Welcome to California California Home
About Us
Navigation Tips
Travel Info

    My CA     This Site 
 Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes - March 17, 2005


Roderick Hickman, Chairman of the Board of Corrections, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He noted that there would be a presentation of colors by the wards of the Larry J. Rhoades Crossroads Facility. The wards marched forward and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Hickman welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked staff from the facility for their assistance in preparing for the Board meeting. He then introduced Chief Probation Officer John Roberts.

Mr. Roberts welcomed everyone and stated that it was a pleasure to host the meeting. He then gave a brief history of the 120-bed campus-style facility, which is for males and has separate treatment and mental health facilities. Chairman Hickman thanked Mr. Roberts for his remarks and said that the facility looked wonderful and that staff currently in leadership roles at the California Youth Authority would like to have one built as wonderful as this one.

Chairman Hickman announced that Board Member Don Sheetz could not attend the meeting due to a conflict in his schedule. He is currently out of the country.
Chairman Hickman asked Barbara Tynes to call the role.


Chairman Hickman asked for a motion to adopt the minutes of the January 27, 2005 Board meeting, and asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 27, 2005 Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich and seconded by Mr. William Kolender. The motion carried.


Chairman Hickman stated that Glenn Goord, Commissioner of the New York Department of Correctional Services, chaired the Independent Review Panel. Commissioner Goord and the Panel met last week and have produced a report on their observations of operational issues related to the homicide of Correctional Officer Manuel Gonzalez, which occurred in January 2005 at the California Institution for Men (CIM).

Acting Executive Officer Karen L. Stoll referred to the last Board meeting, which was held on January 27, 2005, in Sacramento. She said that the Board received a letter from Rod Hickman, in his capacity as Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, requesting that the Independent Review Panel be empowered to carryout an operational review of the tangent issues related to the homicide. Prior to the Board meeting, Ms. Stoll stated that she met with the different groups of the investigative staff that were involved, including the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, the Inspector General's Office, the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office, and Senator Gloria Romero's office to discuss how not to get in the way of each other while reviewing the issues. The Panel did not want to interfere with the ongoing prosecution's investigation activities.

At the January 27, 2005 Board meeting, Ms. Stoll stated that while wanting to honor Secretary Hickman's request that the Panel be empowered, she recommended that it be under certain conditions. Those conditions were that the Panel would defer the commencement of activities until the Sheriff's Department had completed its investigation and charges had been filed. The Panel would defer interviewing witnesses that were likely to be called in order not to contaminate any of those witnesses. The Panel would attempt to rely as much as possible on interviews, briefings, and written documents that CIM had been requested to produce. Leading up to the filing of charges, the Board received boxes of material, which were organized and summarized for the Panel.

The Panel convened last week. In the report before the Board, there is a list of all people that were interviewed. The first activity was a briefing by the Inspector General's Office on their preliminary findings. At that time the Inspector General's Office had not completed their activities. The next interviews were with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Homicide Investigators: Sergeant Tom Bradford; Detectives Mitch Dattilo, Tim Gordon, Tim Jordan, and Rod Medley; and Lieutenant Tom Neely. At the Institution the next day the Panel interviewed Warden Lori DiCarlo, Chief Deputy Warden Greg Mellott, Correctional Captain Manuel Nieto, as well as a number of Correctional Officers while the Panel toured the facility, Sycamore Hall, and the Reception Center. Ms. Stoll said that after the Panel completed its activities that day, they interviewed staff from the California Department of Corrections' (CDC) Law Enforcement Investigative Unit: Linda Mackey and Steve Slaten. Ms. Stoll said she wanted to recognize the fact that the Panel spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the material in the meeting room during the very long days and in their rooms at night. Since the Panel members combined had such a wide breadth of experience and knowledge in the correctional field, they were able to move through the issues fairly rapidly while reviewing the materials, the briefings, and the tours that were conducted.

Ms. Stoll stated that at the beginning of the report there is a letter from Chairman Goord summarizing the Panel's activities and summaries of the pre-incident and post-incident findings. The Panel members included Joe McGrath, Office of Internal Affairs, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; Brian Parry, National Major Gang Task Force; Sheriff Kolender, San Diego County; and Lieutentant Mike Bornman representing Chief John Scott, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office. Chief Scott is retiring, but was there during the week. Two wardens were available as subject matter experts and Sheriff Bill Kolender made his former Homicide Captain Debra Hanlon available for the entire time. Gary Filion, Assistant Superintendent at the New York Department of Correctional Services, was also on the Panel. The subject matter experts as well as the Panel lent credibility, knowledge, and experience to the process. Ms. Stoll then asked Joe McGrath to present the report.

Chairman Hickman stated that he appreciated both the Board of Corrections as an organization and the members of the Board that were participants on the Panel for their dedication, time, and energy that was spent in a very difficult circumstance in a very difficult situation. From his role as the Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, not in his role as the Board Chairman, he is appreciative of the wonderful professional expertise that the Board of Corrections has. He stated that it is very heartening to know that an organization can to do something that is very difficult and very emotional in a manner that was of extreme professionalism and dedication to the task. Chairman Hickman stated that as Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, he wanted to thank Bill Kolender, John Scott and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and all of the other members involved in the process.

Mr. Joe McGrath began by thanking the Panel. He stated that the Panel collectively had hundreds of years of experience in law enforcement and corrections. As Ms. Stoll mentioned, he said, the Panel set the review into three pieces: the pre-incident observations, the incident related observations, and the post-incident observations. He stated that along with Brian Parry he would give the Board an overview of what the Panel found.

Mr. McGrath stated that the first thing that the Panel reviewed was the California Institution for Men's (CIM) initial placement of decisions related to Inmate Blaylock. Blaylock was received into the Reception Center's central receiving and release. At the time he came in, CIM did not have complete background information. All they had was the Sheriff's Department's statement on his conduct in the county, his commitment offense, which was Attempted Murder of a Police Officer, and the inmate's statements. Based on that information, CIM made a decision to place him in the general population. Without knowing his complete history, it is hard for the Panel to criticize the decision that happened that night. But within a matter of days, the inmate's background was run and they got the information as to where he paroled from, which was a security housing unit, on his prior term. That alone would have driven CIM to place him in segregated housing. That information was either never conveyed or never gotten back to the decision makers on the housing process, so he remained in general population.

While in the general population Blaylock got into an incident in the dining room in Sycamore Hall and stabbed another inmate. He was locked up in Administrative Segregation pending the hearing of his disciplinary report on July 31, 2004. He arrived in June, just about three weeks earlier. A Senior Hearing Officer heard the disciplinary report and the offense was reduced from Battery with a Weapon down to Mutual Combat. Battery with a Weapon is an offense that leads to placement in security housing; Mutual Combat is not. When the Institution's classification committee reviewed Blaylock's case, they noted that the discipline had been reduced to a lesser charge and, based on the fact that Mutual Combat is not an offense that someone is placed in security housing with, they released him back in general population. In retrospect, it is the Panel's opinion that the decision to reduce the stabbing offense to Mutual Combat was not a good decision. The decision by the Committee to release him anyway while having his complete background and history of violence background was also not a good decision.

Blaylock arrived in June 2004. His departmental review report was dated November 19, and logged into Classification Headquarters in Sacramento on December 10. Chairman Hickman asked Mr. McGrath to explain what the Departmental Review Board is. He stated he wanted to make sure he understood the process. Mr. McGrath explained that the Departmental Review Board is the highest level of classification in the Department of Corrections. It is reserved for those cases that are particularly difficult or have particular case factors that require the highest level of review to determine placement. Blaylock's case was difficult. He had medical issues, mental health issues, and a history of violence. Those things in combination required a very careful review for his placement.

The Panel's criticism of the process is that he arrived in June and the report was not logged into Headquarters Classifications until December. Normally it is a 60-day process, a 90-day process, or even up to 120 days for very difficult cases that require that level of review. But in the Panel's experience, they felt it was an excessive amount of time to keep this type of an individual in Reception when his custodial supervision was very difficult. Brian Parry stated that another case factor that complicated inmate Blaylock's placement was that he had 18 known enemies spread out among the system.

Mr. McGrath continued, stating that in Sycamore Hall, the unit in which inmate Blaylock was housed between August 1, 2004 and December 28, 2004, there were several incidents that necessitated the use of force. It was a very volatile unit. On December 5, as a result of finding weapon stock (staff found a light fixture that was missing pieces), direction was given by the Warden to conduct increased searches of the inmates, the common living areas, the exercise areas, and to use caution in moving inmates from one place to another.

On December 19, there was a riot in the Sycamore Hall dining room between Black and Hispanic inmates. The next day the Warden issued another written order to increase searches and exercise caution during inmate movement. The Warden went a little further this time and said to keep White and Hispanic inmates separate from Black inmates. On December 28, staff did allow a Black inmate to have contact with a White inmate on the tier in Sycamore Hall, and the White inmate stabbed the Black inmate. This was a matter of the White inmate worker who was out and the Black inmate who was returning to the unit. Staff opened the gate to let him proceed to his cell and the White inmate came up and stabbed the Black inmate. On January 3, 2005, the Warden issued another written order that no inmate workers from Sycamore Hall would be used and that the unit was to only use White and Hispanic workers from the gymnasium. These are workers that are called permanent work crew. Rather than allowing inmates from Sycamore Unit to do this, they wanted to bring in workers who were not involved in politics of that unit.

It is the Panel's opinion, after reviewing all the material, that the Warden's orders were good directions given the circumstances and what they were faced with, but those directions were not followed. There was no indication that supervisory staff enforced or addressed the violations of the Warden's written orders. That is based on a number of things: the number of weapons that were found after the homicide (36); the unit logs did not show if searches were being conducted; and a number of issues that lead the Panel to the conclusion that they were not doing the things that the Warden directed.

The other issue in the post-incident review was that the Panel received information that there were two threats made toward staff prior to the day of the homicide. The first was about two weeks prior and it was from Inmate Blaylock who stated that there was a staff threat. The Panel did not get information that it was specific to any staff, but Blaylock said that although there is a threat, "I'm not the one who's making the threat." A second threat happened the night before the homicide when inmate Blaylock attempted to have personal correspondence marked as "confidential mail." Mr. McGrath stated he thought Inmate Blaylock was trying to send something to the union. He was asking the officers to mark it "confidential," but it did not meet the criteria for "confidential." When Blaylock was told that, he stated something to the effect "this is why staff get stuck." While these threats may not have been specific, they are certainly the type of information that staff in the units should have. They should know these kinds of things are being said. The Panel's review was unable to find any documentation that these threats were ever logged in and does not know to what extent the information was shared with the staff in the unit.

Brian Parry stated he would take the Board through a snapshot of Sycamore Hall on the day the incident occurred. On January 10, 2005, there were four officers assigned to Sycamore Hall. Prior to the incident, Officer Gonzalez had let Inmate Blaylock out of his cell over the objections of at least one Correctional Officer who felt they should not have let Blaylock out. Blaylock was out for a short period of time when he was returned to his cell to facilitate some inmate movement. Following the inmate movement, Officer Gonzalez released Blaylock out to the tier a second time.

Right about the time of the incident, there were three other inmates out on the tier unrestrained. There was a Hispanic inmate who was let onto the tier to work on a cell's plumbing. The two Black inmates that were in that cell were released and were unrestrained on the tier. So at that point in time there are Inmate Blaylock out on the tier, two other Black inmates out on the tier, a and a fourth Hispanic inmate working on the plumbing from the chase area. But from the chase area he did not have access to the tier. To complicate matters, there were six to eight Black inmates who were getting staged to go out to a medical. They were in the officers' area being observed by one of the four Correctional Officers.

At about this time, a radio call was received that there is a White inmate returning to the unit from a medical call. Another officer stepped out into the corridor to observe a White inmate who is returning to the unit. There are now two officers busy observing inmate movements. Officer Gonzalez is out on the tier alone. Officer Marin is in the officers' area observing Officer Gonzalez. There is quite a bit of activity going on moments before the stabbing. It was the opinion of the Panel that the amount and combination of the activity was in violation of the post orders and the directives from the Warden on the modified program for Sycamore Hall.

It was at that point that Inmate Blaylock stabbed Officer Gonzalez. Officer Gonzalez was released from the tier and then fell and stumbled to the officers' area. Inmate Blaylock was out on the tier with at least one weapon and some inmates say he had two weapons. At this point, staff hit their alarms and other staff responded. They carried Officer Gonzalez to the medical clinic. At that point, staff attempted to control what was going on at Sycamore Hall. That is what occurred prior to the incident and at the moment of the incident.

Another issue is the distribution of vests. Protective vests were received at CIM on September 9, 2004. CIM had vests for 362 officers, including Officer Gonzalez. An additional 100 vests were received on January 5. It was the Institution's decision to wait until it had sufficient vests for all staff before distribution. It was the Panel's opinion that Administration should have issued those protective vests as they were received.

Mr. McGrath stated that staff responded quickly to the alarm and moved Officer Gonzalez to the medical clinic. That was done very well and quickly. Unfortunately, they were unable to do anything for him because of the nature of his wounds. Officer Gonzalez probably expired before he reached the medical clinic. There did not appear to be a coordinated or tactical approach to manage the incident. Mr. McGrath stated that there were officers coming from everywhere. A huge group of officers ended up in the officers' area in front of the housing unit, where Officer Gonzalez had been laid on the floor. The crime scene was not preserved. The officers immediately began the effort of removing the four inmates from the tier who were still out. The Hispanic inmate worker who was in the cell doing plumbing did not come out so they just closed that door. They had the three Black inmates and Blaylock and the two out of that cell who were still on the tier. They began to try to get them off the tier by firing at them with a less lethal weapon. They fired about 18 rounds and at some point the inmates decided to follow directions and come up to the grill gate in a prone position and get handcuffed and taken out. It was not a coordinated tactical approach on how to remove inmates from a tier.

While this is going on, all of the officers are standing right there in the crime scene. The crime scene was not preserved. The efforts to collect and preserve evidence, search inmates, the Hall, and other areas were not well coordinated. Also, all the jumpsuits that had been taken from inmates had been put in a pile. Officers realized that the jumpsuit that Blaylock was wearing was somewhere in that pile and were never able to determine which jumpsuit belonged to him, which was a critical piece of evidence.

All staff involved in the removal and transfer of inmate Blaylock, both from that unit and CIM, did so professionally and under highly charged and emotional conditions. It appears that there was no post incident review. As of the time the Panel was there last week, there was no evidence of a post incident review to determine what the factors related to the incident were. The Administrative staff provided appropriate peer support and grief counseling. The Panel felt that it was done very well that every employee in the Institution was given an opportunity to seek help for emotional trauma.

Mr. McGrath stated that the Panel did note that following the January 10 incident, CIM Administration has taken some actions. They distributed the available protective vests; installed the Offender Based Information System in the Reception Center, which will allow staff to know an inmate's history as soon as he arrives at the facility; modified the post orders regarding cell, bed, and common area searches; made improvements to the cell/search log books; modified housing sergeant's post orders for enhanced accountability; initiated daily watch meetings; and modified inmate movement policy to require that, at a minimum, inmates be moved in handcuff restraints. There are also a number of pending recommendations suggested by CIM Administration.

Mr. Parry stated that the Panel made seven recommendations:

The first recommendation is that there needs to be a complete audit of the Institution with particular attention to security management, training of staff, and a look at the maintenance and physical plant. The Institution is very old and some parts of it are in disrepair. The Panel recommends that the Department of Correction should conduct this audit keeping in mind that CIM can safely accomplish its stated mission within the existing physical plant.

The second recommendation is that the Director's Review Board should be completed in a more timely manner, particularly given the fact that there were prior Director Review Boards done on this inmate. The Panel felt that they could have taken the last one and added the new information and submitted it in a much more timely manner.

The third recommendation is that communication among CIM staff needs to be improved, not just among the senior and executive staff, but also regarding threats in terms of how they are going to be handled and be communicated from hall to hall and from watch to watch.

Mr. McGrath stated that the fourth recommendation is that CIM should complete a post-incident review of all critical incidents. This was a tragic event involving the loss of life of a Correctional Officer, but they have serious incidents on a regular basis. It is the Panel's recommendation that they do a post-incident review all of critical incidents and take appropriate steps to identify and address the deficiencies that are found in those reviews. The Panel also recommends that as CIM dose the reviews, they have Headquarters look at what they find and what their needs are.

The fifth recommendation is that there needs to be immediate improvements in handling crime scenes. One of the issues is that CIM does not have an investigations squad. Almost all of CDC prisons have an investigations squad, which includes from six to ten officers with a sergeant or lieutenant whose sole responsibility is to respond to crimes, do special searches, and to work with district attorneys on prosecution of prison crime. In that process, most crime scene preservation and expertise are within these squads. CIM does not have one, but since all correctional peace officers have been trained in crime scene preservation, they need to do some remedial training. The Panel is recommending that CIM get the small investigative squad that has been requested. CDC Headquarters has approved this request.

The sixth recommendation is that tools utilized within the facility need to be properly controlled and accounted for. The Panel was essentially told that there was no tool control. Workers were coming in and out of the units were not accounting for the tools on an hourly or daily basis.

The last recommendation, number seven, is that the Institution needs to review its Memorandum of Understanding agreements with outside agencies relative to mutual aid and investigation. The Panel was informed that sometime shortly after the incident occurred, the Chino Police Department arrived and were willing to be involved in looking at the crime scene and helping with the investigation, but were never asked to do so, so they left. It was not until the next day that the LEIU unit was able to get the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department involved in the investigation. As we all know, time is critical. Coming on something 24 hours after the incident happens is crippling in the investigative process. They need to have an agreement of understanding so that when these things happen, who is going to do the crime scene and who is going to do the prosecution is just automatic.

Mr. Parry stated that the Panel's first conclusion is that Inmate Blaylock should have been in Administrative Segregation the first day based on prior confinement in security housing units, his referrals to the Director's Review Board, and his predatory behavior. If not on day one, shortly after additional information was received, he should have been placed in Administrative Segregation.

Mr. Parry stated that it was the Panel's second conclusion that CIM staff was not following the Warden's directions, which were issued in writing, including increased searches and program modifications. Sergeants and lieutenants were not properly supervising the staff.

The third conclusion is that the Department of Corrections Headquarters needs to look at the staffing package that CIM has requested regarding staff and the forming of an investigative team.

The issuance of vests should have been distributed to the officers as they were received.

Lastly, the Panel believes that the Department needs to look at the number of inmates that are being processed through the Reception Center, approximately 600 a week, in terms of how many inmates can be safely processed and housed at the institution.

Chairman Hickman thanked Mr. Parry and Mr. McGrath for their presentation and work as Panel members in providing expertise to a very difficult analysis.

Mr. Calvin Remington stated that mention had been made during the presentation and in the summary that the Warden's directions had not been followed. He asked if the Panel gave any thought to recommendations regarding that issue. Clearly the information was getting up to the Warden and clearly it was not getting down to line staff. Mr. McGrath answered that is was not the Panel's impression that staff was not aware of the directions. The directions were put out weekly on a standard sheet that is used to describe what the activity should be. It was the Panel's impression that the supervisory staff was not ensuring that those directions were being followed. The staff was faced with a very hot unit with a lot of violence going on and were doing the best they could. Mr. McGrath stated that he didn't get a sense that staff was getting the kind of direction that they really needed to deal with what they had to deal with. Mr. Remington asked if the issue was lack of accountability, lack of training, or lack of something else. Mr. McGrath responded that his impression was that staff have gotten so focused on processing inmates and moving people, (there might be 600 cell moves a day) that they have stopped doing the basic things that they need to do to stay safe.

Mr. Kolender stated that he was pleased to be a part of the Panel that did a tremendous job figuring all these things out. He said that the participants from New York were great and he appreciated the opportunity. He stated that as soon as the Panel walked into Sycamore Hall, they noticed that the conditions were deplorable. There was filth on the walls, name calling by the inmates, and lack of control. Inmates were covering their cell fronts, had fish lines in the cells, and fecal matter on the walls. He said that the conditions in the Reception Intake, where people were being processed, were deplorable.

Ms. Woodford asked if the Panel had an opportunity to sit in on the watch meeting to see how it is being conducted and how information is being passed. Mr. McGrath answered that the Panel did not sit in on the watch meetings.

Chairman Hickman asked for any comments. Chief Deputy Vallerie Hill, Riverside County Sheriff's Department said that a press release was out which reported that, as a result of the report, Warden Lori DeCarlo and her Chief Deputies, Carol Roddy and Greg Mellott, were placed on paid administrative leave. Chairman Hickman said that was correct.

Chairman Hickman stated he had reviewed the report that was released yesterday by Matthew Cate of the Office of the Inspector General. The Panel's and the Inspector General's reports are very similar in their findings regarding what the deficiencies were. One thing that came out of the Inspector General's review was a question whether there are similar circumstances at other institutions. The Chairman stated that his belief is there could be some deficiencies, but not to the extent that the Inspector General described in regards to all the things that happened that lead up to the very tragic homicide of Correctional Officer Gonzalez. Chairman Hickman stated that he had been a lifelong corrections person and emotionally felt the loss of one of the members of the law enforcement family in the service of the people of California. He stated that he had worked in Sycamore Hall and knows the circumstances there very well.

Chairman Hickman asked, after reviewing both reports, if the Board would consider using its expertise in facilitation, expertise in the development of standards and inspections and in other areas of corrections, plus its Penal Code authority to review state level operations in reviewing staff safety at the Department of Corrections (CDC) and California Youth Authority (CYA). He indicated that he would like to gather together a group of people from the CDC; the CYA; the Association of State Correctional Administration, which is chaired by Richard Stalder who is the Commissioner of Corrections in Louisiana; the American Correctional Association whose executive officer is Jim Gondles; the California Correctional Peace Officers Association; and other employee groups such as the Association of Black Correctional Workers in the Department of Corrections and CYA, the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, and the California Correctional Supervisors Association. Chairman Hickman stated the one thing that needs to be done is to ensure that Corrections' employees and inmates are safe. He would like to see those groups brought together under the auspices of the Board to develop an objective comprehensive review methodology that can be used to complete a staff safety audit. The direction would come from Chairman Hickman to the Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Authority to provide the resources to the Board. It would not be an additional responsibility of the Board to carry the burden both from a fiscal and staffing standpoint. That would be the responsibility of Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Authority. Chairman Hickman expressed interest in hearing some dialogue about this proposal from the other Board members and staff.

Ms. Stoll stated that she believed the Board could complete the assignment if provided adequate resources. The Board has not done anything of this magnitude in the state prison systems in the recent past. She said that the Board has undertaken two efforts: one with the Department of Corrections and the other with Youth Authority in 1981 and 2000. It will be a large undertaking that takes considerable staff time. We have completed similar reviews for local governments. Ms. Woodford stated that CDC has started a standardization and review team and will have the resources to work under the guidance of this committee, which would be very useful and helpful. Ms. Garcia stated she saw the CYA study that the Board did in 2000, and it was an exceptional review, but if there is no follow through or resources attached to it, it will not do any good.

The Chairman stated that he relishes the professionalism and the work that the Board does. He said that everyone he talks to in local government who has any relationship with the Board of Corrections knows that it is an exceptional organization, which does exceptional work. He stated that he looks at an incident like this and thinks that it would certainly be beneficial to the citizens of California, particularly to the employees of both the California Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Authority, if they had that type of expertise to assist them in reviewing those operations in a way that was collaborative with some of those national organizations that look at things much more broadly than maybe we had in the past in California. He also stated that he thought that with the magnitude of the organizations of Corrections and the Youth Authority in California, it would be a long-term project and asked if there was a way to do it from a planning standpoint and also as an ongoing agenda item to report back on the process.

The Chairman said he would ask the Director of Corrections and the Director of Youth Authority to prioritize what institutions they would want to have completed first and advise the Board. It will be necessary to determine what the resources or necessities would be in order to accomplish such a large-scale task. Involving the two national organization brings an opportunity to have an objective perspective brought to it and learn and replicate some of the practices that might be found in their process.

Ms. Woodford stated that it is important to note for the record that the Department of Corrections will have a resource team at CIM. Some of them will be arriving today and will be there fully by Monday. They will be looking at all of the operations at CIM, from entry all the way through processing and release. The resource team will be there for a very long time. It is CDC's intent that when staff is finished at CIM, to move on to each of the reception centers in the state to be sure that lessons learned are passed on to every reception center. She stated that she wanted that on the record, too. Secondly, Ms. Woodford said, having a commission or board come together to look at how CDC operates in California is so critical because things are done differently here. Doors at intake are never closed and it leads to overcrowding and to some of the things that were just commented on. It is important to have people who have expertise in corrections from all over the nation take a look at how business is done here.

Mr. Prizmich stated that he endorsed the theory and understood that it is going to be a huge undertaking. In all of these tragedies, whether it is outside or inside the facilities, there are always a series of mistakes that people have made. He said that mistakes could be quantified and identified if it is made part of the effort. The overcrowding, for example, and how best to deal with the movement of inmates so that you identify and focus in on some of the problems related to the tragedy and would be helpful when shared with all of the Department of Corrections' facilities.

Mr. Remington stated that the more we shine a light on these problems the more the accountability. Having people looking at it will be positive. He said he also hopes that this would move toward some sort of accreditation or standards setting for state institutions where wardens are clear what accreditation, or a similar word, might mean and move their institutions towards that. He stated he didn't know if the accreditation system would be created just for California or maybe in conjunction with ACA.

Chairman Hickman stated that the reorganization is expanding the Board of Corrections in its current capacity and renaming it the "Board of Corrections," which would, in fact, develop and set the standards for California.

Ms. Stoll stated that GRP-I does establish the Board of Corrections as being the regulations setting body for state institutions for both youth and adult. Chairman Hickman's request would be to begin the staff safety/security piece of that work plan. Staff will also be bringing groups together to look at all the components of operating a facility including classification, health and medical, restraints, and other areas. Typically, as counties are aware, in the development of regulations, we bring together the subject matter experts. She said she sees the same type of process of bringing in the people who have to work the job and walk the talk, coming together to develop and do some self-analysis and help develop standards. The staff safety piece could be a good introduction to the process.

Ms. Mimi Silbert stated there are lots of opportunities in this that are terrific - bringing everybody together, sharing values, looking at the problem, setting standards.

Chairman Hickman directed Board staff to return to the May meeting with a plan to convene a workgroup to look at staff safety at the CDC and CYA prisons and institutions

Ms. Stoll stated that staff would report back at the next meeting with a work plan and a request to go forward.

Mr. Remington stated that there has to be greater involvement of the Legislature and county government in a partnership. We need to handle some of the non-violent or less violent people in other ways. County jails are starting to become overcrowded again and local resources are stretched thin. There has been a greater partnership between the counties and the state in relation to the CYA and there has been a real reduction in that population. He said that some how we have to slow the amount of people coming to prison because without that happening I don't know how you catch up. You are always behind and the only way to correct this is with a greater partnership and unfortunately it is going to cost more money. From a local perspective, one of the areas where there are the fewest resources are with the young adult population 18 to 23 that are going to prison in large numbers. Somehow that has to be stemmed and it is only going to happen with a greater partnership and some more resources to address that area.

Chairman Hickman again thanked all the members of the Independent Review Panel for their work.


Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this is a standard information item reporting minor timeline changes that staff approved for the reasons that are listed on the attachment. All the projects continue to make progress and are moving forward to completion.


Field Representative Lynda Frost stated that in January she informed the Board that staff had completed a draft of the final report on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program. The analysis showed that the initiative reduced recidivism among mentally ill offenders. Ms. Frost said that Dr. John Kohls spearheaded the final evaluation of the program. The handout given to the Board was a condensed version of the report that was submitted to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency in December.

The Board's statewide evaluation included three different components. The first was to determine the difference in outcomes between the individuals who participated in the MIOCRG projects and individuals who received treatment as usual. The second analysis focused on assessing the extent of the magnitude of treatment effect and how it related to different subgroups of program participants. The third analysis assessed the extent to which there was a relationship between outcomes and attributes of Assertive Community Treatment that were woven into the project.

The data for all three analyses was a uniform set of variables called Common Data Elements. There were over a hundred of these. They provided background information on the participants; information on the nature and duration of the interventions; and information on their subsequent criminal conduct, psychological functioning and general living conditions. In terms of the sample size, with the statewide evaluation, there were a little over 4,700 individuals involved. There were over 8,000 people served by the 30 projects. Dr. Kohls made the determination that it would be important that only those projects that had a true experimental or quasi-experimental research design be included, which means that there is an external comparison group. There were also a few projects that had some serious data collection and recording issues. There were 20 projects involved in the statewide evaluation, with over 4,700 people split about evenly between the enhanced treatment group receiving MIOCRG services and treatment as usual group.

Dr. Kohls thoroughly analyzed the intervention data and came to four conclusions about what comprised the enhanced treatment that the MIOCRG participants received. He concluded that these individuals were more comprehensively diagnosed and evaluated regarding their mental functioning and mental needs, more quickly and reliably provided with services, provided with more complete after-jail systems of care, and monitored more closely to ensure that their behavior and mental deterioration were addressed quickly.

These four elements formed the hypothesis used to examine the effect of enhanced treatment on fourteen different outcome variables. Eight of them were criminal justice oriented and six of them were quality of life. In reviewing the findings, it is important to keep in mind that treatment as usual changed dramatically during the course of the MIOCRG program. Just as that was getting started back in late '98 or '99, AB 34 and 2034 were coming on the scene, both of which provided extensive treatment and support services to mentally ill persons including mentally ill offenders. Proposition 36 also came along. The landscape changed, which was a good thing because that needed to happen, but it accounts for perhaps the smaller treatment effects than originally anticipated.

In terms of the criminal justice outcomes, the results were really good. The MIOCRG project participants were booked less often, convicted less often, and when they were convicted, they were convicted of less serious offenses. They also served less time in jail and when they did serve time jail it was fewer days. Five of eight outcomes had statistically significant positive results, which means that they are generalizable to the population at large. We believe the results for the mean bookings are due to the increased scrutiny that the MIOCRG project participants were under. It is similar to what happened in the Challenge grant program and ROPP program when probation officers and/or other law enforcement officers are added into the treatment team.

There were equally positive results with the quality of life outcomes. Five of the six had positive results. In terms of unemployment, it might also be attributable to the AB 2034 programs, which have a strong emphasis on employment. Ms. Frost stated that what impressed her in the quality of life outcome was the improvement of the Global Assessment Functioning score. In over 40 percent of both groups, enhanced treatment and treatment as usual, there was no change in the GAF score and that is typical and is to be expected. It is not an easy thing to improve one's functionality when seriously impaired. Of those whose scores changed over the course of their program participation, it is significant that 64 percent in the enhanced treatment group improved and only 44 percent of the treatment as usual group improved. Also, remember that they were getting extra services.

In the second analysis, Dr. Kohls started with 10 different subgroups of participants and decided to focus on four subgroups and two outcome measures. Ms. Frost pointed out the results in Table C, which summarized Dr. Kohls' analysis of the Age/Criminal Intensity score. Criminal Intensity is basically a formula that Dr. Kohls came up with to gauge the extent of the criminal history of the participant. He took into account the number and seriousness of the offenses. It is interesting to note that Dr. Kohls' analysis revealed that the results were better for participants 30 years and older and they got better as the criminal the intensity score increased - in other words, older people with a pretty serious criminal history background. A number of the counties, for different reasons, excluded participation by these individuals for whom the interventions were most effective.

The analysis of the fidelity to Assertive Community Treatment, the third analysis, was not required by legislation, but at least two-thirds of the project followed some form or fashion of the Assertive Community Treatment model. There was a lot of variability among the projects. From a research prospect, that was great because you can see if something made a difference or not. We used some existing scales that measure how much of a certain program component you have in your project. We had the projects all score themselves and then Dr. Kohls scored them as either low, medium, or high - ACTness groups. Then he correlated all that with the criminal justice and quality of life outcomes. The bottom line was that the more ACTness the project had, the better the outcome. Better criminal justice outcomes, better quality of life outcomes were associated with Assertive Community Treatment, which is basically intensive case management by a multi-disciplinary team and typically involves around the clock services.

Ms. Stoll added that the Board, on the last three initiatives, Challenge, ROPP and the Mentally Ill Offender, has also looked at a planning phase and set aside monies for each of these counties to get a collaborative group of players in the county together to work out their approach, which is unlike many other grant programs, which have the locality or state agency put together a proposal and then go out and see if it works. This was coordinated by our office. The common data collection materials were all agreed upon upfront so people knew what they were getting into. They had to have a proposal in the competitive process to also lay out whether the criteria would be one that met the experimental design. There were a few that did not meet the experimental design. Those also provided some good information. Ms. Frost stated that there were some real successes in those projects in terms of pre and post evaluations of the participants. It just didn't get into this model. Ms. Stoll said that part of the reasons behind that is staff got into a philosophical discussion in those counties as to whether or not to deny treatment to people who need it.

Ms. Silbert stated that she would like to commend everyone. The results from this and the Challenge grants are without question the most comprehensive and serious research results that have ever been done.

Ms. Stoll responded that there were some good findings that came out of the Challenge activities. While the Board was still in the midst of getting those findings from Challenge I, the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act was filed and was approved by the Legislature for $121 million. It is going out to localities. It had built into it that only projects that had demonstrated effectiveness could be funded. So again, Board staff worked extensively with the counties to use the findings from Challenge and ROPP to build it into those programs. Ms. Stoll stated that out of the 193 programs that were funded, close to 75 percent of them used the Challenge findings. The other 25 percent came from other national models in exemplary projects. Ms. Stoll stated she would like to see the same thing happen here.

Ms. Frost stated between now and the end of the summer, counties are in the midst of the planning process that the Department of Mental Health is requiring them to go through for Prop. 63 funds. Right now is the time, in the Council's view, for getting as much of this information out as possible to mental health directors, probation departments, etc. Steve Mayberg was very pleased to report that the partnership between Mental Health and local law enforcement on the Prop 63 planning efforts is very strong. The information needs to get out so that they can rely on some of the best practices that have been identified. There is a lot of good information in that report and in the individual evaluations. Chairman Hickman indicated he would find out the status of the report and get it back to the Board as soon as possible.

Ms. Woodford asked if there was any group that was totally excluded in every county, any type of offender; for example, individuals that are convicted of sex offenses. Ms. Frost answered, no. There was one county that took participants on a case-by-case basis and had no written exclusion criteria by offense. Most of the counties did exclude violent offenders. Ms. Frost responded to a question from Ms. Silbert that for the report under review by YACA is the final report required by the Legislature.

Ms. Stoll stated the report is wonderful for a researcher, but it takes something of a smaller nature to get the impact and the results and to really understand what is going on. If Legislators are interested enough, maybe they will go forward and read the entire report. In a number of these projects, staff did a random assignment. Depending on the random assignment, as people came into the system it depended on whether they got tracked or not tracked into the project. Ms. Stoll commented that a number of mental health courts also were initiated as part of this process. There were collaborations between the defense attorneys, the prosecution, the courts, and mental health, all coming together to case plan on the inmate as they were received.

Ms. Frost stated it was very successful, so much so that two counties that didn't start with them as a part of their project design, implemented them part way through the grant period using their own money. She said she just learned yesterday from Joel Fay that Marin, at the very end of end of their grant, finally got the mental health court that they have been wanting, as is the last piece of their program.

Chairman Hickman asked if staff could develop a way for the Board to make a recommendation in regards to this. He also asked if the Board could just give direction as a Board to do that. Ms. Stoll stated yes.


Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated that in 2004, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) asked the Board to review the transfer of medical information between the local jails and the Department of Corrections. The intent was to reduce duplication, control costs and improve the continuity of care for inmates when they went from the local jail to CDC. The workgroup was made up of representatives from CDC, YACA, and a number of local jail managers and administrators. The workgroup met on three different occasions. Two subcommittees met between the workgroup meetings. The conclusions of the committee were consolidated into three recommendations that the workgroup has forwarded to YACA.

Mr. Read stated the first recommendation is that CDC locate registered nurses at the large southern California jails to evaluate transfers and ensure that inmates are sent to the appropriate state facility with relevant health care information. The jail administrators represented on the workgroup showed interest in having CDC nurses stationed in their jails, in fact, most of them committed to providing office space, computers, and access to inmate health care data. The counties represented on the workgroup were Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, San Diego, and Riverside.

Mr. Read stated staff tried to get a handle on what percentage of inmates committed to CDC was represented by those counties. The numbers from the counties showed that it was around 70 percent of all CDC admissions; the numbers from CDC indicated that it was closer to 55 percent. For the sake of estimating impact, it was determined that somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the inmates that are brought to CDC from the local jails are coming from those five counties.

Mr. Read stated that a second ad hoc committee is currently evaluating how much the cost savings would be to CDC by having the nurses there. The thought is that it will either save money or at least be cost neutral. The tests that have been done at the local jails can be coordinated so they are not duplicated at CDC. There is currently a transfer summary that goes with every inmate. The workgroup looked at trying to enhance it so that more information would go with the inmate, but they decided they could not improve on the form already being used. Improvement required someone to be a liaison at the county jails and put the right materials together to go with the inmate to state prison.

Mr. Read stated that the second recommendation is that the facilities in the state that are not proposed to receive CDC nurses onsite would use the existing transfer summary. The workgroup said it is still the best instrument to use. CDC has policies in place and is familiar with the form. although it is not the best alternative. The best alternative would be to have a CDC nurse at every facility in the state, which not feasible. Chairman Hickman asked if the transfer summary was used everywhere. Mr. Read stated that it was. That doesn't mean that it goes with every inmate, but the intent is that it does.

Mr. Read stated that the third recommendation is that CDC identify a central contact point for the counties to reach. The situation that was brought up most often is that an inmate goes to prison and after they have left, important test results come in to county medical representative that need to be delivered. Once the inmate is gone, the county has no idea where they are or who they should deliver the information to. They reported spending days on the telephone trying to get important information to the right place. This is currently being worked on. Mr. Read said he had already received an e-mail from CDC Chief Deputy Director John Dovey stating this issue is moving forward.

Mr. Read said that the workgroup sent the recommendations to YACA and pending their support, BOC staff is available to continue working on this issue to see if these recommendations are worthwhile. Chairman Hickman stated that he appreciated the feedback and the Board's work on this endeavor. Ms. Woodford asked if there was any discussion about pilot testing the placement of a nurse in one county rather than five.. Mr. Read stated a smaller scale project was discussed and suggested that Los Angeles County would make the most sense being the largest.. The majority of the group felt that if we could show that it was at least cost neutral, that it made sense that the five counties suggested were close enough together that all the nurses could be supervised by one person. A pilot in five counties would work just as well. Chairman Hickman asked if the Board was just awaiting YACA to give feedback from the endeavor staff to continue. Mr. Read stated that the workgroup was still doing some cost benefits work and that this is more of an update. Chairman Hickman stated that the workgroup should continue in the direction they are currently going.


Field Representative Magi Work stated that Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) refers to the over representation of minority youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system relative to their numbers in general population. A contact refers to the decision points from arrest through confinement. To be eligible for formula grant money, the state has to achieve and maintain compliance of four core requirements establish in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The deinstitutionalization of status offenders, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and separation of juveniles from adults in institutions are three of the four core requirements that California is in compliance with. The Disproportionate Minority Contact, which is the fourth requirement, California currently is not in compliance with. As a result, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is withholding 20 percent of California's formula grant money allocated for 2006. The effort in California will be included in the state's juvenile justice plan, which is part of the Formula grant application due March 31. In order to bolster California's efforts to reduce disproportionate minority contact, the Board established a workgroup. Board member Cal Remington chaired the workgroup and it was comprised of subject matter experts to help determine the most effective strategy for using federal funds to address DMC.

In developing its recommendations, the workgroup examined a pilot project that OJJDP had conducted with five states: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Oregon. The project in these states underscored the importance of the following steps in addressing DMC from a statewide perspective: Assign organization responsibilities to determine the optimal lead organization, appoint a coordinator - allocate adequate resources; analyze juvenile justice data, acquire accurate quantitative data, conduct systematic data analyses, interpret data within the local social and political context, and engage the stakeholders in the process; identify underlying factors - gather information on contributing factors, synthesize contributing factors, and build consensus about contributing factors; create and implementation interventions - involve community stakeholders in the planning, development and implementation of appropriate intervention strategies; and develop methods to measure the interventions impact - design monitoring systems at the local level, select an appropriate monitoring organization, and capture overall results.

Based on the expertise of the workgroup and their review of lessons learned from the other states, the workgroup is recommending that the BOC implement a three-pronged approach in using federal dollars to address DMC.

First the workgroup recommends that the BOC administer a "Technical Assistance Model" for counties committed and willing to address DMC within their communities. At the direction of the workgroup, BOC staff developed a model based on a system approach. The model would be offered to a maximum of four counties per year. Counties would apply through a Request for Application process and would need to meet the following requirements to be eligible to participate in the project: (1) Preliminary data must indicate an overrepresentation issue in their community; (2) collaborative agreements between stakeholders must be in place or in the planning phase; (3) the site must report data to the California Department of Justice's Juvenile Courts Probation Statistical System; (4) the county must have a DMC workgroup established at the time of site selection; and (5) the site must have baseline data collection tools available.

Second, the workgroup is recommending that the BOC expend the $200,000 in federal funds allocated each year for DMC-related efforts to contract with an experienced and knowledgeable consultant that would work collaboratively with the counties in the implementation and evaluation of the Technical Assistance Model. The effectiveness of the Technical Assistance Model would be assessed through an analysis of collected data and site-specific program activities.

Third, to ensure appropriate oversight and administration of this project and sufficient staffing for other needed DMC education, training, and technical assistance efforts, the workgroup is recommending creation of a full-time DMC coordinator position at the BOC. Funding for this position is available from uncommitted federal monies. This recommendation is consistent with the direction recently provided by OJJDP, which indicated that the BOC, as a state agency responsible for administering juvenile justice grant programs, needs to be actively involved in assuring compliance with DMC. The federal coordinator also maintains that California needs a full-time DMC coordinator. This recommendation is also consistent with several other states using the federal funds in addressing DMC. New York, Kansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Missouri all fund full-time DMC coordinators with federal funds.

The DMC Coordinator would oversee the Technical Assistance Model project and conduct several other DMC-related activities. Specific responsibilities would include: developing and coordinating the DMC Request for Proposal for a consultant to deliver the Technical Assistance Model; assisting the consultant in selecting counties that would participate in the project; developing and conducting DMC training sessions with police, judges, probation officers, district attorneys, public defenders, and other interested state and local stakeholders; assisting all 58 counties with interpreting DMC data reported to the Department of Justice's Juvenile Courts Probation Statistical System and analyzing factors that may have contributed to disproportionate results; and preparing reports on the implementation and impact of the DMC initiative as well as other efforts undertaken to reduce DMC.

Staff recommends the Board approves the three-pronged approach recommended by the workgroup to address DMC, specifically (1) administer the Technical Assistance Model; (2) contract with an expert knowledgeable consultant to work collaboratively with the counties; and (3) establish a full-time DMC coordinator position at BOC.

Mr. Remington thanked Ms. Work for the presentation. He stated that the Board should move forward on the issue, but would not make the motion since he was the chair of the workgroup. There are two things that are important. In California we are a little behind some other states for a number of reasons, some of which were mentioned by Ms. Work. We are ready to move forward. We don't have a lot of money so what we were looking was where are we going to get the biggest bang for the buck. I think this approach provides that and will allow us to make some real strides in California.

A motion was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert to approved staff's recommendation to use a three-pronged approach recommended by the workgroup to address DMC in California. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jeanne Woodford. The motion carried.


Field Representative Lynda Frost stated that the item spells out the topics that essentially comprise the required table of contents for each of applications. The item points out that the JABG application was due February 28 and was sent with the proviso that the submission was actually pending Board approval today. The other two are due at the end of March. In terms of common threads, all three applications required staff to describe the kind of efforts that are being undertaken to promote coordination between the state and federal juvenile programs. A number of activities were cited. The biggest is what is being done to ensure that the entities that are applying and reapplying for federal grants are working as closely as possible with the 56 probation departments in the counties that participate in the state-funded JJCPA Act. There are a lot of similarities in the composition of the juvenile justice councils in these counties and the various local boards that have to be formed to be eligible for federal money as well as in the plans already developed and annually updated by counties and the different plans that are put together to keep federal funds. Ms. Frost stated that information has been shared with them about how they can benefit by working closely with their probation departments and in effect save time by not reinventing the wheel. Also, in terms of common threads, both the JABG and Title II applications require the Board to talk about the composition and structure of the state advisory group. Ms. Silbert stated that the Governor had sent out a press release either yesterday or today announcing the formation of the State Advisory Group. Ms. Frost stated that she had explained that it was very close to that happening and that the advisory group was restructured per your direction and with the blessing of OJJDP staff to ensure that it meets federal membership requirements and that it fits within the decision making process of this Board. There will be no more than 15 members on SAG and it is going to operate as an executive steering committee to the Board. The third common thread was that the JABG and Title II applications required an analysis of juvenile crime trends. Staff drew upon a lot of data published by the Department of Justice that showed in effect that juvenile felony and misdemeanor arrests continued to go down, and that is great news, but there were some areas of concern when it came to the female offenders. Basically, they are not going down as quickly as the males and they comprise an increasing percentage of the total juvenile felony arrests.

A motion was made by Mr. William Kolender to approve staff's recommendation that the Board approve the submittal of the federal fiscal year 2005 applications for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, Title II Formula Grants Program, and Title V Community Prevention Grants Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.


  1. Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read stated this was a request for the Board to approve the composition of an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and timeline for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities biennial review process. At the January 27, 2005 meeting, the Board directed staff to begin the standards review process for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities, Titles 15 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The chair of the ESC, Board member Calvin Remington, met with staff to develop the list of recommended members and proposed timeline. Staff anticipate that after the review and any necessary revisions to the regulations, the ESC will provide recommendations for final approval by the Board at the April 2006 meeting.

    A motion was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich to approve staff's recommendation to approve the composition of the ESC and the timeline for the juvenile standards revision process. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

  2. Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read indicated that this Agenda Item was similar to the one previously presented except that the Executive Steering Committee was for the regulation review process of the Minimum Standards for the Standards and Training for Corrections Program. Board member Michael Prizmich was appointed Chair of the ESC and former Board member Gary Mann served on the committee. On February 16, 2005, Mr. Prizmich met with staff to develop a list of recommended members and the proposed timeline. The ESC will provide recommendations for final approval by the Board at the July 2005 meeting, after a thorough review and any necessary revisions to the regulations.

    A motion was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich to approve staff's recommendation to approve the composition of the ESC and the timeline for the Standards and Training for Corrections regulation revision process. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.


Acting Deputy Director Jerry Read presented a legislative update on four bills relating to the Board of Corrections. The first was AB 1267 (Leslie) which would required the Board to administer the State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and to act as the supervisory board of the state planning agency pursuant to the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Mr. Read stated that there were two bills, GRP1 (Governor) and SB 737 (Romero), which are identical. Both bills relate to the restructure of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. The fourth bill, SB 609 (Romero) would set forth various findings and declarations and require facility remodeling or closure, and the implementation by January 1, 2009, of clothing rules, housing size, facility rehabilitation and risk design, ward classification systems, staffing ratios and training requirements, and classroom and other standards. The California Youth Authority, the Board of Corrections, and the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency would complete these tasks. This bill contains other related provisions.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Tynes
Administrative Assistant


Roderick Hickman, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Silvia Garcia, Deputy Director, represented Department of the Youth Authority
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County Sheriff's Department
Calvin C. Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County Probation Department
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Jeanne Woodford, Director, Department of Corrections


Karen L. Stoll, Executive Officer (A)
Jerry Read, Deputy Director (A)
Lynda Frost, Field Representative
Doug Holien, Field Representative
Magi Work, Field Representative
Barbara Tynes, Administrative Assistant


Don Allen, Board of Corrections
Dana Fredendall, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Valerie Hill, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Norbert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff's Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Dennis Runyen, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Bob Wellott, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Doug Papaghi, Madera County Department of Corrections
Nancy Tacy, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department
Brenda Suarez, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department
Marty Williamson, Kern County Sheriff's Department
Velrice Mitchell, Kern County Sheriff's Department
Kevin Wright, Kern County Sheriff's Department
Ron Bertrand, Kern County Sheriff's Department
Randy Turman, Kern County Sheriff's Department
Rosemary Wall, Kern County Sheriff's Department


Back to Top of Page

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