles 15 and 24, Minimum Standards for Local Adult Detention Facilities and authorization for staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Michael Prizmich. The motion carried.

  1. Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations - Request to Begin Regulations Review and Revision Process

    Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated that the Board of Corrections is mandated under Welfare and Institutions Code 210 and 885 to establish and review minimum standards for local juvenile detention facilities. The regulations reviewed include minimum standards related to programs, procedures, health care and nutrition, sanitation, as well as the planning and design of locally operated juvenile detention facilities. In the past, when the regulation revision process begins, the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) process is developed and, where appropriate, the Board empowers the ESC to develop work groups to work on regulation revision. Staff would meet with the Chair of the ESC that is appointed by the Chair of the Board to develop a list of potential ESC members and firm up a proposed timeline that would be considered at the March 17 Board of Corrections meeting.

A motion (1) to direct staff to begin the local juvenile detention facilities review and revision process, (2) for the Chairman appoint a BOC member to chair the ESC, (3) to empower the chair of the ESC to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a proposed timeline for consideration at the March 17, 2005 BOC meeting, and (4) to include Mr. Calvin Remington as the ESC chair was made by Mr. William Kolender and Mr. Walter Allen. The motion carried

  1. Minimum Standards for Selection and Training for Corrections, Title 15, California Code of Regulations - Request to Begin Regulations Review and Revision Process

    Deputy Director Shelley Montgomery stated that this Agenda Item is a request to proceed with a revision process of the minimum standards for the selection and training program in Title 15. It is a periodic review of all the regulations that govern the STC Program. This review is scheduled to start on March 17, 2005. Ms. Montgomery pointed out that Mr. Prizmich has volunteered to chair the ESC. Acting Chair Carruth stated that Mr. Mann would also like to participate on the committee and that the motion should include Mr. Prizmich as the chair.

A motion was made to (1) direct staff to begin the Standards and Training for Corrections; (2) appoint Mr. Michael Prizmich to chair the ESC and Mr. Gary Mann as a participant; and (3) empower the chair of the ESC to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a timeline for its consideration at the March 17, 2005 BOC meeting by Mr. William Kolender and seconded by Mr. Walter Allen. The motion carried.


Field Representative Magi Work provided an update of the November 3, 2004, meeting of the Disproportionate Minority Contact Workgroup. The Federal Juvenile Justice and Prevention Act that requires states to adhere to four core requirement in order for the states to receive funding. In the event that one or more of the requirements are not met, 20 percent of each violation of that funding is held. Fifty percent of the remaining allocation going to the state must be focused on the core requirement that does not meet compliance. In an effort to bolster the DMC effort in California, the Board of Corrections directed the Planning and Program staff to convene a workgroup that could evaluate and determine the best continuing strategy for the State of California to reduce DMC. The group discussed the data collection that is currently being collected through the Department of Justice from the probation departments throughout the state, and decided that that data is adequate to be used as a warning for these counties to further investigate DMC. The group arrived at consensus regarding the following issues. DMC should be addressed through a systemic approach. Education and training are a critical piece for DMC. Technical assistance needs to be provided to local governments and community groups in collecting data that would be community-specific and use it for program planning and implementation. DMC also should be addressed prior to the arrest, meaning that data that is currently being collected through DOJ does not hit on the contacts that the police and sheriffs are having with the kids prior to it being turned over into the formal juvenile justice system and them turning it over to probation. Experts claim that nationwide, 20 to 30 percents of the contacts fall in this category, which is something that is being collecting now. Evidence-based models need to be identified and available for jurisdictions wanting to implement DMC. Since the November meeting, DMC has been incorporated in the Title V RFP. It demonstrates how DMC can be addressed in a variety of programs. The workgroup again met on January 11, and refined the previous issues discussed. The group arrived at a conceptual idea, which is to develop a model that can be offered to the local communities. The DMC workgroup directed Board staff to build off the conceptual idea and provide a model that they can review. The model envisioned is one where counties volunteering to participate and, at the absolute minimum, the willingness of probation and the juvenile judge or referee to commit to working collaboratively to address DMC. Further, the model must include stipulations requiring measurable outcomes. There must be emphasis on front-end measures clearly articulating requirements and what is expected of the program participation before a community is selected. The group also felt the necessity to inform program candidates of potential problems and barriers when advocating voluntary participation. They felt that this would be the most successful approach in reaching evidence-based results desired regarding the DMC. The workgroup anticipates a recommendation for the Board at its March meeting.

Mr. Remington commented that he supported what Ms. Work discussed today. California is somewhat, for a variety of reasons, behind the curve on DMC. There is not a lot of money for this effort, but the will is there in the counties throughout California to participate. Education and technical assistance are critical to this effort and the conceptual design that BOC staff will be working with is very important.

Ms. Stoll added that staff recently received a letter from the federal government indicating that, they will release 80 percent of the money regarding the core requirements, but are withholding 20 percent of the money subject to BOC's submittal of DMC data on March 31. BOC was found in compliance last year after submitting the data and anticipate the same finding will be found this year.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if this was going to be a standing body that is going to continue to work this issue. Ms. Stoll responded that it was not envisioned to be a standing body. It is a workgroup subject to whatever limitation is needed. No future meetings are planned at this time. Staff plans to get the draft concept to them prior to submittal to this Board in March. Acting Chair Carruth stated that the reason he asked was at the recent American Correctional Association meeting there was a similar item on the agenda and the Secretary had it amended to include victims groups in the future because so much crime is race on race, culture on culture, that when you start talking about perpetrators you also need to be thinking about victims. If we continue to work in this area with the workgroup, I would encourage staff to have a crime victim representative and Sharon English could help. Ms. Stoll stated that the State Advisory group would be the panel and it will have a victims member.

Mr. Remington and Mr. Allen left the meeting as 10:20 a.m. to attend the Little Hoover hearing.


Acting Chair Carruth stated that Secretary Hickman was at the Little Hoover Commission to discuss the magnitude of YACA's reorganization effort. Acting Chair Carruth focused his discussion on the Board of Corrections, but offered to go into greater detail on the organization if there was interest by the Board members. In the reorganization plan, the BOC will be re-titled, in statute, the "Board of Corrections." It will retain all of its current functions as well as additional functions. Additional functions anticipated include:

  • Setting training and selection standards for CDC, CYA, and BPT personnel.
  • Setting standards for juvenile and adult institutions or prisons. It is currently envisioned that staff may not be inspecting juvenile and adult institutions - an audit and compliance unit will inspect against the training and selection standards. The Board's talent will be used to manage and set standards in place.

The workload for the Board and staff will increase, but it is an expression of the Board's good work. The organization will be dramatically different. Historically, there has been a Department of Corrections, Department of the Youth Authority, and three parole boards (the Board of Prison Terms, Youth Authority Board, and the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority). There will be one parole board, the Parole Hearings Division. It will be comprised of 17 appointees, which is approximately the number of appointees that currently exist between the three parole boards. Appointees will serve three-year terms and will be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary's office will include a number of support organizations that will service the entire Agency: Labor relations; legislation; public information; and administrative services, which includes budget and human resources functions. There are victim crime services and about a dozen offices that will service the entire department with the consolidation. Currently, every organization performs its own legislative, public information, and administrative work. There will be some economies and standardization related to bringing all these functions together. There will no longer be organizations called the California Department of Corrections or the California Youth Authority. All the names that have been familiar in the past will be gone from the codes. There will be a Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation Services instead of an agency called Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. There will be six major organizations that deliver services or oversee operations. Juvenile institutions, which will be the former Youth Authority, or a portion of the former Youth Authority; adult institutions, a portion of the former Department of Corrections; and parole is envisioned to be juvenile and adult combined. There is also a proposal in the Governor's budget regarding the May revise to transfer youth authority parole to county probation departments, so there may only be an adult probation. There will be an organization called Community Partnerships, which is a new function.

Yesterday, at a meeting hosted by YACA in Galt, between 400 or 500 people attended, most being from communities around the state including faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, local government organizations and state government organizations. The purpose was to begin to form a network of services that can assist with offender re-entry and offender programming and custody. There will an organization loosely called Rehabilitation Services. It includes academic education, vocational education, drug treatment, general counseling services, self-help, etc. There will be a health care organization that deals with physical medicine and severe mental illness. There are six organizations that will service one another in a matrix structure in which all will be on an equal playing field for authority and responsibility. It is a different way of operating than what departments are accustomed to. It is also a shift that reflects Governor Schwarzenegger's overall plan to go from strong departments and weak agencies, to strong agencies. The Governor believes that if he is going to have agency secretaries, they should be responsible.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if the members of the Board or members of the audience had any questions. In response to a question regarding when the changes would take effect, he responded that the information was announced by the Governor in his State of the State on January 5, 2005, and released to the Little Hoover Commission on January 6. It has been on the Little Hoover Commission's website since January 6. It includes a narrative and the code changes that will be involved. Little Hoover has approximately 30 days in which to hold hearings, write reports, and make comments to the Legislature and others. They are holding a hearing and it is assumed that a written report that will be provided to the Legislature who then has 60 days to hold hearings and comment. The Legislature must vote on the proposal it in its entirety. There are two reorganization packages that are moving forward; the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, and one that concerns about a hundred boards and commissions that are being abolished. As the Board's staff have wisely noted, having their name changed from the Board of Corrections to the Board of Corrections is a positive change because when administrations change, boards and commissions are targets for abolishment.


Field Representative Lynda Frost provided an update on three activities related to mentally ill offenders. The first is the Board's final report on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCRG). Staff has provided a draft of the report to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Ms. Frost highlighted a few key findings from the statewide evaluation, which produced a wealth of data on the more than 8,000 offenders who participated in the 30 demonstration projects supported by this initiative. Staff's analysis of the data found that the MIOCRG program produced positive results in a number of key areas. For example, the individuals receiving enhanced MIOCRG services were less likely to be arrested, which was the primary aim of the program, and had significantly improved mental functioning in comparison to their counterparts receiving treatment as usual. In addition, more MIOCRG participants had residential housing at the end of the intervention period and more had achieved economic self-sufficiency than their counterparts. Lastly, in terms of what works in reducing recidivism among mentally ill offenders, the Board's analysis found a positive correlation between criminal justice outcomes (i.e., bookings, convictions and jail days) and the extent to which the projects incorporated the elements of the assertive community treatment model, which basically involves intensive case management services delivered by a multidisciplinary team.

The second item is one that the Secretary Hickman wanted brought to Board's attention in his capacity as Chair of the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders. He recently sent a letter to the sheriffs, chief probation officers, and police chiefs apprising them of the funding opportunities that might be available to them under the Mental Health Services Act, which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 63. This Act dedicates 60 percent of the funds generated in the second, third and fourth year to programs that offer services similar to those provided by the MIOCRG projects.

The third item is federal legislation related to mentally ill offenders. The President signed a bill in late October establishing a federal grant program that essentially mirrors California's MIOCRG program. This new law allows states and local governments to apply for funds for collaborative projects aimed at reducing recidivism among mentally ill offenders, both adults and juveniles. Although the Act authorizes an appropriation of $50 million, which is about half of what California spent on its MIOCRG program, the funds are not actually there yet. If funds are appropriated, California and its counties may be well poised to take advantage of this new federal program.


Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated that in 1998, San Diego County Probation was awarded a Board of Corrections construction grant to build the East Mesa Juvenile Detention facility. During the design of that facility, it was determined that they could increase the capacity of the facility by 90 beds without the use of additional state funds by increasing unit capacity from 30 beds to 40 beds. At the May 2000 Board meeting, San Diego County was granted a pilot project for the 40 bed units because Title 24, Section 460A.2.5 limits the number of minors housed in a living unit to 30. San Diego occupied the building in June 2004. This represents their six-month progress report, which was required as a condition of the pilot project status. The report compared the 40-bed units at East Mesa with 30-bed units at San Diego County's Kearney Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. The report indicates that there is no significant difference in incidents between the 30-bed units (that house similarly classified youth) at Kearney Mesa as compared with East Mesa. Susan Mallett, Deputy Chief of Institutions in San Diego, and Craig Stover the Superintendent of the facility, were in the audience to answer questions.


Field Representative Lynda Frost presented an update on activities related to the four juvenile justice grant programs transferred to the Board last January. Staff recently initiated the re-application process for the Title II grants related to delinquency prevention and early intervention efforts. Since eligibility for second year funding is contingent in part on the grantees' ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of their projects, or at least the progress they are making in achieving desired outcomes, the application requires the grantees to identify any inadequacies with the program during the first year and to describe any modifications that would be needed to improve the program in its second year. Staff also has initiated the federal application process for the Title V program. This application is due on March 31. Lastly, in terms of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, the field testing for the on-line invoicing system has concluded and is close to being rolled out. This new system, which is going to make the invoicing process more efficient for everyone involved, will also be used for the Title V grantees that come under contract in July.

Ms. Stoll stated that the funding for the JABG program is being reduced in July by 75 percent, which means fewer grants under this program.


Field Representative Lynda Frost stated that staff's primary focus these past few months has been the preparation of the third annual legislative report. After working with counties to ensure that their expenditure and program data were complete and accurate, staff prepared a draft and submitted it to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency earlier this month. As required by law, the report includes information about the local planning process for the JJJCPA, program expenditures and six statutorily mandated criminal justice outcomes.

The local planning process is spearheaded by a multi-agency juvenile justice council chaired by the chief probation officer. Council members, who typically meet monthly or quarterly to review program progress, continue to report a great deal of satisfaction with the information sharing and improved service delivery that results from this collaborative process. In terms of program expenditures, the numbers clearly demonstrate that the counties are making a continued commitment to serve as many at-risk youth and young offenders as possible in a cost-effective way. In 2003-04, the 187 JJCPA programs served just over 106,000 youth at a per capita cost of $1,112 roughly. By way of comparison, the program served about 7,300 fewer youth in the first year of the JJCPA at a per capita cost of about $1,201, or $89 more. The programs are actually serving more kids at a lower cost per kid and the counties are to be commended for that. The results for the mandated outcomes continue to show that the JJCPA programs are having a positive impact in communities throughout California. As in past years, a smaller percentage of juveniles receiving JJCPA services have been arrested and a larger percentage of those juveniles have completed probation, restitution and court-ordered community service. In addition, the report points out that in the 56 counties that participate in the JJCPA program, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles dropped again, nearly 6 percent. This comes on the heels of an 8.5 percent drop in the previous year, and a 5.4 percent reduction the year before that. Those are some very good results. Once this report is approved and goes through the process, it will be posted on the BOC's website, distributed to the chief probation officers and the JJCPA network. In the meantime, staff will be working with counties as they update their local comprehensive action plans due to the Board on May 1.

Acting Chair Carruth noted that in the Governor's budget it shows a 75 percent reduction. There is approximately $200 million that goes to local government generally know as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds, even though this year it is General Fund and there is $100 million here. There has been a desire expressed by county probation departments to quit living on the Tannif rollercoaster - maybe they are going to get it, maybe they are not - issuing layoff notices to their staff every year and having staff and management go through that drill. What has happened, as has been done in many other cases where the state has stabilized a funding strain, they discount that for the stabilization. So they looked at these two pots as $300 million and took 75 percent or 25 percent of it and basically are saying what they will do is take "TANF money" out of that annual rollercoaster of maybe it is going to be funded at 100 percent or maybe it is going to be funded at 0 percent. Acting Chair Carruth stated he was providing this information to the Board as background regarding the reduction.


As background, Mr. Landberg referenced the Board's action on January 2004, to lift the 50% cap on training obtained through the IFT model to allow trainees to satisfy their annual training requirement with 100% of IFT training. The removal of the 50% cap was a result of the discontinuance of local subvention funds. It was a specific recommendation, among several, by an Executive Steering Committee and Workgroup study aimed at finding ways to meet standards in an era with no state funding.

Although the Board approved the lifting of the IFT cap, it asked for follow-up information regarding the quality of the format. In response to this request, Board staff undertook an evaluation project to answer the question: Is the quality of Intensified Format Training sufficient to satisfy 100% of an employee's training requirement?

BOC research staff developed three evaluation instruments specific to the IFT delivery model. The instruments gathered information from trainees, trainee supervisors and on-site monitors. The results of the evaluations indicated that the format is of sufficient quality for 100% of the training requirement. Moreover, the IFT is a cost effective model for agencies and also eases scheduling difficulties. Mr. Landberg requested that the Board take no further action regarding this matter and let stand its decision of January 2004, to allow trainees to receive up to 100% of their annual training requirement through the IFT delivery model.

Mr. Gary Mann thanked Mr. Landberg and Ms. Montgomery for their efforts.


Ms. Stoll announced that the next scheduled meeting would be on March 17 in Kern County at the Larry J. Rhoades Crossroads facility.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Tynes
Administrative Assistant


Kevin Carruth, Acting Chair, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
John Dovey, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections
Walter Allen III, Director, Department of the Youth Authority
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
John L. Scott, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (absent)
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation (absent)
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)
Calvin C. Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County


Karen L. Stoll, Executive Officer (A)
Barbara Tynes, Administrative Assistant
Jerry Read, Deputy Director (A), FSOD
Shelley Montgomery, Deputy Director, STC
Lynda Frost, Field Representative
Marlon Yarber, Field Representative
Magi Work, Field Representative
Wayne Landberg, Field Representative


Don Allen, Board of Corrections
Doug Austin, Colusa County Sheriff's Office
Marg Bach, Department of Corrections
Geoff Banks, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Virginia Barajas, Lake County Sheriff's Office
Bonita F. Barnes, Sacramento PAL/911
Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Kacey Bouscal, Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department
Mike Bush, Board of Corrections
Joe Caruso, Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office
Dana Fredenda, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
J.P. Jones, Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department
Gary Kuntz, Calavares County Sheriff's Office
Kendra Lewis, 911 Foundation for Humanity
Susan Mallett, San Diego County Probation
Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office
Rod Merydith, Placer County Sheriff's Department
Vince Monrsal, Lake County Sheriff's Office
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Dave Pascoe, Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office
Jim Peterson, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Craig Stover, San Diego County Probation
David Topaz, Sacramento Police Officers Association
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation
Bob Wellott, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office


Back to Top of Page

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