Minutes

 

Board of Corrections Meeting

Thursday, March 15, 2001

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Ben Clark Public Safety Training Center

3423 Davis Avenue

Riverside, CA  92518

 

 

Chairman Robert Presley called the meeting to order at 9:25 a.m. and welcomed all to the Ben Clark Public Safety Training Center in Riverside.  He recalled that Ben Clark, now retired, had been an impressive figure in California’s law enforcement community. 

 

Chairman Presley acknowledged for the record that today was the birthday of Board Member Lou Blanas.  He then invited Sheriff Larry Smith to address the Board.

 

Sheriff Smith welcomed the Board to Riverside County and to the Ben Clark Public Safety Training Center.  He said that those in this county still think of (Chairman) Senator Presley as Undersheriff Bob Presley of Riverside County.  He noted that the county frequently names facilities for those who have done much for California, and Robert Presley’s name is on both the Detention Center and the Hall of Justice.  Sheriff Smith said the Ben Clark Public Safety Training Center is actually a regional center partnered with the California Division of Forestry, Riverside County Fire, California Highway Patrol, and Riverside Community College, and has operated for four years as a major training site in California.  He invited those present to tour the facility after the meeting, and said that several Board members and staff would also tour the county’s Southwest Detention Center, which is nearing completion, as well as the new juvenile hall currently under construction.  He acknowledged and thanked the staff of the Sheriff’s Department and Riverside County Fire for the meeting arrangements and set-up. 

 

Chairman Presley invited newly appointed Board Member Linda L. Duffy, Chief Probation Officer of Stanislaus County, to step forward to receive the oath of office.  Ms. Duffy fills the position vacated by recently retired Orange County Chief Probation Officer John Robinson, and her appointment remains subject to Senate confirmation.

 

Chairman Presley announced that Board Member Steve Cambra, Jr., was unable to attend this meeting.  He said Board Member Mimi Silbert had telephoned requesting an excused absence due to a sudden emergency, and he asked if there were a motion to excuse the absence. 

 

A motion to excuse Dr. Silbert was made by Mr. Soto and seconded by Mr. Yaroslavsky.  The motion carried.

 

Also absent was Board Member Timothy Jenkins.

 

 

Approval of the Minutes of the January 18, 2001, Board of Corrections Meeting (Agenda Item A)

 

Chairman Presley called for a motion on the minutes of the January 18, 2001, meeting.

 

A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 18, 2001, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Harper and seconded by Mr. Soto.  The motion carried.

 

 

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Update and Presentation by Riverside County (Agenda Item B)

 

Field Representative Darryl Datwyler announced that staff from Riverside County would make a presentation on their Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant project, and he introduced Lt. Maurice LeClair, Program Manager. 

 

Lt. LeClair said that Riverside County received approximately $3 million through the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant with a county match of $2.6 million.  The project includes two components:  in-custody and post-custody. 

 

1.      Specific Housing and Discharge Planning (SHADP) provides a dedicated detention housing unit, discharge planning and aftercare, and/or intensive probation supervision.  An 80-bed dedicated housing unit is located at the Robert Presley Detention Center (via modifications to an existing housing unit) to house mentally ill offenders identified in custody.  Deputies in the housing unit are trained specifically to care for inmates with mental health issues.  In discharge planning, inmates will be identified by grant personnel who will develop a plan prior to discharge involving staff of mental health, the sheriff’s department, and probation department.  It will provide linkages to existing mental health and supportive services (transportation, financial advocacy, an initial supply of prescribed medication, and vouchers for shelter/transitional living accommodations), along with intensive probation supervision.  To date, 84 inmates have received discharge planning, and others are awaiting the process.

 

2.      The Alternative Sentencing Program (ASP) provides a day treatment program, coupled with intensive probation supervision and aggressive case management for dually diagnosed inmates as a condition of probation.  Services include assistance with support benefits and sheltered housing, scheduling and transporting to mental health appointments on date of release from custody, and comprehensive treatment services.  To date, 34 inmates (the target number) have gone through ASP.  Of these, 9 have successfully completed the program, 10 have violated their probation or terms of the program, and 15 remain in the program.  There is a waiting list for new admissions.

 

Lt. LeClair showed a brief video presentation as an overview.  The process began in 1998 when the Legislature initiated a major effort designed to reduce crime, jail crowding, and criminal justice expenses involving mentally ill offenders.  Later, SB 1485 enacted the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant program authorizing competitive grants to support locally developed plans for reducing mentally ill repeat offenders, and Riverside County was awarded one of these grants.  Early signs suggest that the project is working in Riverside County, and the video provided testimonials from real people who have benefited from the program and from dedicated staff who are directly involved in its administration.  The inmate participants interviewed appreciated the staff actually recognizing their problems and working toward workable solutions in a structured, graduated process that taught them the life skills necessary for success in the community.  This was the first time they felt hopeful and they recognized that, had they simply been released, they would not have known what to do and would likely have reoffended.

 

Chairman Presley asked how far along the county was in the four-year program.  Lt. LeClair said they were only 15 months into the program.  Chairman Presley wondered if it was too early to know the success rate.  Lt. LeClair expected adequate statistical data by the end of the month that could reveal some results, and staff working in the program believed they would indicate success.

 

 

Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grants – Program Update (Agenda Item C)

 

Field Representative Fred Morawcznski provided an update on Challenge I and II.  He reminded the Board that updates on the progress of both grants are provided at the March and September meetings, and the other four meetings are reserved for county project presentations. 

 

Activities Since the September 2000 Board meeting:

 

Challenge I and II Semi-Annual Project Reports Submitted

These reports were due by February 15, 2001, and cover the first 3.5 years of Challenge I operations and the first 18 months of Challenge II operations.  Preliminary analysis of the Challenge I reports indicates that 21,738 minors received program services in the 3.5 years, or almost 20% more than anticipated.  It is estimated that approximately 24,000 will receive services by the end of the Challenge I program, or 150% of the originally anticipated total. 

 

Outcome Measures

Mr. Morawcznski cautioned the Board on reading the statistics.  Of the almost 22,000 minors served to date by Challenge I, not all were in the evaluation cohort.  Only about 11,000 were intended to be in the evaluation cohort, and only about 8,000 of those will have been subject to a treatment and control type research design.  The statistics he provided to the Board were relative to less than half of the evaluation cohort that utilized the treatment and comparison groups.  Completion of the evaluation program, as defined, essentially is having completed the program intervention and a minimum six-month follow-up after leaving the program.  Many of the programs are scheduled to capture comparison data in the next six months.  In addition, some of the larger counties do not use this type of evaluation model and will not, therefore, have a comparison group per se, but will look at other statistical indicators relative to their success.

 

Challenge I findings

Mr. Morawcznski illustrated the results seen during the period the minors are in the program as follows:

 

treatment

requirement

control

34.4%

Arrested

32.5%

31.6%

Completed probation

31.2%

36.2%

Completed restitution

30.6%

65.5%

Completed court-ordered work

54.2%

 

Mr. Morawcznski noted that, in cases where intervention was ongoing and there were control groups, the figures show a statistically insignificant difference between the two groups of those arrested (although one would expect that minors receiving a higher level of surveillance during the program would also show improvement in the category of arrest).  The treatment group does show improvement, however, of those completing probation, completing restitution, and completing court-ordered work.

 

Mr. Morawcznski noted that the programs themselves have not yet been totally refined and, in fact, some had a tendency to keep problem minors (i.e., those with greater risk of being arrested) in the program longer or to place them in the program initially.  This practice  may have skewed the arrest data.

 

Below are statistics for participants tracked after release from the program to determine long-term success:

 

treatment

requirement

control

42.2%

Arrested

40.8%

35.1%

Completed probation

41.7%

44.5%

Completed restitution

33.9%

62.0%

Completed court-ordered work

56.6%

 

While the two groups show a slight difference for those arrested or completing probation, the numbers at this time do not allow accurate conclusions but are interesting to note.  This information will be fully analyzed at the close of the grant when all data is received.  Improvement is shown, however, in the requirements of completed restitution and court-ordered work.

 

Mr. Yaroslavsky asked what might be the reasons for the treatment group’s lower percentage of competing probation.  Mr. Morawcznski replied the reasons were unknown at this time.  As indicated earlier, analysis of data early in the program prompted staff to look more closely at the counties’ procedures.  It was discovered that some counties had a tendency to place the more at-risk youths in the treatment group even though the evaluation plan was to have been totally and completely random.  Due to a variety of circumstances in some counties and especially in those with large evaluation cohorts, the random selection process had been compromised and the data therefore skewed the statistics.  Counties were asked to make adjustments regarding the assignment process, and those adjustments should be reflected in the next report.  Mr. Morawcznski further speculated that the problems may lie with the initial program implementation in terms of having the full effect of the program’s intent.  These are, after all, demonstration projects and can be expected to have a variety of unanticipated start-up issues.  As those are refined, the statistics should begin to even out and show the benefit.

 

Challenge II findings

Mr. Morawcznski said that, with only 18 months into the project, 1,947 minors have received program services, representing approximately 35% of the number identified to be in the treatment groups per county contracts.  Staff expects that counties will exceed the initial anticipated number of minors served and to have sufficient data following the next Semi-Annual Report to draw some early conclusions.

 

Quarterly Invoices Submitted

For Challenge I, of the $56,531,885 encumbered for demonstration projects for the four years of grant operations, $43,895,224 has been invoiced as of December 31, 2000.  For Challenge II, of the $56,093,805 encumbered for demonstration projects for the first three years of grant operations, $14,326,578 has been invoiced as of December 31, 2000.

 

Fourth-Year Extension and Funding

At current spending patterns, an estimated $5 million in savings may be accrued by Challenge I counties.  When Challenge Grant money was allocated for the fourth year, the Legislature also allocated $14 million for Challenge II projects to be disbursed on the same basis as the original grant awards.  Currently, staff and counties are analyzing the actual need for that amount of money.  Although initial expenditures during the first 18 months of Challenge II operations reflect a savings, there are projects still being refined and time available to enhance those projects should the extra money be needed.  Staff will continue to monitor the situation and expect to negotiate Challenge II contract amendments by July 1, 2001.  Currently, preliminary discussions project two counties that will not need additional funding.

 

Project Managers’ Meeting

Since the inception of this process, ten regional meetings have been held with county grantees in attendance.  All Challenge I and II project managers and evaluators are included. The last meeting was held in Anaheim on October 4-6, 2000, hosted by the Orange County Probation Department.  During this meeting, several issues relating to common data variables, semi-annual reports, invoicing, and program evaluations were resolved.  The next project managers’ meeting, hosted by Santa Cruz Probation Department, will be held in Santa Cruz on March 29-30, 2001.  This meeting will be for Challenge II only, since Challenge I is phasing out.

 

On February 1, 2001, a special meeting was held in Sacramento for Challenge I project managers to discuss grant closeout activities.  This meeting addressed final reporting requirements and timelines, and fiscal issues such as final invoicing, audit and accounting processes.  During that meeting it was reported that almost all Challenge I counties will endeavor to continue the grant programs, in part or whole, utilizing funding made available through CPA 2000.

 

Program Evaluation Workshop

On January 11, 2001, a six-hour workshop was held in Sacramento for representatives from Challenge I and II counties to discuss the evaluation component of the projects and the responsibilities of the Board and grantees, to provide technical assistance, and to review county data regarding the common data elements collected by all Challenge counties.   This workshop also focused on final reporting and format requirements for the report to the Legislature in March 2002.

 

Challenge I and II Site Visits and Annual Monitoring

On a yearly basis Board staff conduct a formal monitoring review on all Challenge I and II counties following an extensive examination of all aspects of grantee operations.  In addition to annual monitoring visits, contacts during project managers’ meetings, and special workshops, Board staff attempt to make periodic site visits to meet with staff, provide technical assistance, and to monitor project operations.  Since the September 2000 Board meeting, 22 site visits and annual monitoring reports have been completed, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Orange, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Tehama Counties.

 

Challenge II Interim Fiscal Review

In coordination with the Department of Finance Office of State Audits and Evaluation, staff is embarking on an interim fiscal review of selected counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Solano, and Tehama.  The Office of State Audits and Evaluation has assisted Board staff with not only Challenge I, but virtually all programs that the Board has fiduciary responsibility for.  This new process is a fiscal review rather than a fiscal audit, and is a more “friendly” approach that encourages compliance by counties as they embark on grants.  The interim reviews will be completed by June 30, 2001.

 

Challenge II Interim Report

Mr. Morawcznski provided for the Board’s review the draft report to the Legislature forwarded to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency on February 6, 2001.  This report outlines Challenge II activities during the first 18 months of operation and will be presented to the Legislature upon approval.

 

Next Steps:

 

During the next reporting period, staff will continue to conduct Challenge II site visits, review and pay invoices, prepare for the upcoming project managers’ meeting in Santa Cruz, complete contract amendments with Challenge II counties, complete final annual monitoring and closeout activities with Challenge I counties, and provide technical assistance as required for all projects.

 

Mr. Morawcznski invited questions from the Board.

 

Mr. Harper asked whether Board staff or the counties were responsible during the local planning process for identifying gaps in services.  Mr. Morawcznski stated gaps are identified through the county local action planning process that began with Challenge I and was enhanced and updated with Challenge II.  It is a large part of the CPA 2000 process as well.  It is dependent on the county’s analysis of what its existing system provides, identifying where the gaps are, and then developing proposals to fill those gaps.  Mr. Harper wondered whether Board staff was satisfied that the criteria of the standard is consistent throughout in terms of judging the gaps that have been identified.  Mr. Morawcznski said, in terms of a consistent standard, gaps may be identified anywhere in the entire continuum ranging from prevention up to and including incarceration.  Within that range, the details of definition could be argued as to what suppression might be, intervention might be, incapacitation might be, etc.  Those are general parameters by which the Board has asked counties to begin their planning process.  Following Challenge II, a detailed report was made on the actual plans submitted by the counties, in which the Board identified programs operated by counties to fill specific gaps.

 

Mr. McConnell added that before Mr. Harper was on the Board, the initial process for the program began with a $2 million grant from the state to do planning and assessment.  The design as to how counties would proceed was developed by the Board, and that design set the standard for counties to be eligible for the funds.  The counties that applied for the planning grants (including all those that were successful) had a process required by the Board that provided them with a method of assessing their needs and identifying gaps.  Each county’s local council then customized the process to best suit its unique situation. 

 

Chairman Presley asked whether the money is all state money.  Mr. Morawcznski answered that it is, along with a substantial match by the counties.  Chairman Presley said that interim reports must have shown enough success to warrant additional funding.  Mr. Morawcznski said the process by which additional funding was made available was not directly tied to early data but to process.  The program was initially a three-year program; however, evaluation projects simply take longer than three years to provide reliable data, due largely to implementation issues before the programs are up and running.  Additional time is often necessary to allow an adequate number of individuals into the program and then to track them for an adequate period after the program.  It became clear that three years was not enough time.  Through discussions with the Department of Finance, the Legislature, and the Governor, an extra year was added to the initial grant with no additional funding included.  The funding requirements were determined initially by the counties, negotiated with the Board, and approved by the Legislature. 

 

Chairman Presley asked what will happen when the program is completed.  Mr. Morawcznski believed a number of things could happen.  The individual county programs are doing their own evaluations and, clearly, programs will be successes or failures or somewhere in between.  Based on Challenge I to date, program results are promising, which is demonstrated by counties planning to continue their programs after Challenge I funding ends on July 1, 2001, with funding provided through AB 1913, CPA 2000.  Mr. Morawcznski said that, in fact, every Challenge I project plans to continue in some manner after funding ends July 1, 2001.  Counties have, however, made refinements to their programs or have changed them in ways to meet changing circumstances.  Ultimately, some programs will continue, some will die, and some will be modified.  Mr. Morawcznski said the real work of the research would not begin until all program data is received from each project.  He believes that the analysis of data from the Challenge programs will prove invaluable and serve as a basis for very intense study, not only in California, but nationally, with regard to handling minors under controlled circumstances with particular types of programs. 

 

Chairman Presley said that to continue the programs indefinitely would be at the counties’ initiative.  Mr. Morawcznski agreed.  Mr. McConnell pointed out that the grant funding was designed to enable demonstration projects to allow counties to develop programs and determine if they work.  Interestingly, in a grant program such as this, counties will often want to eliminate those portions that are not working a lot earlier than is allowed in a research design program.  They are eager to move on, especially with portions that have shown significant success.  Overall, counties today are in a much better position to identify for themselves what is or isn’t effective, which will have a significant impact on the kinds of activities proposed through CPA 2000.

 

 

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

 

Deputy Director Toni Hafey advised the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and listed timeline changes for one adult project and nine juvenile projects impacting eleven counties (one tri-county project).  Of the ten requests, six are related to time extensions dealing with federal environmental requirements.  The remaining four include vendor delays, site engineering, and other construction-related items.  Ms. Hafey noted the process was consistent with the Board-approved policy pursuant to the Penal Code, which allows for delegation to staff for these specific situations.  The policy was designed to expedite project implementation timelines.  There were no questions from Board members.

 

 

Federal and State Construction Grants Program – Reallocation of Grant Funds (Agenda Item E)

 

Ms. Hafey stated that this item was in follow-up to the January 2001 meeting, at which the Board directed staff to return with recommendations for the reallocation of grant funds in the Federal and State Construction Grant Program.  These funds became available from projects that reverted funds under the federal Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing construction grant program and the State General Fund.  They amount to $10,604,025 in federal grant funds reverted from a juvenile facility project that was terminated at the January 2001 meeting, and an additional $41,696 available in state funds reverted from projects placed under contract due to lower than expected construction bids or lower costs at construction completion.

 

Ms. Hafey provided Board members a chronology of Board actions on the rank-ordered list of juvenile projects developed in May 1999.  She also provided a chart showing the current juvenile facility projects remaining on the 1999 list.  She said the actions recommended by staff are consistent with prior Board decisions in these areas.

 

Staff recommended that Orange County receive $3,759,646 in federal funds to supplement its current partial grant to the full eligible amount of $4,872,000 for a 60-bed expansion of its juvenile hall.  The county has confirmed that it will accept the supplemental funding if approved by the Board.  Ms. Hafey said that one portion of the ancillary construction originally proposed two years ago was the conversion of multipurpose rooms to additional medical housing.  Orange County now requests a minor scope change to allow the multipurpose rooms to be converted to a dental unit to reflect additional needs.  The total of 60 beds to be added remains unchanged.

 

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations regarding Orange County was made by Mr. Hill and seconded by Ms. Duffy.  The motion carried.

 

Staff further recommended that Solano County receive $6,886,075 ($6,844,379 in federal funds and $41,696 in state funds) to build a new 90-bed juvenile hall and related ancillary and support space.  The county has confirmed that, if approved, it will accept the remaining available grant funds in the recommended amount and proceed to full project scope as proposed.  These funds are available from projects that reverted funds under the federal Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing construction grant program and the State General Fund.  Solano County also requested that the Board consider supplementing the grant to the full eligible amount of $9,045,000 if additional funds are later reverted. 

 

Ms. Hafey announced that Solano County’s Chief Probation Officer, Mike Robak, was present and wished to address the Board.  Mr. Robak thanked the Board and said the county was very committed to this project.  He introduced a delegation of key decision-makers from Solano County who were present as well to answer questions and show their support:  Peter Foor, Supervising Juvenile Court Judge; Skip Thomson, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors; Darby Hayes, Assistant County Administrator; John Taylor, Deputy Assistant County Administrator for Criminal Justice; and Kanon Artiche, County Architect.  Mr. Robak again expressed the county’s sincere thanks for the offer of reverted funds to allow the county to proceed with their project.

 

Chairman Presley commented that a 90-bed facility was indeed a good-sized facility.  Mr. Robak said it would replace an outdated 60-bed facility.

 

Mr. Thomson said that the presence of the county delegation underscored the importance of this issue in the county.  He urged the Board’s approval of staff’s recommendation and said the county planned to use the funds well and build a first-class juvenile hall.

 

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations regarding Solano County was made by Mr. Soto and seconded by Mr. Harper.  The motion carried.

 

 

Repeat Offender Prevention Program, FY 2000-01 – Executive Steering Committee Recommendations on Request for Proposals (Agenda Item F)

 

Ms. Hafey said that at the July 2000 meeting, the Board appointed an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to develop a recommended timeline of key events and Request for Proposals (RFP) for counties competing for $5.7 million to implement new one-year start-up projects under the Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP).  The proposed timeline was approved at the September 2000 meeting, and the RFP was approved at the November 2000 meeting.  At this meeting, Ms. Hafey provided the Board with the funding recommendations developed by the ESC.

 

Ms. Hafey noted that John Robinson, prior Board member and former Chief Probation Officer of Orange County, had served as the chair of the ESC and was present at this meeting.  She expressed sincere appreciation to Mr. Robinson for his work, which continued even after his retirement.  She also thanked Mr. Robak, who had spoken earlier, for his service on the ESC.

 

Under the FY 2000-01 Budget Act, moneys were made available not only to the existing eight counties receiving ROPP funds, but also provided $5.7 million to new counties not already participating.  The new, one-year start-up projects are to commence July 1, 2001, and end June 30, 2002. 

 

Ms. Hafey provided the Board with a list of activities since the July 2000 Board meeting, culminating with the ESC finalization of funding recommendations.  The ESC recommended funding for the following counties, which meet the RFP requirements and which, if approved for funding, will implement new ROPPs serving 685 youth in urban, suburban, and rural regions of the state.  Summaries for each project were also provided to Board members.

 

COUNTY

GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED

Kern

$    679,470

Kings

$    271,738

Monterey

$    781,453

San Bernardino

$ 1,932,452

Santa Barbara

$    665,095

Tehama

$    333,281

Ventura

$    669,095

Yuba

$    367,416

Total

$ 5,700,000

 

In addition to approval of the ESC’s funding recommendations, staff recommended that the Board authorize staff to develop contract guidelines and to initiate standard agreement negotiations with the counties awarded grant funds.

 

A motion to approve the ESC’s and staff’s recommendations was made by Mr. Harper and seconded by Mr. Soto.  The motion carried.

 

Chairman Presley also thanked Mr. Robinson for his leadership, in which the Board had great confidence.

 

 

Jail Profile Survey – Fifth Annual Report (Agenda Item G)

 

Research Director Dr. John Kohls presented the Jail Profile Survey – Annual Report 2000, which contains the results after five years of data collection and analysis.  Rather than the culmination of a data gathering effort, Dr. Kohls considered this Fifth Annual Report to instead be the beginning.  What has been done over the past five years for the Jail Profile Survey is to establish a baseline from which we can now begin to figure out what the trends are, what the issues are, and how to plan for the future. 

 

Dr. Kohls used a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the following data:

 

Average Daily Population (ADP)

Since 1960, the ADP has grown 320% from around 24,000 to around 75,000 today.  During the same period, the general population increased 216% from a little more than 15 million to close to 35 million.  This means that the incarceration rate was 11 people per 10,000 of population in 1960 and is now about 23 people per 10,000 of population, or more than double.

 

The ADP has steadily increased since the Jail Profile Survey began in the fourth quarter of 1995 with a little more than 70,000 to almost 75,000 today.  It reached a peak of 80,391 in the second quarter of 1998.

 

Highest One-Day Count

While the ADP is a good statistic for measuring trends, it does not accurately capture the needs of the local jail system.  As an average number, the ADP does not indicate just how high the population tends to rise.  Comparing the ADP with the highest one-day count indicates the number of inmates over the ADP for the highest one-day population for that quarter.  For example, in the fourth quarter of 2000, the highest one-day count exceeded the ADP by almost 4,500 inmates, or 6%.  These 4,500 inmates push the capacity of the entire system to 111% of the Board Rated Capacity.

 

Board Rated Capacity, ADP, and Peak Populations

In 2000, the number of beds rated by the Board of Corrections as meeting its standards was 71,093; the ADP was 74,937; and the peak population was 79, 814.  It can therefore be estimated that to house only those inmates exceeding the Board Rated Capacity, the local jail system would need to construct close to 8,000 additional beds.  To comply with a desired 10% fluctuating rate, still another 8,000 additional beds (a total of 16,000) would need to be added in order to reach an adequate operational level over time.

 

Bookings

The average number of bookings per month into Type II, III, and IV facilities has remained fairly stable at between 97,000 and 98,000, or about 1.2 million per year.  With the advent of booking fees, some of the slack has been taken up by persons booked into Type I facilities.  In addition, not all persons booked into Type II, III, and IV facilities remain for an extended period or they may be booked and released because of the lack of space.

 

Inmate Gender

One significant finding in the first five years is that the male population has increased by 2.9%, whereas the female population has increased by 16.2%.  This trend must be followed closely because it has enormous cost implications.

 

Felony Inmates

Felony inmates represent about 70% of today’s population; this percentage has risen over time.

 

Nonsentenced Inmates

Nonsentenced inmates currently represent about 60% of the population, and is another number that has been creeping up from 50% traditionally.

 

Inmate Population by Classification

Current security requirements stand at 45.8% of inmates requiring maximum security, which is the most expensive housing option due to smaller staff-to-inmate ratios and smaller housing units.  Medium security inmates are at 28% and minimum at 26.2%.

 

Inmates With Two and Three Strikes

When the Three Strikes Law was passed, there was an assumption that the jails would fill up.  The impact on populations did not occur as expected, however.  The numbers of inmates with both two and three strikes has actually decreased over the five years.

 

Medical/Mental Health Beds

The number of inmates needing medical beds has remained stable at around 900.  The number requiring mental health beds is an entirely different story, however, and has increased over 250% from around 1,200 in 1995 to around 3,000 today.

 

Inmates Housed Under Federal Contract

The number of federal inmates on contract with local jurisdictions steadily increased between 1995 and 1999, and decreased slightly in 2000. 

 

Awaiting Transport to CDC

On any one day in 2000, more than 1,000 state sentenced inmates housed in local jails were awaiting transport to the California Department of Corrections.

 

Criminal Illegal Aliens

Approximately 9,000 inmates in county jails are in this country illegally.

 

Pretrial and Early Releases

In 2000, about 5,000 inmates per month were granted pre-trial early release, while 10,000 per month were released early from their sentences. 

 

Chairman Presley asked if that meant an own-recognizance release.  Mr. McConnell said it referred to a sheriff’s control mechanism; i.e., if a facility is crowded, the sheriff has the authority to release inmates.  Chairman Presley wondered whether they still faced court.  Dr. Kohls said the 5,000 who were pre-trial inmates would be booked, cited out, and remain subject to court proceedings.  The 10,000 who were released early were released from their sentences.  Mr. Moorehead asked if they included those under electronic monitoring outside of a jail or whether they served only 80% of their sentences.  Dr. Kohls said the 10,000 were granted total release.  Mr. Moorehead said that was a high number; Dr. Kohls agreed, as did Mr. McConnell, who pointed out that while this number is significant, it is actually lower than it had been in 1996.  He said early release was a necessary tool to keep jail populations under control.  Mr. Moorehead said he had picked 80% arbitrarily and that perhaps some jurisdictions had a much lower percentage of time served.  Mr. McConnell agreed and said the amount of time served was at the sheriff’s discretion.

 

Mr. Yaroslavsky wondered whether Dr. Kohls could provide statistics broken down by county or by urban versus rural that might highlight disparities.  Dr. Kohls said individual county data was available, and that primarily urban counties had early releases; in other words, the percentage of early releases tended to be higher in urban counties than elsewhere.  He said that he would supply the current individual county breakdown, and added that Board staff was just completing new software that will make such data much more easily accessed and analyzed.  Mr. McConnell said the new software will be coming online by early 2002, enabling interested persons to take the data from one county and compare it with that of any other online.

 

Unserved Felony and Misdemeanor Warrants

Dr. Kohls noted that the local jail system was essentially in a “holding pattern” with the 71,000 Board Rated Capacity beds, yet fighting many pressures by variables such as early releases and unserved felony and misdemeanor warrants.  Should all or even a significant portion of the 2.2 million total unserved warrants be served, the jail population could easily double or triple.

 

Chairman Presley commented that those were very disturbing figures and amounted to justice not done.  Mr. Moorehead agreed that it is disturbing, but pointed out that many people have multiple warrants.  He said that often a person with a felony warrant will have two or three misdemeanor warrants from other jurisdictions as well.  Mr. McConnell concurred that the 2.2 million unserved warrants did not represent 2.2 million people, but was nevertheless an outrageous number. 

 

Ms. Duffy asked how long was the average wait for those awaiting transport to CDC facilities.  Dr. Kohls said that data was not collected, but staff is considering additional variables and it could be added.  Chairman Presley asked for clarification on whether the transportation was provided by the county or the state.  Mr. Moorehead said it was mixed; either a CDC bus picks up inmates at the jail or the county drives them.  He said the bigger issue is when inmates are allowed to be transported.  There is often a long delay.  Mr. McConnell agreed and said the delay related to CDC being prepared to accept the inmates.  In addition, Mr. Moorehead said that processing orders was a lengthy process and that commitment by the court to state prison does not mean that inmates go immediately.  Mr. McConnell explained that inmates are not to be counted as awaiting transport to CDC until the commitment order is received; therefore, counties collecting this data do not count the processing time or the time they wait for a court decision.  Mr. Moorehead asked if they were not counted from the time of court sentencing, when an individual is sentenced by a judge to state prison.  Mr. McConnell said they were not.  They should be counted only from the time of receipt of a notice of commitment to state prison until the inmate is transported to a CDC facility.  Mr. Moorehead commented that could, indeed, be a matter of days or weeks.  Ms. Duffy said this issue has an obvious impact on the crowding of not only jails, but juvenile halls, and wondered if data on the average wait could be collected.  She said knowing the average wait could perhaps prompt working out a solution with the state.

 

Concerning juveniles in custody, Ms. Duffy asked whether higher numbers might occur in more rural or smaller counties that perhaps did not have a juvenile hall.  Dr. Kohls replied that he had only statewide data at the meeting, but county data was available and he would report to her later.  Ms. Duffy was interested as it would impact current construction and attempts to remove juveniles from adult lock-ups.  Mr. Moorehead commented further that in Los Angeles County, virtually every day will have 150-200 adults waiting to go to state prison.  Dr. Kohls asked if the counties tracked the average wait for those awaiting transport to CDC and whether the data could be reported easily.  Mr. Moorehead believed that it could.

 

Mr. Hill was interested to know if there were a relationship between inmates awaiting transport and the location of the receiving center for a particular county.  He pointed out that the receiving center for the central California counties of San Benito and Monterey was located in Delano (Kern County), which presents transportation problems for the counties.  On the other hand, the receiving center for Santa Cruz County, also in central California, was San Quentin.  Dr. Kohls believed these two considerations (average length of stay for those awaiting transport and the relative proximity of receiving centers) should be added to the planning for any changes to the Jail Profile Survey.  He commented that these issues had generated much discussion during the recent Executive Steering Committee (ESC) meeting about the Jail Profile Survey.  Mr. McConnell reminded everyone that, while these issues could be considered, a criteria established at the beginning of the Jail Profile Survey was that at least 50% of counties could transmit the data without having to institute new tracking capabilities.  He said that the length of time inmates remained in custody while awaiting transport was one of the issues included in the initial proposal, and that fewer than 50% of counties said they tracked that number.  Dr. Kohls added that one decision of the recent ESC meeting was to investigate the average length of stay issue to determine whether the Jail Profile Survey could do a better job in this area.

 

 

Juvenile Detention Profile Survey – Second Annual Report (Agenda Item H)

 

Dr. Kohls presented key findings from the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey – Annual Report 2000, after completion of the second year.  Dr. Kohls said the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey gathers statewide information on juveniles in county custody and, like the Jail Profile Survey, he predicted it will be invaluable in tracking trends and planning for the future. 

 

Dr. Kohls again used a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the following data from the fourth quarter of 2000:

 

Total Number of Juveniles in Custody

On any given day in the fourth quarter of 2000, 14,400 juveniles were detained.  Slightly fewer than half were in juvenile halls; of the remaining, about two-thirds were in camps and ranches and most of the rest were on home detention. 

 

Board Rated Capacity, Average Daily Population (ADP)

The Board Rated Capacity juvenile hall beds was 6,875, while the ADP was 7,035; hence, the crowding.  In camps, however, the number of beds was 4,999 beds with an ADP of 4,421.

 

Highest One-Day Population

On a peak day in juvenile halls, the highest one-day population was 7,600.  Therefore, on the worst day in terms of crowding, the system lacks a significant number of beds. 

 

Other Detention Settings

Of the approximate 3,000 juveniles on some other form of detention, 90% received home supervision, and 53% of those had electronic monitoring while 37% did not.

 

Bookings

Bookings into juvenile detention facilities ran about 10,500 per month, including those attributable to weapons at 8%, status offenses at 1%, and probation violations at 18%. 

 

Facility Capacity

Related to crowding, the number of facilities over capacity at least 15 days per month averages about 20 out of the 122 facilities statewide.

 

Average Length of Stay

For all releases from juvenile hall, the average length of stay was 27 days – an increase over 1999 when it was 22.5 days.  Releases from halls to camps averaged 24 days, and halls to others averaged 32 days.  The average length of stay for unfit minors was 65 days.  Average length of stay in camps and ranches was 76 days.

 

Gender

Males outnumbered females by an overwhelming percentage in all detention settings.

 

Distribution of Charges

Felony charges represent 64% of juvenile hall detainees, 68% of those in camps, and 58% of those in other settings.

 

Pre- and Post-Disposition Minors in Custody

This distribution is equal between halls and other detention settings.

 

Age Distribution

Minors 15-17 years of age make up 72% of the overall population; including those 18 and over bring the percentage up to 85% of the population.  The age distribution is fairly equal in camps and ranches, although the 12-14 age group is a little lower and the 15-17 a little higher.

 

Mental Health Services

On any given day, 1,663 juveniles required mental health services, and 1,000 were on psychotropic medications.

 

Suicides

There were 141 suicide attempts in halls and 16 in camps and ranches.

 

Assaults on Staff

There were 79 assaults on staff in halls and 16 in camps and ranches.

 

Escapes

There were 13 escapes from halls, 163 from camps and ranches, and 50 from other settings.

 

Dr. Kohls concluded that both jails and juvenile detention facilities are currently in a holding period because they are filled to capacity, which effectively puts a lid on many of the statistics being watched.  As the population rises, it will be interesting to watch how the pressures play out in terms of early releases, unserved warrants, etc.  In addition, females are becoming a higher percentage in detention facilities, and mental health detainees are becoming a huge problem.

 

Next Steps:

The new website software for the Jail Profile Survey will be used for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey as well, vastly improving data entry by counties and automatic analysis by the Teale Data Center.  The new process provides a tremendous opportunity to use the data to discern trends and plan for what is to come.

 

Mr. McConnell added that not only are there clear indicators that the pressures on population through ADP increases will continue in the juvenile system, but also that the demise of many facilities currently being used by counties to house juveniles will continue.  Two recent statewide inspections by Board staff indicate that a large portion of California’s current juvenile halls would not meet the minimum standards for construction if they were held to those criteria today.  The Board’s current construction grant program is a two-phase effort to bring those facilities up to standard and to be ready for the expansion in population that is coming.  Data from the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey supports the fact that those efforts are critical.  The number of minors in custody that are detained on felony arrest has significantly increased over the last decade.  In fact, the number of minors in custody for serious offenses is more than three times as high as it was in the 1980s.  As we face the need to build more beds, we also must face the need to replace the beds that were designed for a very different population than that currently managed in these facilities.

 

 

San Bernardino County Probation Department – Central Juvenile Hall Suitability Report (Agenda Item I)

 

Field Representative Charlene Aboytes discussed the suitability assessment progress report by the San Bernardino County Probation Department.  At the January 2001 Board meeting, San Bernardino County’s Central Juvenile Hall (CJH) was deemed a suitable place to house minors.  This determination was based upon the successful implementation of the county’s suitability and emergency response plans as well as the agreement by the county to place an urgent focus on immediate community-based placement efforts.  Ms. Aboytes said this was the first bimonthly report from San Bernardino County outlining their progress to date.

 

Also at the January 2000 meeting, background was provided regarding the Board of Corrections’ responsibility for the determination of suitability of all local detention facilities that detain minors.  A history was provided of San Bernardino County’s CJH chronic crowding with population levels reaching over 200% of their Board rated capacity.  Efforts to mitigate the crowded conditions were described in the county’s Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan.  Subsequently, the county allocated resources to implement these plans.  Armed with this information, the Board determined that the CJH is a suitable place to confine minors contingent on a number of criteria.  The first of these was that the county must seek approval for an Emergency Suspension of Standards.  Chairman Robert Presley approved San Bernardino County’s request for an Emergency Suspension of Standards on January 18, 2001, granting the suspension of standards until March 30, 2003.  This date was based on information from the County Emergency Response Plan for Outstanding Issues of Suitability at CJH.  The Emergency Suspension of Standards affects the soft-sided structures and several units in the existing facility and includes the following regulations: 460A.1.9, Dormitories; 460A.1.10, Dayrooms; 460A.2.1, Toilets/Urinals; 460A.2.2, Washbasins; 460A.2.4, Showers; and, 460A.2.5, Beds.

 

Ms. Aboytes invited Chief Probation Officer Ray Wingerd, present along with members of his staff, to provide the first bimonthly progress report.  Mr. Wingerd first thanked Board staff, specifically Ms. Aboytes and Mr. Crout, for their help.  He also acknowledged Claude Potts, Deputy Chief of San Bernardino County, who has worked very closely with Board staff throughout this process and was the mastermind and creative force in putting the emergency plan together.

 

Mr. Wingerd said that the main thrust of the Emergency Suspension of Standards was to buy time to create and develop permanent structures that are properly designed and constructed.  The step of asking the Board to suspend standards was not taken lightly by the county, and he believed the county’s plan was designed to meet all programming standards although not all facility standards.

 

Mr. Wingerd reported on the requested criteria as follows:

 

The county must conform to the agreed-upon elements of the Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan.

 

·  Since August 2000 when this process began, 258 maintenance issues involving plumbing, electrical, and glazing have been repaired and/or restored to current standards and/or adequate levels. 

 

·  The county’s Board of Supervisors approved a contract for $186,000 to upgrade the CJH’s fire and life safety system and work was to begin this week.

 

·  The Department of Behavioral Health has hired and assigned two full-time clinicians to support mental health services. Two case workers and one clerk remain to be hired.  It is anticipated that the mental health staff will relocate to a larger, more centrally located building on the CJH campus by the end of March.

 

·  The plans for the Ward B remodel of the Treatment Facility were submitted to Board staff on schedule.  It is anticipated that this project will begin construction in May.  By March 2002, the Regional Youth Educational Facility and the Kuiper Youth Center will move to their new location, and 65 additional beds will be available for detained minors at CJH.

 

·  On March 6, the Board of Supervisors approved the architect’s contract for the mechanical/electrical sewer foundations to upgrade the infrastructure of the CJH plumbing system.

 

·  Soft-sided structures:

-  The transition team has been developed for the soft-sided structure project.  A full-time director position is in place, and Mr. Wingerd introduced Holly Benton, who will fill that position.

-  On March 6, the Board of Supervisors approved the consultant/architect’s plans for the six modular classrooms that are to be added to the site.

-  Architectural plans were submitted to Board staff and State Fire Marshal for review.

 

·  Contract negotiations have begun for pre-placement services through two facilities (Vision Quest is one) targeting 150 youths in either short- or long-term sites.  It has not been an easy process.  Vision Quest’s first look at housing at George Air Force Base has not materialized; the City of Victorville was the lead agency for negotiations and no agreement was reached.  Vision Quest is now looking at a site in north San Bernardino within the city limits.  The county continues to work with them and will seek state licensing, perhaps being the first in the state to implement the new rate structure opportunities developed by the Department of Public Social Services.

 

·  On February 27 the Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of staff to support the AB 1913 (CPA 2000) plan for the $2.2 million annual program for house-arrest.  Mr. Wingerd said that the program’s director, Kirk Dayton, had been hired and was present at the meeting, and that  24 correctional staff are in the process of being hired.  The program is expected to begin in April with 50 to 70 youths diverted at intake

 

·  Mr. Wingerd certified that the county continues to provide the required 240 minutes of school programming each school day and was sorry that Board Member Mimi Silbert was not present because, at the January meeting, she had stressed the importance of programming.  He commented that programming was an important part of the county’s plan and he believed they were exceeding the standards in that area. 

 

·  County staff all complete the Board’s required 40-hour course and a county 80-hour orientation course before they begin to supervise minors.  They will also meet the Board’s Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Juvenile Corrections Officer Core 134 hours within one year.  In addition, they not only meet the 24 hours of required annual STC training time, but they exceed it by 16 hours.  All new supervisors complete an 80-hour training course.  Each unit has a work environment committee to look at decisions and recommendations coming from the detention centers.  The county has a probation psychologist who conducts training for staff in identification of suicide prevention as well as a dedicated position of activities coordinator.

 

·  Mr. Wingerd added that the CJH has exceeded standards in some areas, such as an on-site library, a prep-program for pre-placement readiness, on-site volunteers, etc.  He said they were actively offering a lot of programming even though the facilities don’t meet all standards.

 

Mr. Wingerd noted that Board Member Tom Soto had toured the facility the day before this meeting.  He invited questions from the Board.

 

Chairman Presley asked if the county had full cooperation from their juvenile court judges.  Mr. Wingerd replied that they did.  In fact, as the county worked through the plan, Juvenile Court Judge Gericke continuously worked with the department on the issue of a cap on the juvenile hall.  However, while he and most judges did not support a cap on juvenile hall, they did support the concept of a house arrest program.  Mr. Wingerd said he had recently taken Judge Gericke to tour the Fouts Springs Boys Ranch, and that the county was negotiating with the Boys Ranch regarding its new Board-funded facility under construction with an opportunity for up to 40 beds to place youths from San Bernardino County.

 

Chairman Presley asked what had precipitated the current situation.  Mr. Wingerd said that for a period of 27 years, not a single new juvenile detention bed was constructed in San Bernardino County, and they were now trying to build their way out.  Chairman Presley asked about the $2.2 million and 24 correctional officers needed to place 50-70 youths under house arrest.  Mr. Wingerd said the county had kept the numbers conservative and that they intended to expand well beyond the 50-70 initially in the program.  The supervision will be very intense.  Another part of the county’s CPA 2000 program will include day reporting centers to cover their large geographical area.  House arrest will be used as an alternative to detention and will compensate for the lack of bed space.  Youths will report at the day reporting centers between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. seven days a week, with electronic monitoring and curfew checks in the evening.  The intense supervision was part of the concession to the judges for approval of the program.

 

Mr. Lehman asked what the impact of the prohibition against out-of-state placements was on the population at CJH and whether it was a significant contributing factor to the crowding.  Mr. Wingerd believed it was significant.  San Bernardino County does have a history of placing a high number of youths, and today has more than 600 youths in private placement.  At one time, they had 150 to 200 youths out of state.  When the requirements for out-of-state placement changed, it did have an impact on CJH.  Further, the county does not have many of its own treatment beds, which is one reason for the high number of private placements.  The county is, therefore, currently seeking exclusive contracts with a number of private providers.  At one time, the county had a boys ranch, but it was closed in 1991 due to economic conditions. 

 

Mr. Soto thanked Mr. Potts and Ms. Minton for his tour of CJH, which had given him a comfort level in an area in which he is not an expert.  He does, however, recognize an uncomfortable situation and that the youths in CJH are, for the time being, in an uncomfortable administrative situation.  He learned from Mr. Potts that the Census Bureau had actually thought that the county had made a mistake on the census form when stating the population of the facility.  When assured that the number was correct, the Bureau informed Mr. Potts that CJH was the most crowded facility in the country.  Mr. Soto commended the county for its efforts in programming and said that the expansion of the library would be an important overall addition to the program.  Mr. Wingerd thanked Mr. Soto for his comments.

 

Chairman Presley thanked Mr. Wingerd for his progress report.

 

 

Minimum Standards for Training:  Title 15, Subchapter 1, Section 179, California Code of Regulations – Report of Public Hearings and Final Adoption (Agenda Item J)

 

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that, at the November 2000 meeting, the Board adopted for the purpose of public comment, the revision to Title 15, which involves an increase in the minimum number of hours in the adult corrections officer core course from 116 hours to 176 hours.  Staff had recommended the revision based on a statewide job task analysis for the position of adult corrections officer, which included 43 individuals representing 19 local corrections agencies (urban, suburban, and rural). 

 

As a result of the November meeting, the Board directed staff to conduct a 45-day public comment period, which began on December 1, 2000, and ended on January 15, 2001.  Public hearings were held on January 17, 2001, in Sacramento and on January 25, 2001, in Los Angeles (both chaired by Board Member Taylor Moorehead).  Following the public comment period, staff prepared an analysis and recommendation regarding the written comment that was received (no oral testimony was received).  The written comment was received from Greg Harding of the California Department of Corrections (CDC), who acknowledged the essential need to enhance the adult corrections officer core training; his concerns were related to contractual obligations with private community correctional facilities.  As a result, staff have worked with both CDC and the community correctional facilities to develop an implemented plan to be completed no later than June 30, 2002. 

 

Based upon the public comment, Mr. Sida said staff recommended that the Board approve the proposed change to the Standards and Training for Local Corrections and Probation Officers, Title 15, Subchapter 1, Section 179 of the California Code of Regulations, and authorize submittal of the rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law.

 

Chairman Presley asked whether the standards applied to private facilities.  Mr. Sida said the requirement is a contractual requirement as imposed through the CDC.

 

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

 

 

Early Implementation of Title 24, California Code of Regulations:  Juvenile and Adult Standards (Agenda Item K)

 

Ms. Aboytes presented a request for early implementation of the Title 24 regulation for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile and Adult Local Detention Facilities.  The newly adopted physical plant regulations for local juvenile and adult detention facilities contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations will not become effective until July 1, 2002.  These standards reflect several amendments that could potentially provide local agencies with significant cost savings over the current standards.  Early implementation would allow agencies, at their option, to utilize the new standards in advance of their effective date.

 

At the November 2000 meeting, the Board adopted the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities and the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities in Title 15 and Title 24.  Subsequently, both sets of the Title 15 regulations were submitted to the Office of Administrative Law, then to the Secretary of State, and became effective on February 10, 2001.  Concurrently, both sets of the Title 24 regulations were submitted to the Building Standards Commission (BSC), and on January 31, 2001, were unanimously approved by the BSC.  After being sent to the Secretary of State, these regulations are published in the California Building Standards Code.  Both sets of the Title 24 regulations will be published on January 1, 2002, and will become effective on July 1, 2002.  The publish date is delayed because BCS publishes new regulations only once a year.  The 180-day delay from the publish date, to the effective date, allows sufficient time for interested agencies to prepare for changes. 

 

Ms. Aboytes said staff recommended that the Board adopt a policy that allows agencies, at their option, to utilize the new standards in advance of their effective date of July 1, 2002.  She provided the Board with the two amendments that could provide significant cost savings for agencies that are planning new construction, and asked if there were any questions.  There were none.

 

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

 

 

Pilot Project Request:  Orange County Probation Department – Living Unit Capacity; Double Occupancy Sleeping Rooms; Physical Activity and Recreation Areas; Shower Ratios (Agenda Item L)

 

Mr. Crout presented a request by the Orange County Probation Department for a pilot project in order to operate a specialized treatment program for older, high-risk juvenile repeat offenders.  The proposed treatment program is specifically targeted to aid three distinct groups:  18-year-old offenders under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, youthful offenders pending Section 707 Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) fitness hearings, and high-security minors removed from camp for disciplinary reasons.  The program intends to transition these minors successfully to the community as adults.  In order to accomplish this goal the program is designed to operate in two parts:  an institutional program and a significant transitional community aftercare program.

 

The Probation Department currently has no facility under its jurisdiction that is adequate to handle this highly specialized population or program.  In an effort to assist the Probation Department in the implementation of this specialized treatment program, which was identified in the county’s Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP) developed by the county’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) in conjunction with the CPA 2000 Program, the Orange County Sheriff (Michael Carona) has offered to make three 32-bed housing units in the Theo Lacy Adult Facility available to the Probation Department.  The three units will operate as a separate, “co-located” juvenile facility under provisions of Section 207.1, WIC.  Mr. Crout provided the Board with a printed excerpt from this section, which enumerated the four-part test a county must meet before it can operate a co-located juvenile and adult detention facility as follows (the wording is nearly verbatim to that in the federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, which outlines the parameters to be met in operating such facilities):

 

(1) The juvenile facility is physically, or architecturally, separate and apart from the jail or lockup such that there could be no contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults.

 

The Probation Department proposes to operate the three 32-bed units as a 96-bed male facility, identified as the Lacy Juvenile Hall Annex, to be separated from the adult facility by solid block walls.

 

(2) Sharing of nonresidential program areas only occurs where there are written policies and procedures that assure that there is time-phased use of those areas that prevents contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults.

 

(3) The juvenile facility has a dedicated and separate staff from the jail or lockup, including management, security, and direct care staff.  Staff who provide specialized services such as food, laundry, maintenance, engineering, or medical services, who are not normally in contact with detainees, or whose infrequent contacts occur under conditions of separation of juveniles and adults, may serve both populations.

 

Orange County has assured compliance with requirements (2) and (3).

 

(4) The juvenile facility complies with all applicable state and local statutory, licensing, and regulatory requirements for juvenile facilities of its type.

 

The Theo Lacy housing units comply with physical plant regulations for adult facilities; however, they are not consistent with requirements for a juvenile facility.  The WIC requires that a juvenile facility, which is "co-located" with an adult facility, must meet juvenile regulations.  To comply with this statutory requirement, the Probation Department has conducted a comprehensive planning effort and will meet all regulatory requirements save four Title 24, California Code of Regulations, physical plant sections.  Because the Probation Department is unable to renovate or rebuild the proposed facility to conform, they requested the Board consider a pilot project for the specific alternative approaches to achieving the intent of each of the four regulations in question as follows:

 

1.      Title 24, Section 460A1.5 – Living Unit

Juvenile regulations limit living unit size to 30 minors.  The county requested approval of a 32-bed living unit capacity.  There is precedent in Orange County for approving this type of request.  On two previous occasions, the county has sought and the Board has approved requests for up to 60-bed units in similar direct supervision, podular designs that are located in the county’s existing juvenile hall.

 

2.      Title 24, Section 460A.1.8 – Double Occupancy Sleeping Rooms

Juvenile regulations require a minimum of 100 square feet of floor space for double occupancy rooms, while the adult regulations require a minimum of 70 square feet.  Traditionally, juvenile facilities operate with single bunks and adult facilities have double bunks.  Although the Board has not previously approved a pilot project request of this nature, the last revision process for juvenile standards proposed a determination of the proper size for juvenile sleeping room.  The proposed program will deal with 18-year-old committed youth and older minors who are pending commitment to adult court or who have been terminated from camp programs for disciplinary reasons and are considered high security risks.  These populations share significant critical characteristics with a very similar population that is often committed to the Theo Lacy Facility from the adult criminal justice system.  In fact, the county argued that from a safety and security standpoint, the facility was designed with that very population in mind.  The county proposed to mitigate the loss of square footage by placing the juveniles in the sleeping rooms only during sleeping hours; they will spend significant time in programming away from the housing units and out of the cells.

 

3.      Title 24, Section 460A.1.11 – Physical Activity and Recreation Areas

Juvenile regulations require 9,000 square feet of dedicated indoor/outdoor exercise area and field space in order to operate a facility as a juvenile hall.  The Probation Department requested approval to use the Theo Lacy outdoor recreation area and interior multipurpose space totaling approximately 3,000 square feet, supplemented by recreational space at the Youth and Family Resource Centers and the Juvenile Hall (located approximately 100 yards from Theo Lacy).  There is precedent for approving a reduced exercise space in a special use juvenile facility.  In March 1997 the Board approved 4,000 square feet of exercise area when the Orange County Probation Department began using the closed Santa Ana Jail as a Juvenile Hall Annex.  This pilot project was subsequently reviewed by the Board and an alternate means of compliance granted in May 1998. 

 

4.      Title 24, Section 460A.2.4 – Showers

Juvenile regulations require a shower ratio of one shower for every six minors.  This physical plant was constructed to the adult ratio of one shower for every 16 inmates.  The Probation Department outlined a plan for showers to be incorporated into programming three times a day to assure that minors have daily shower access, and contend that careful adherence to the showering schedule will mitigate the requirements under this regulation and meet the intent.

 

In summary, the requested pilot project would require the Board to approve a living unit bed capacity increase from 30 to 32; a double occupancy sleeping room square footage decrease from 100 to 70; an indoor/outdoor recreation area decrease from 9,000 to 3,000 square feet; and a reduction in the shower-to-minor ratio from 1:6 to 1:16.  The county asserts that these specific adjustments to current regulations are necessary to implement a very innovative program and that the operational adjustments the county has made more than meet the requirement for pilot project consideration and are consistent with federal requirements as well.  If approved, this will be the first co-located adult and juvenile facility of its type in California. 

 

Mr. Crout invited Tom Wright, Chief Deputy Probation Officer of Orange County, to further discuss their application and respond to questions from the Board.  Mr. Wright noted a few highlights of the program.  He said the county already has between 60-75 of the targeted 18-year-olds in custody that will be moved into the Theo Lacy Facility.  Each day, most of the minors will be in either the dayroom area for programming or furloughed to one of the county’s Youth and Family Resource Centers for transitional treatment.  All the county’s existing resources from camp and juvenile hall programming (i.e., educational staff, mental health staff, etc.) will transfer to the new facility as well.

 

Ms. Duffy, referring to times when the juveniles are out of their rooms in programming and a behavioral disruption occurs that requires a more confined setting, asked if they would be returned to their rooms or to some other location.  Mr. Wright responded that, depending upon the behavior, they would be either returned to their cells or removed entirely from the annex and back to juvenile hall.  Ms. Duffy asked if they were moved back to their Theo Lacy room, what was the policy regarding the maximum period of room confinement.  Mr. Wright said that, through their internal discipline process, the maximum time for room confinement as discipline, is five days.  As long as they are not actively acting out, the juveniles are out of their rooms.  In other words, the discipline amounts to a loss of free time.

 

Mr. Moorehead asked, if approval is granted, how soon would the county be able to proceed.  Mr. Wright said negotiations with the Sheriff are underway for the adult inmates to move out and the juvenile program to begin by the end of April.  Staffing is available and final procedures are being worked out.

 

Mr. Moorehead asked whether the status reports at six and twelve months after commencing operation would be written or oral presentations before the Board.  Mr. Crout said the six-month report would be both written and oral.  After twelve months, if the project is successful, the Board will be requested to grant an alternate means of compliance.  Mr. Moorehead wanted confirmation that the report will contain instances of disturbances, suicides, etc.  Mr. Wright said that it would and, in addition, because 64 of the 96 beds are being funded through CPA 2000, the county will report on outcomes as well.

 

Mr. Lehman noted this provides an opportunity to look at the hotly debated floor space issue discussed during the last standards revision process.  Mr. Wright agreed, and said the county also hoped to fashion an adult 8% study from this population to determine this program’s effect on the same population arrested as adults. 

 

Chairman Presley wondered whether double occupancy meant bunk beds.  Mr. Wright answered that, although not typical, in this instance, bunk beds would be used.  Mr. Moorehead added that this issue was one that prompted lengthy discussions during the revision process.  Mr. McConnell explained that the typical juvenile bed arrangement is side by side, but in this facility, originally designed for adults, the bunk bed arrangement will be used.  Mr. Wright said that the 60-bed facility in the county’s juvenile hall that had previously gone through the pilot project process, used side-by-side bunks in rooms that were over 100 square feet.

 

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation was made by Mr. Hill and seconded by Ms. Duffy.  The motion carried.

 

 

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

 

Mr. Morawcznski provided a brief update of activities regarding AB 1913, also known as the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000).  Signed into law by Governor Davis on September 7, 2000, the program has now operated for six months.  The application process for the funds, which total $121.3 million statewide, requires counties to form a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC), assess existing programs and needs for at-risk youths, and develop a Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP).  After obtaining Board of Supervisors approval, the plan is submitted to the Board of Corrections for approval and release of funds.

 

Provide Pre-Submission Technical Assistance

Following regional and outcome measures workshops held November 28 and 30, 2000, and January 3, 2001, counties have diligently embarked on the CMJJP development and approval process, and four Field Representatives assigned to specific counties have provided varying levels of technical assistance to counties.  All 58 counties were contacted and encouraged to submit draft CMJJPs and Applications for Approval prior to obtaining Board of Supervisors’ approval to ensure technical compliance and to avoid possible delays in the approval process.  To date, it appears that 55 counties will be applying for the funds.  Staff have also met with the Chief Probation Officers of California to discuss the issue.

 

Approved Programs

Thus far, Board staff have approved CMJJPs for 12 counties:  Alameda, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Mariposa, Modoc, Orange, Plumas, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, Solano, and Stanislaus.  The approved plans cover a wide range of programs for at-risk youths, across the continuum of interventions from prevention to incapacitation.  Several other counties will submit final plans for approval by the end of March, including Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Monterey, Shasta, Tehama, Trinity, and Yolo, with the balance of the 55 counties expected by the end of May.

 

Project Reporting Documents

Pursuant to the requirements of CPA 2000, counties are required to report program outcome and expenditure information to their respective Boards of Supervisors and to the Board on an annual basis beginning August 15, 2001, through August 15, 2003.  The Board is responsible for reporting the county information and an assessment of the statewide effectiveness of the CMJJPs to the Governor and the Legislature by submitting an interim report due January 15, 2002, and a final report due July 15, 2003.

 

Board staff developed a draft reporting format and held three statewide workshops to solicit input from counties and respond to questions regarding the use of the reporting documents.  The final reporting format will be available for county use, on-line, through the Board’s website at www.bdcorr.ca.gov, expected to be operational by April or May 2001.  It will ensure consistency and accuracy in the development of the required reports to the Governor and the Legislature.  In addition, staff have worked with the State Controller’s Office to coordinate expenditure reporting requirements as that agency is responsible for collecting fiscal data related to the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) portion of the program.

 

CPA 2000 Statewide Conference

In an effort to continue to provide technical assistance and provide relevant training, a two-day statewide conference will be held at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento on June 6-7, 2001.  All participating counties will be invited to attend the conference, which will focus on program implementation, project management, and outcome and fiscal reporting.

 

Next Steps:

Staff will continue to review and approve draft and final CMJJPs during the next reporting period.  Staff will also provide post-submission technical assistance; i.e., if local CMJJPs submitted by counties are determined to not meet the requirements of CPA 2000, Board staff will work with the counties until the CMJJPs meet legislative requirements and are approved.  In addition, technical assistance for program implementation will be provided as needed.  Finally, staff will continue to plan for the statewide conference in June.

 

Mr. Morawcznski commented that Board staff was very proud of this program, and he complimented the counties for completing the required steps in a short period of time.  He believed that all the programs would be operational by July 1, 2001.  He noted that the Governor has proposed an additional $121.3 million in the budget to continue this portion of the COPS program.

 

Chairman Presley commented on the elongated bureaucratic process for getting the funds to the counties.  Mr. Morawcznski agreed the process was long, but said this program was different from the one developed through the COPS program, under which money was simply sent directly to counties for use by sheriffs’ and police departments statewide without any planning activities.  The Legislature included planning activities in CPA 2000, and the Board is therefore following the requirements of the law throughout this process.  Mr. Morawcznski also commented that the county CMJJPs are actually living documents and have been used to seek programming for youths that otherwise would not have been sought.  Even those counties that competed but were not successful under the Challenge Grant moved forward and implemented, through other funding sources, some of the programs they had identified in that planning process.  Clearly, the plans are actively being used by and are a benefit to counties. 

 

 

Legislative Update (Agenda Item N)

 

Ms. Hafey reported that staff is currently tracking 23 separate bills.  She highlighted several critical bills and provided a brief summary of each:  SB 1059 (Perata) would establish a council on mentally ill offenders that could lead to a juvenile version of the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant program at the adult level; AB 1399 (Cardenas) proposes $20 million to allow continuation and expansion of the Repeat Offender Prevention Program; and AB 153 (Nakano) proposes adding a second rank and file representative to the membership of the Board of Corrections (submitted the two previous years as well and vetoed by the Governor). 

 

Mr. Yaroslavsky asked whether Board members were required to take a position on bills.  Mr. McConnell said no, but as Board members and Governor appointees, members are expected to support the Governor’s position when available, if the member is speaking on behalf of the Board.  Mr. McConnell explained how a Governor’s position is established.  Staff submit an analysis and recommendations on proposed bills that affect the Board, to the Governor’s Office, and keep Board members informed of those analyses and recommendations should they have any questions or suggested changes.  Staff’s analyses of proposed legislation are reviewed by the Governor’s Office, and the Board follows the Governor’s decision regarding a position on the bill.  Mr. Yaroslavsky asked if Board staff were represented when bills come before the Legislature.  Mr. McConnell said only if the Board is notified that there is an approved position from the Governor’s Office, at which time staff will testify in support of that position.

 

Mr. Moorehead asked Ms. Hafey if she would look into and track SB 643.  He said Norm Hurst from San Bernardino County indicated this bill has funding issues with medication relief for psychotropic drugs, which would have a big impact on many counties.  Ms. Hafey said she would.

 

 

Adjournment

 

Chairman Presley adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Marilyn Coombs

Executive Assistant

 

 


Roster of persons attending the Board meeting:

 

Board Members

 

Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency

Jerry L. Harper, Director, Department of the Youth Authority

Lou Blanas, Sheriff, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Linda L. Duffy, Chief Probation Officer, Stanislaus County

Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department

David L. Lehman, Chief Probation Officer, Humboldt County

Taylor K. Moorehead, Chief of Custody Operations, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises

Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

 

Board Staff

 

Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director

Marilyn Coombs, Executive Assistant

Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, FSOD

Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD

Darryl Datwyler, Field Representative, FSOD

Toni Hafey,`Deputy Director, CPPD

John Kohls, Ph.D., Research Director

Fred Morawcznski, Field Representative, CPPD

Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC

Ken Ventura, Field Representative, FSOD

 

Guests

 

Essam Ali, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Kanon Artiche, Solano County Division of Architectural Systems

Jose Barrera, Kings County Probation Department

Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department

Holly Benton, San Bernardino County Probation Department

Les Breeden, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

Terryl Bunn, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Richard Cardoza, San Bernardino County Probation Department

Craig A. Carr, Riverside County Probation Department

Joe Davis, Orange County Sheriff’s Department

Kirk Dayton, San Bernardino County Probation Department

John Dietler, Dietler Enterprises

Pat Dietler, Dietler Enterprises

Bob Dotts, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Dennis Engelhardt, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Santa Figueroa, Imperial County Sheriff’s Department

Alan Flanary, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Carmen Flores, Ventura County Probation Department

Peter Foor, Solano County Juvenile Court

Liz Foster, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

Rick Francis, Orange County Probation Department

Monica Gallagher, Orange County Probation Department

Darby Hayes, Solano County Administrative Office

Paula Herrington, Kern County Probation Department

Valerie Horton, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

Pete Jensen, T-Netix, Inc.

Guy Kestell, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

David Keyes, Placer County Sheriff’s Department

John Killin, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Maurice LeClair, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Wendy Locke, Jacobs Facilities, Inc.

Frank Madrigal, Orange County Healthcare

George Malim, Placer County Sheriff’s Department

Daniel Marks, Riverside County Mental Health Department

Cheryl Munyon, TRG Consulting, Inc., Indian Wells

Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting, Inc., Indian Wells

Tony Nares, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

Daniel Ojeda, San Bernardino County

Pete Ortiz, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

Betsy Platt, San Bernardino County Probation Department

Claude Potts, San Bernardino County Probation Department

Diana Ramm, Kings County Probation Department

Manuel Real, Monterey County Probation Department

Mike Robak, Solano County Probation Department

Sally Rockholt, Kern County Probation Department

Tim Ryan, Santa Clara County Department of Correction

Rick Sayre, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Steve Scully, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

James Seal, San Diego County Probation Department

Brenda Shinn, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

William Shinn, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, Retired

Larry Smith, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Arthur Sotelo, Imperial County Sheriff’s Department

Dallas Stahr, Orange County Probation Department

B. Stevenson, San Bernardino County Probation Department

John Taylor, Solano County Administrative Office

Mike Thompson, Santa Barbara County Probation Department

Skip Thomson, Solano County Board of Supervisors

Arthur Turnier, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Terry Warnolk, Ventura County Probation Department

Ray Wingerd, San Bernardino County Probation Department

Tom Wright, Orange County Probation Department