California Board of Corrections

Acting Chair Jerry Harper called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. (Mr. Harper was directed by Chairman Presley to preside as Acting Chair, in the Chairman’s absence.) After a review of the membership present Acting Chair Harper declared the presence of a quorum.

Acting Chair Harper announced the excused absence of member Lou Blanas. He is out of the country.

Acting Chair Harper announced the resignation of member Taylor Moorehead, Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department effective June 30, 2002. Mr. Moorehead is moving to the Court Services Division and will no longer have responsibility for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Custody Division.

Executive Director Thom McConnell presented Mr. Moorehead with a plaque inscribed:

In honor of Taylor K. Moorehead, Member, California Board of Corrections, March 2000-June 2002

In appreciation for your dedicated service as a member of the Board, representing the Local Detention Facility Administrators of California. As a distinguished member of the Board, you willingly shared your time, effort and valued perspective, while steadfastly upholding recognized standards for local corrections’ professionals and the programs, services and facilities they operate. We recognize and applaud your efforts and thank you for your sincere dedication to serving the field of local corrections and the great State of California.

Robert Presley, Chairman, Board of Corrections

Acting Chair Harper turned the meeting over to Mr. McConnell to discuss the Governor’s Budget May Revision and the possible impact on the Board of Corrections operations. Mr. McConnell explained that on Tuesday, May 14, the revisions to the Governor’s January budget were announced. An overview of that document explain that these amendments to the originally proposed budget are necessary because of the precipitous decline in revenues from the personal income tax on capital gains and stock options brought on by the weak performance of the stock market through 2001 and the economic aftermath of September 11, 2001. It goes on to explain that these revisions are necessary to address a $23.6 billion gap between expenditures and revenues in the fiscal year 2002/2003. The plan calls for thirteen specific actions directed at closing this gap.

The largest single action being state program reductions, which is slated to be 32% of the overall solution for about $7.6 billion. Four of the Board of Corrections current programs are addressed in these proposed reductions and they are:

Challenge Grant II Programs – The proposal is for a decrease of $12.3 million to reflect elimination of fourth-year grant funding to those programs.

Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act – The proposal is to eliminate $275,000 in administrative oversight from the Board of Corrections to respond to the deletion of a $116.3 million in local assistance for the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act administered by the State Controller’s Office.

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant – The proposal is for a decrease of $17.3 million for the MIOCR program to reflect the elimination of third-year funding.

Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) Program – The proposal is for a reduction of $2 million for the CLEAR Program in Los Angeles, and reappropriation of $2 million of prior year Juvenile Justice Enforcement in Crime Prevention Challenge Grant I allocations in local assistance in order to continue CLEAR Program funding at $3 million for fiscal year 2002-2003.

The Governor’s budget plan has been distributed, and the Legislature has pledged to begin immediate deliberation on it. Upon receipt of the budget proposals, staff at the BOC began a comprehensive review of the proposed changes, but has not yet had time to develop meaningful scenarios for their inclusion in an ongoing administration of any of these programs. As these proposals work their way through the budget process, Board staff will be working with all affected counties in developing alternative approaches to the implementation of these reductions.

Staff will do everything possible to keep everyone informed of the BOC’s efforts. The BOC will continually update their website, distribute bulletins on a regular basis, but most importantly staff at the BOC will be available by phone or email to answer any questions affected counties may have about the process. Copies of the Governor’s May revision pertaining to the Board of Corrections are available.

Approval of the Minutes of the January 17, 2002, Board of Corrections Meeting (Agenda Item A)

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

A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 17, 2002, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Hill and seconded by Mr. Moorehead. The motion carried.

Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grants I & II Update (Agenda Item B)

Field Representative Fred Morawcznski reported on the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge I and II Projects. Challenge I concluded operations on June 30, 2001. Since that time, staff has completed all of the final audits and received information from the counties relative to their programs and evaluations.

With regard to Challenge II, the BOC will continue to provide technical assistance to the counties. The BOC staff has completed 22 formal site monitorings since the last Board meeting and counties have submitted their semi-annual reports.

The 17 Challenge II counties report significant findings from their December 2001 reports. There is a higher level of probation being completed, a lower average number of arrests, and there is an increase of completion of work and community service for the minors participating in the programs. Challenge II demonstrates a high level of collaboration at the county level between agencies.

Results initially showed a higher number of arrests for minors participating in the program. However, this is an indication of a higher level of supervision provided for the minors. An unexpected anomaly was evident with regard to restitution payments. It appears that restitution payments for treatment minors versus those in the evaluation comparison group are not being paid at the same rate. BOC staff does not know the reason for this, but will continue to analyze the situation as the information becomes available.

BOC staff will continue to provide technical assistance as required for all programs, conduct site monitorings, review and pay invoices and, most importantly, will work with the counties regarding the Governor’s Budget May Revision proposals. Because of the proposed $12.3 million reduction in funding, BOC and county staff will have to evaluate each county’s budget to see how long programs can continue into the fourth year.

Pilot Project Report and Alternate Means of Compliance Request – Orange County Probation Department Co-Located Juvenile/Adult Detention Facility (Agenda Item C)

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated this is the second, and final, of two progress reports for the Orange County Probation Department co-located juvenile and adult detention facility’s Pilot Project, and is also a request for an Alternate Means of Compliance. The Orange County Probation Department experienced, like many probation departments in the state, an increased number of committed 18-year-olds as a result of the California Appellate Court decision, the Jose H. decision. This decision ruled that 18-year olds under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court cannot be housed in adult jail.

The probation department has attempted to mitigate general crowding issues in their juvenile hall through additional staffing, security and other operational methods. The 18-year old committed minors are a highly specialized population that has tended to be quite disruptive to the juvenile hall operations, particularly because of the crowded conditions at the facility. During the development of the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act (CPA 2000) CMJJP, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council developed a plan to put a program together that specifically addressed this high need population, however, the key component that was missing was an adequate detention facility to house these 18-year olds.

The Orange County Sheriff was a key member of that council, and he offered three housing units within the adult Theo Lacy Facility to the probation department to house these minors. The Welfare and Institutions Code specifies under Section 207.1 that co-located adult and juvenile detention facilities can exist as long as core requirements are met. Some of the requirements within the Theo Lacy Facility regarding the juvenile facility portion are that it continues to be managed and staffed by the probation department personnel. The county must also ensure there is no contact between the juvenile and adult population, and that they comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations.

The problem with detaining this particular co-located population in the Theo Lacy Facility is that the facility was designed under the adult physical plant regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]), and there are some differences between the adult and juvenile physical plant standards. The Pilot Project process and Alternate Means of Compliance (AMC) that is available to the Board takes into consideration programs that may not meet the letter of the law, or letter of the regulations, but does meet the intent of the regulations usually through mitigating measures. The Board took action one year ago when it granted Pilot Project status to the Orange County Probation Department by allowing them to meet four different juvenile facility regulations by using an adult facility under mitigating circumstances. These regulations included living unit size, double occupancy sleeping room size, physical activity recreation area, and the shower ratio. In each of these areas mitigating measures were put into place to allow minors to habitate in them, but at the same time, meet the intent of the regulations. The Orange County Probation Department has reported that the Pilot Project (6-month report) is working even better than expected.

The Orange County Probation Department is requesting that the BOC approve an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMC) for three of the four specified regulations addressed by the Pilot Project. This AMC will allow the county to continue to operate the co-located facility indefinitely, under the provisions outlined in their initial request and approved by the BOC. These three regulations include: double occupancy sleeping unit size; physical activity recreation areas and shower ratio. While the county originally intended to detain more than 30 minors in each unit, thus requiring the pilot project, it later modified its plan and stayed compliant within the juvenile regulations. The county’s progress report describes that there is an extremely good working relationship with the Sheriff’s Department, and it has been fundamental to the planning and implementation of the project. This was also affirmed by the Board of Corrections onsite inspection that field representatives completed in February 2002. Both parties have successfully addressed philosophical differences as well as administrative concerns to implement a program that meets county needs. This project continues to be an integral part of the Orange County’s CMJJP developed by the county’s JJCC under the auspices of CPA 2000. It allows for the implementation of a transitional care program for a highly specialized group of youthful offenders.

Mr. Crout announced that Monica Gallagher and Shawn Small from Orange County Probation Department were available to answer any questions the Board may have. Acting Chair Harper asked Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Small if they would like to say anything.

Mr. Small said they are completing a year on the Pilot Project. He stated there was a tremendous amount of cooperation between the Sheriff’s Department and the Probation Department. He went on to acknowledge the following individuals: 1) Board of Corrections for giving them this opportunity to be heard. He said they have identified the needs of this special population in their county and have been able to meet those needs through the Pilot Project and hope to continue this under the Alternate Means of Compliance. He thanked the Board for their help in making this possible. 2) Sheriff Michael Corona, without his support this program would not have been possible. He stated that there are often philosophical differences between correctional agencies and law enforcement agencies in terms of how they handle inmates, but they have been able to gap those differences very well. They have an excellent working relationship. 3) BOC Field Representative Audrey Bakke. She helped Orange County staff identify and work through mitigating factors relating to the program.

Acting Chair Harper asked if the members had any questions. Linda Duffy wanted to know what their current population is. Mr. Small said there are approximately 52 people and it can range between 48 (average) up to 56. The population is typically kept below 56 as a result of the screening process. Ms. Duffy asked what the trend is in respect to the population going up or down. Mr. Small responded that during the implementation period it took a while to reach target population, but the trend is about 49 individuals and that is meeting their needs at this time. He went on to say that Orange County does have a transition unit that should the needs go above and beyond that, they could temporarily house people in that unit, but at this time the bed space provided to them in the co-located facility is meeting their needs.

Mr. Crout stated that BOC staff is recommending the Board adopt an Alternate Means of Compliance for the Orange County Probation Department that includes only three of the four regulation amendments. The request to exceed the 30-bed unit capacity standard has been withdrawn.

The BOC staff is asking that the Board adopt the following amendments to the three existing regulations for the co-located Lacy Juvenile Annex: 1) less than 100-square-feet double occupancy sleeping rooms with mitigation (70 square feet), Title 24, §460A.1.8-Double Occupancy Rooms; 2) less than 3,000 square feet indoor/outdoor recreation space, supplemented by recreation programs at the Juvenile Hall and/or other locations in the community, Title 24 §460A.1.11-Physical Activity and Recreation Areas; and 3) reduction of the 1:6 shower ratio to 1:16 with mitigation, Title 24 §460A.2.4-Showers.

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

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

Deputy Director Toni Hafey stated this information item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes. Listed are 13 separate items, 8 are timeline changes – related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The balance of the changes reflected in the agenda packet includes the reversion of funds because projects were completed on less dollars than initially anticipated. For example, the Los Angeles County adult project was terminated at the county’s request due to the inability to proceed as a result of budgetary cutbacks. These project costs were combined with the available funds being awarded for adult facility construction projects today.

Ms. Hafey asked if the Board had any questions. Member Duffy asked if the Kings County construction project for the juvenile program has been completed (April 20, 2002). Ms. Hafey said yes. Ms. Duffy asked whether the timeline for the Riverside project was going to be met (May 31, 2002). Ms. Hafey said staff has been communicating with the county, and the county is on target.

Member Hill asked about the process of deobligating funds for NEPA. Ms. Hafey stated these dollars are specifically redirected to fund a federal NEPA contract. This is a service that the federal government has made available. There are pre-qualified consulting firms that are skilled in the NEPA requirements. The BOC has found that projects move forward more quickly than anticipated with the help of these federal consulting firms.

FY 2001-02 Executive Steering Committee Recommendations for Juvenile and Adult Detention Facility Construction Grants (Agenda Item E)

Ms. Hafey stated this agenda item provides the Board with the 2001/2002 Executive Steering Committee (ESC) recommendations for construction projects for local adult and juvenile detention facilities grant awards. There are six members of the ESC present for today’s meeting. Three of the members include Board members Linda Duffy (chair), Donald Sheetz (co-chair), and Zev Yaroslavsky. Ms. Hafey asked the following ESC attendees to stand: President of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Larry Smith representing the Chief Probation Officers of California, Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista, representing the California State Association of County Supervisors, Supervisor Merita Callaway.

Ms. Hafey stated that as the Board is aware, making recommendations on meritorious projects is a tremendous responsibility. Ms. Hafey commended the ESC for their commitment of time, exemplary preparation, including the reading of all the proposals, and the professionalism they demonstrated throughout the process.

Mr. McConnell thanked the ESC members present and acknowledged those absent. He stated that staff realize how intense this process is and the time the ESC members invest. Mr. McConnell said the ESC members are professionals who took time out of their very busy schedules, at no cost to the BOC, to work on this project.

Ms. Hafey acknowledged Doug Holien, who has been the project lead person on construction projects since 1997 and continues as the state’s project lead. She thanked Mr. Holien for all his hard work. She introduced the Board’s Research Director Dr. John Kohls. Dr. Kohls stated that he would present a brief overview of the Board-approved standardized criteria development, rating, and evaluation process for competitive grant awards. Ranking proposals on merit requires measurement, which must be relevant and valid, consistent, and fair. To produce reliable, valid, and fair measurement, the Board has an evaluation process that involves knowledgeable evaluators, well-defined rating factors, and a standardized rating process. Knowledgeable evaluators are representatives of local agencies and stakeholders experienced in corrections, expert in areas related to grant goals, representatives of diverse viewpoints, and members of the Board (one or more), dedicated to a time-consuming process, and able to identify with the challenges that grantees will face during the grant period.

The ESC decides on the number of factors, definitions of each rating factor, criteria for achieving high, medium, and low ratings, and the number of points allocated to each rating factor for the purposes of validity and fairness. Dr. Kohls showed an example of a rating form used by the ESC. The ESC engages in a 24-step process that has four phases: 1) the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP); 2) counties present their proposals; 3) the ESC deliberates; and 4) funding recommendations.

Once the BOC receives the mandate to begin the grant funding process, the following steps are taken:

After this process, the proposals are submitted to the BOC by the counties. BOC staff review is for technical compliance, and the BOC makes technical compliance comments to the counties for alterations. This is followed by a preliminary reading of the proposals by each ESC member with an initial rating on the rating factors; and then the counties give oral presentations before the ESC. The ESC then proceeds with the following steps:

The final proposal ranking occurs by overall score, and the ESC lists the grants the counties are requesting.

The ESC makes the final funding recommendations. BOC staff then sends the ESC recommendations to each county to inform them of how they scored. The funding recommendations are submitted to the Board. Dr. Kohls concluded his discussion by saying he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have. Acting Chair Harper asked Deputy Director Toni Hafey back to the podium to discuss the ESC’s recommendations for construction projects for local adult and juvenile detention facilities grant awards.

Ms. Hafey stated since 1997, the Board has provided juvenile and adult facility construction and renovation grants to 48 counties. The Legislature has appropriated over $491 million to the Board for local assistance to be distributed on a competitive basis to counties for adult and juvenile facility construction and renovation. Of this amount, a total of $11,667,763 is available for distribution to adult facility projects. The ESC is recommending these funds be awarded to the following counties:

San Joaquin $8,021,747
Riverside $1,000,000
Mendocino $1,568,000
Tehama $ 268,816
Lake $ 809,200

After consulting with counties who could proceed with available funding and scheduling all of the adult construction grant awards, for the first time ever, there is a surplus balance of $325,313. Staff is recommending that the surplus balance be transferred to increase the available grant funds for juvenile facilities from $48,868,904 to $49,194,271. The State Budget Act appropriation language specifies that up to 15 percent of federal VOI/TIS funds may be allocated by the Board for adult facilities, thereby providing the Board the discretion in using the remaining balance for either adult or juvenile facility construction projects. Should the Board opt to take this approach, this would increase the recommended grant for the Siskiyou County juvenile project from $3,643,904 to $3,973,356, thereby enabling Siskiyou County to receive almost 99.9 percent of its eligible grant request.

The ESC is recommending juvenile construction projects for the counties listed below:
Fresno $24,120,000
San Mateo $21,105,000
Siskiyou $3,643,904 (Note: If the Board opts for staff’s recommendation the transfer of the additional $325,313 to Siskiyou would result in a grant of $3,973,356)

Ms. Hafey stated that in attendance today are representatives from all of the counties recommended for funding should the Board have any questions. In addition to the three recommendations, there is a fourth recommendation that is consistent with prior Board action. This recommendation provides that funding is contingent upon each of the listed projects meeting Board approved project scope, state and federal precontractual requirements, county proposed and Board accepted project timetable including construction start and end date, and all state and federal grant contract conditions. Also, pursuant to federal regulations and funding conditions, counties cannot initiate the development or approval of final construction plans and specifications, advertise for construction bids, accept construction bids, or start construction until federal officials approve necessary environmental documents prepared by each county pursuant to the federal National Environmental Policy Act.

A motion to approve the ESC recommendations for adult facility construction projects, to transfer the adult surplus funds to the juvenile construction projects, to approve ESC recommendations for juvenile facility construction projects was made by Mr. Soto and seconded by Mr. Sheetz. The motion passed.

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Update and Presentation by San Mateo County
(Agenda Item F)

Field Representative Darryl Datwyler stated this agenda item would provide the Board with an overview of the San Mateo County Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) project. Mr. Datwyler introduced Susan Montana, Program Manager, and Dr. David Williams, Program Evaluator.

Ms. Montana greeted the Board and stated she is the project manager for the MIOCRG project, referred to as the Options Project. Ms. Montana reported that one of the things stressed when San Mateo County first applied for this money was that this would be a collaborative effort. San Mateo County works in collaboration with the Sheriff’s Department, Mental Health Department, Correctional Health Services, Probation Department, and the courts. Ms. Montana stated that she works for the Department of Mental Health in San Mateo County. The Options Project is an intensive case management program that utilizes principles of the Assertive Community Treatment model. There are currently four case managers, a part-time psychiatrist, two probation officers, and a full-time project supervisor working with this client population.

Ms. Montana stated that everyone working on this project comes from different schools of education, different philosophical views, and different experiences in working with this client population, which she referred to as society’s truly unloved and unwanted. They are working with people, for the most part, who have a criminal background, a history of mental illness, and a long history of substance use and/or abuse. This group of people has been through the revolving door of the system, both through criminal justice and mental health departments, as well as alcohol and drug services.

Ms. Montana stated that in the beginning stages of this program she had attended numerous meetings where representatives from the district attorney’s office and the court system could actually identify specific people in the community and ask with some enthusiasm, “will this person be a part of the project.” She stated that they are having a lot of success, and crucial to this success is the ongoing collaboration with the people involved in the project, and also that mental health staff are becoming more knowledgeable about the criminal justice system. Ms. Montana stated they have been very successful in reducing the number of hospital stay days, reducing the number of days of incarceration and, as important, helping clients improve their quality of life.

These are individuals who have very serious mental illnesses like Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder. Ms. Montana feels that a number of service providers in the community have given up hope on a lot of these individuals. She described the following success story: A man has been enrolled in the program from the beginning because the judges knew him, those in mental health knew him, probation staff knew him, and the local police departments knew him. This person was hospitalized or incarcerated 90% of the time, under the influence of alcohol, on the streets screaming obscenities at adults and children, and spitting on people passing by. He has been clean and sober for two years and has gone through a rehabilitation program. The project developed a seven-minute video of which he was one of the star presenters. Ms. Montana expressed how rewarding it is to see this man, 50 years of age, who everybody had pretty much given up on, become one of their true successes. Individuals that were somewhat resistant in the beginning to the idea of this project now applaud it.

Acting Chair Harper wanted to know the age range of those in the program. Ms. Montana stated the program is for adults – 18 years and older. Ms. Montana then turned the podium over to Dr. Williams.

Dr. Williams stated he would discuss their hypothesis, research design, the participants, and the analysis of data collected so far on certain participants. He explained that the Options Project includes an intensive case management group and a comparison group. The project’s objectives are fewer arrests, fewer bookings at the jail, fewer days of incarceration and lower costs. The comparison group provides a check on systematic changes that may be occurring so they can truly attribute the treatment effect to the treatment offered to the intensive case management group.

Though reported in six-month intervals, Dr. Williams stated that the data he would be presenting would be for the one-year period prior to entering the program and the one-year period post entry. The analysis included 22 participants in the Options group and 24 in the comparison, or treatment as usual, group. The two groups for the analysis are very similar with respect to percentage of males and females. This suggests the randomization process is working. The median age of the two groups is also similar. The Options group is slightly over represented with African-Americans. In terms of diagnosis, they have identified Schizophrenia, mood disorders, and other disorders.

Dr. Williams stated he would go right to the outcomes for jail-based incarceration, court costs, and mental health costs. The good news is that the jail-based data for the pre-enrollment period for the Options group and comparison group is very similar. At the post-entry period, one year after enrollment, the Options group had a reduced average of 66 jail days (roughly, a 40% reduction), whereas the treatment as usual group is up an average of 103 jail days. Incarceration has a similar pattern.

Member Duffy asked how they define the difference between incarceration and jail days. Dr. Williams responded that incarceration is the number of times enrolled in jail, and jail days are the total number of jail days. Ms. Duffy asked if they are equating incarceration to new arrests or new offenses. Dr. Williams stated that they are including all offenses, even incarcerations or jail days that may have been related to crimes committed prior to entry. The data being presented today is conservative, and it will be broken down a little differently when submitted to the Board. The aggregated elements (those days due to prior offenses) will be subtracted out but Dr. Williams stated he likes to start off with the grossest cuts. He said they are having an overall effect in a conservative manner. They will back out the jail days and prepare a final analysis with those figures. The analysis they are leaning towards in the future is the percent of time in jail as a function of examining the number of days at risk for jail.

Member Moorehead stated that state prisoners were excluded and asked if this was because they are incarcerated and do not go back out to society. Dr. Williams stated there is a differential rate of sending people to state prison. He needs to check the numbers. They had one percent out of the Options group go to state prison and three or four from the treatment as usual group go to state prison. That is a major finding. The incarcerations at the post-period are an average of one in four incarcerations for treatment as usual as opposed to about .5 for the treatment group.

Member Soto wanted to know the reason for the decline in the treatment as usual group. Dr. Williams stated there are a couple of artifacts to consider. The largest being the requirement for entry into the program - they pick these people up in jail. If you are picking people up in jail, and looking at them afterwards, you see only a minimal reduction. There are other factors, but the enrollment is the largest factor.

Member Duffy asked if the definition of court cases includes review hearings? Dr. Williams stated they do not have review hearings. The data includes any new court case against a person, unless the case has transferred from one court to another. In that instance, it only counts once. Member Duffy wanted to know if this data includes new offenses going to court. Dr. Williams said these could be old offenses, again this is conservative, and includes all of the court cases. The court cases have attached to them some adjudication-related costs. The cost estimates are very crude and relatively conservative because they are obtained by surveying the district attorneys, public defenders, and courts. In many cases, this doesn’t count the actual amount of time, or the fact that the numbers provided are based on a non-mentally ill offender population.

Comparing the Options group to the treatment as usual group, there is a reduction in average jail costs from $9,500 to $6,100.

Because the treatment is an intensive field-based case management model, the expectation is that mental health costs would go up and that has been the case. In the pre-enrollment period, the same amount of money was being spent for both groups. In the post-period there is quite a difference, $25,000 on the average, for the treatment group as opposed to $8,600 for those receiving treatment as usual. Even with the increase in overall mental health costs there has been a reduction in hospital costs. The project is doing a good job of keeping folks out of the hospital. They are also doing a better job in terms of psych-emergency services.

Dr. Williams stated that the data he just presented is for a one-year period. Overall, this is a more expensive program (including mental health costs) when you take the court related costs and apprehension related costs. There are no cost savings or shift of cost, at this point. What the project is hoping for is, as people continue in the program for the second year, that a cost offset will occur, but data shows that it certainly does not occur within the one-year period.

Dr. Williams stated that one year is a short period of time to observe a lot of change with the seriously mentally ill population. He said that nowhere are they currently collecting data for how long a person has been in the county. This can sometimes be established by mental health records or other criminal justice records, but there is a need to be careful as they expand the timeframe to get some type of confirmation that people were in fact in the county in the expanded baseline period. They have reduced the high-end of mental health services and, more importantly, they have provided appropriate treatment to these folks. Quality of life is certainly an issue and Dr. Williams stated he wanted to bring focus on the non-monetary good produced by this project. He cited as an example a participant, who previously hung out on the court steps and spit on people is no longer doing that. That is what is being produced, but not reflected in the mental health, corrections, and court cost numbers. The non-monetary good needs to be factored into the equation because the hard numbers do not reflect this type of data.

Member Duffy asked if the numbers listed include the number of arrests. Dr. Williams stated he rolled the figures together. Member Duffy asked if he had the number of arrests, not numbers booked. Dr. Williams said they do have booking data. They have data for those at a site and release facility. Member Duffy asked about outcomes to date. Dr. Williams stated he has not looked at those figures yet, but he does have the data, just not with him. Dr. Williams stated he would get those figures mailed to Ms. Duffy and anyone else wanting them.

Member Moorehead stated that virtually every single mentally ill grant that the BOC has issued and monitored has exactly the same kind of evaluation as San Mateo County. The county has had some difficulty enrolling the planned number of clients primarily due to a slower than expected start-up process, the voluntary nature of the program enrollment, and importantly, a high rate of staff turnover which has impacted the program’s ability to serve clients. There needs to be more funding available for hiring staff and retaining them and to have the counties that compete be more realistic about the number of clients that come in.

Dr. Williams stated that there is a certain amount of inertia to try to get such diverse groups to collaborate and that is part of the problem. He said that when you are also using an intensive case management model, you have staff that are working intensely day-to-day with people and this causes burnout. One of the case managers that no longer is in the program stated “I like it, I believe in it,” and the guy was good, but he was burned out. It is a lot of work.

Member Duffy asked what the caseload was for that staff person. Dr. Williams stated that caseload is another issue. To reach their ultimate numbers they need to maintain a higher caseload. If they truly run up to the numbers they originally proposed, they will dilute the effectiveness of the treatment and are less likely going to show the kind of effects demonstrated today. The case management load for the staff mentioned was a 1 to 15 ratio.

Ms. Montana stated there is a high incidence of burnout. Ideally, when looking at an ACT model of case management, eight is an ideal caseload. Their staff is carrying a caseload of 15 to 20 and this is seven days a week, 24 hours a day. It’s not that staff aren’t qualified; the issue is the responsibility and level of emotional intensity. Staff deals with very serious issues. Ms. Montana wanted to acknowledge the line staff for all their hard work.

Dr. Williams stated that one other contributing factor to staff burnout is their program as proposed is a two-year program, then treatment is over. There was a lot of debate in the county about that when they submitted their proposal. It is hard for staff to work intensely for a couple of years and then have to back off and work with other clients. But ultimately, that is what needs to be done with this project and unfortunately, one of the real success stories here has now reached the two-year mark, has graduated from the program, and now that person is back out on the street.

Member Duffy stated that some mentally ill individuals need continuing care. Mental health care is very expensive as has been demonstrated today. The amount saved in jail beds is not that high; however, what the data are showing is that the disciplines that work with that population have got to start working and thinking in different ways. It is not about entering the program, receiving 12 sessions of therapy, and then you are fixed.

Dr. Williams stated that when participants enter the program they receive a lot of attention and, over time, the attention drops off, which in one sense is good, and if it maintains the sort of outcomes desired, then it is cost-effective.

Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention act (jjcpa) (Agenda Item G)

Field Representative Fred Morawcznski reported that the JJCPA was funded for FY 2002/2003 for $116.3 million. Requirements of the program are that the counties reexamine their Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plans on a yearly basis and submit them to the Board for approval and, upon approval, begin implementation of their programs. The counties, along with BOC staff, have embarked on the process this year. Meetings have also occurred on the new on-line streamlined application process, re-application and approval process. BOC staff has also endeavored to meet with each county and their Chief Probation Officer to discuss the proposed changes and to also review grant applications. This phase of the program has concluded, and all 56 counties interested in continued participation in the program have received either final or tentative approval pending receipt of the required Board of Supervisors’ resolution.

Next steps will be to continue providing technical assistance to counties to: a) implement approved projects; b) review and approve modification requests; and c) address evaluation and reporting responsibilities, which have been changed to October 15 of each year. And, finally, the BOC will continue to follow the proposals in the May Revise and any significant implications for the FY 2003/2004 budget.

Jail and Juvenile Detention Profile Surveys – Annual Reports (Agenda Item H)

Dr. John Kohls reported the BOC has completed the sixth annual report for the Jail Profile Survey, and he will brief the Board on the following key findings: jail population, capacity, population characteristics, classifications, and perspectives.

In the final quarter of 2001, the board-rated capacity was 71,093. The average daily population (ADP) at the end of the fourth quarter of 2001 was 72,684. This is the lowest inmate population since 1996. On an average day, there are still more inmates than beds, although the gap is not as big as it was in 1998 when the ADP soared to over 80,000 inmates.

On a highest one day count (peak day), there are many more inmates than there are available beds. When the Jail Profile Survey was initiated in 1995 there had been a decade and a half of growth in the ADP, beginning in 1980 when the ADP was below 30,000 inmates. The ADP has continued to rise throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. Since 1995 a consistent rise occurred until 1998; however, in the third quarter of 1998 the ADP dropped. It was believed this drop would be a one-quarter anomaly and start to rise again, but this was not the case. The ADP continued to decline through the remainder of 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 all the way down to 72,684 inmates. There has been a 7,000-inmate drop in ADP in the last three years.

How much further can it drop? That is what the BOC is beginning to investigate and Dr. Kohls stated he would share what the BOC has learned to this point. Dividing the jurisdictions into large (1,000 and over ADP) and small, and considering the quarter with the highest ever ADP, which was the second quarter of 1998 and comparing it with the third quarter of the year 2001; thirteen of the larger agencies had decreases with five having increases. Twenty-three of the smaller agencies had decreases with twenty-one having increases. Thirty-six out of the sixty-two jurisdictions had decreases including a majority of both large and small. The decline in ADP does appear to be a statewide phenomenon.

Dr. Kohls asked the following question: do larger jurisdictions account for a disproportionate amount of the increase? The answer is yes. Large agencies accounting for 69.8% of the ADP decreases. In other words, thirteen agencies had decreases accounting for 69.8% of the 72,684 ADP, whereas large agencies with increases only account for 14.2% of the ADP. The three largest jurisdictions in the state, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, San Diego Sheriff’s Department, and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department accounted for 66% of the decline in ADP. However, they housed only 38% of the total ADP. There is an overall decline in ADP, while generally it is a statewide phenomenon this decline is disproportionately due to ADP decreases in the larger agencies.

The number of bookings per month has been declining (dramatic decline since 1996) for a long time. The number of bookings per month was 115,000 in 1991. The booking trend does not correlate with the ADP trend where it peaked in 1998. One hypothesis about what could be occurring relates to the average length of stay. In 1991, the average length of stay was 18.2 days and in 2001 it was 23.4 days. An increase of five extra days in the jail system indicates a need for 1,000 more beds. Any small increases in days leads to demands for additional beds. Whatever the reason for the decrease in ADP it is not due to a reduction in the length of stay.

The number of pre-trial and early releases per month has been declining steadily. The total number of releases has continued to decline through 2001. At the end of 2001, the releases were about 10,000 per month divided evenly between pre-trial and early releases. While the decline in numbers is encouraging, 10,000 a month is still an alarming number. It is also not consistent with the decline in ADP.

The number of reported unserved misdemeanor warrants is declining, but is still currently about two million. The number of unserved felony warrants hasn’t changed very much. The number of unserved felony warrants continues to be approximately a quarter of a million. Obviously, if a small percentage of those felony warrants were served, and a small percentage of those resulted with someone going to jail, the ADP could double very quickly.

As of 2001, 71.5% of the inmates were charged with felonies. The percentage has been up and down since 1995, but this percentage appears to be gradually increasing over time. The percentage of non-sentenced inmates reached its highest level ever in 2001 at 61.2% of the inmate population. Having less and less space for sentenced inmates will eventually cause major problems if this trend were to continue. The number of criminal illegal aliens has been steadily rising since 1996, and it is now well over 10% of the total ADP. Currently, 43.9% of inmates in jail require maximum-security housing as opposed to 29.7 medium, and 26.2% minimum. An interesting change, that can’t be explained, that has been occurring since 1995 is the percentage of inmates requiring maximum-security housing. In 1995, speculation was that the jail population would worsen, and the percentage of maximum-security inmates would go up. This has not been the case.

Acting Chair Harper asked if there are figures available that show how many maximum-security beds are available and what the percentage of fill is. Dr. Kohls stated those figures are not available. Over the course of time they have been doing the Jail Profile Survey, there has been a lot of conversion of beds or redefining of beds.

Dr. Kohls stated that the number of three strikes inmates have declined steadily since 1995. Member Duffy asked if the three strikes information being presented is for inmate classification for county jails (These are inmates in county jails that are charged with a third strike and on their way to prison). Dr. Kohls stated yes, virtually not one of them is released, so if they aren’t released, they can’t reoffend. When the BOC did an analysis on the average length of stay for three strikes inmates, it was over 200 days.

Until the year 2002, the number of two-strikes inmates decreased at about the same rate as the three strikes inmates. However, in the last three years there have been increases in the two strikes inmates. Member Moorehead stated the increase is because the courts are still striking the third strike. The judicial system now has the authority and ability to waive the three strikes system. Where somebody would come in and be arrested on an offense and has three strikes, the court now removes the third strike and state they are not going to count that offense; therefore, making them a two-striker. If a person is arrested and booked for two strikes, and if additional offenses show up in background upon booking a person can be charged with a third strike, then the courts do the same thing.

Member Curtis Hill asked what does the BOC see happening with this trend in the future. Dr. Kohls stated that it would appear that some courts have decided that two strikes are sufficient; unless there is a violent third strike, they are not going to go along with it. They have the authority to do that now, so these numbers will go up. It will plateau, because a small group of people are the same ones reoffending. When they get the strikes they stay in longer or go to state prison.

The number of medical beds has stayed about the same since 1995, the average being around 900 per day. However, the number of mental health beds has increased dramatically. Dr. Kohls stated that the BOC needs to look more closely at the costs for housing mentally ill offenders in the jail system.

The following are some of the major issues the BOC will focus on in the coming year: the downward trend of the ADP; the number of BRC beds are still inadequate to meet peak demands and if the number of ADP goes back up this could become a problem. Ten thousand people are released each month due to the lack of space. There are a quarter of a million unserved felony warrants, and increasing costs associated with mentally ill offenders. These are all concerns to the BOC. On the positive side local agencies state they are pleased with the usefulness of the above data and that it has proven to be valuable. There was a time when the BOC could not provide access to this type of data. The BOC now has seven years of data, and this year has instituted web entry data so that the local jurisdictions can supply the BOC with their data online.

Acting Chair Harper asked if the members had any questions. Member Hill stated that the Detention and Corrections subcommittee met that morning and one of the topics previously discussed was the Jail Profile Survey. The group questioned whether they should look at Proposition 36 and what the effects are and decided they would do so.

Dr. Kohls stated that the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) has been in existence for three years in comparison to seven years for the Jail Profile Survey, so there is not as much data available, but he will present what is available in terms of juvenile population, capacity, juvenile population characteristics, and operational issues that have been identified. Dr. Kohls stated that any trends that he talks about are three-year trends. One of the things the BOC has learned through the Jail Profile Survey is to use caution when attaching the word trend to only three years of data.

Dr. Kohls stated that this report would be more of a description of the juvenile detention system, as it exists today. There are currently 6,697 juveniles that are in juvenile halls across the state, 4,356 in camps, and 3,025 are in alternate confinement such as home supervision. These numbers are similar to what they were three years ago. When looking at the yearly averages of the number of juveniles in detention, it has increased by about three percent over the last ten years. The board-rated capacity in 2001 was more than the ADP for two quarters. The capacity and the need are close to one another; however, the highest one-day count of juveniles always exceeded the board-rated capacity of the juvenile halls.

On an average day, capacity might be close to the ADP, but on the days of above average population, the board-rated capacity is not adequate to meet the demand. Of the 128 juvenile detention facilities in the state, more than half reported crowding conditions in 2001. Crowding is defined as a facility’s ADP exceeding the board-rated capacity for 15 or more days in a month. So the majority of the facilities in the state have crowding conditions. The camps are a different story. The board-rated capacity is always higher than the ADP. Juveniles in other detention settings, such as juveniles not detained in a facility, the largest percent (50%) are on home supervision with electronic monitoring, 35% are on home detention without electronic monitoring, 13% are on some other confinement such as work program, 2% are housed in some other jurisdiction probably because there is no space available for them in their own county.

In 2001, bookings were highest in March at 12,234, and lowest in December at 8,777. This reflects a pattern that will probably be seen from year to year where the highest number of bookings occurs in the spring and the least number of bookings occur around the holidays. The average number of bookings per month in 2001 was just a couple of percentage points over that in 1999. The average length of stay for all juveniles released from juvenile halls was 34 days. It is not very different depending on whether the juvenile was being released from a juvenile hall or other detention facility. The longest length of stay for juveniles declared as unfit (707b) is 136 days. The average length of stay at camps is 122 days. The gender breakdown is similar to what is seen in the adult system, mostly males.

In terms of the age distribution, by far the largest category is the 15-17 age group (71%). The distribution for halls and camps is 66% for felony convictions and is very similar to the adult system. Offenses committed include: weapons related offenses 8%, probation violations 17%, status offenders 1% and 74% other.

Member Duffy stated that the largest booking offense is probation violations, and the reason why narcotics violations are not so high is there are many misdemeanors that are not violent offenses and they don’t rank high in the point category to be detained. Generally, those who are going to be narcotic violators in the juvenile side in Los Angeles County and certain jurisdictions come in because of drugs sales. Juveniles may come in as wards of the court for violations of probation for use, in which case they are booked as a probation violation, which is why probation violations are the highest category.

Dr. Kohls stated that the average percentage of juveniles identified as needing mental health services is 17% and it appears to be growing. The average percent of juveniles receiving psychotropic medication is 12%. Seventy percent of those identified as having mental health problems are serious enough to require medication. The number of suicide attempts in juvenile halls and camps was 200 (halls) and these are serious attempts. The number of juvenile assaults on staff is increasing, it could be a trend, but it is too early to tell. Acting Chair Harper asked Dr. Kohls about the figures on suicide attempts in juvenile halls and camps. He asked if these are for the entire state. Dr. Kohls said yes.

Member Duffy and Acting Chair Harper requested a copy of all the charts that Dr. Kohls had for his presentation. Member Moorehead asked if this information is available on the website. Dr. Kohls said yes. Mr. Crout said that Field Representative Allison Ganter would be demonstrating how to obtain this information on the BOC website.

Mr. Crout introduced Field Representative Allison Ganter. Ms. Ganter stated she works for the Facility Standards and Operations Division of the BOC and is responsible for the Jail and Juvenile Detention Profile surveys. In 2001, the BOC launched the On-Line Submission System that allowed participants of both the surveys to log onto the Internet and submit their data directly to the BOC. With the finalization of the Internet Submission System, the BOC was able to implement the On-Line Querying System. The On-Line Querying Systems allows each county to produce their own ad-hoc reports using a “county-specific code” for variable reports from their own county, their own jurisdiction, or creating comparative reports with other counties.

Ms. Ganter stated that both surveys can be accessed through the same website by going to the BOC web page and accessing the proper extension. You then choose either the Jail or the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey. Ms. Ganter demonstrated by a PowerPoint presentation how to access this information. Each county has its own specific password for access privilege. Once logged in, each county is able to select what type of data they would like to see, such as facility, monthly or quarterly. Facility data is aggregated by each facility within a particular jurisdiction. Both monthly and quarterly data is aggregated by jurisdiction. When selecting multiple jurisdictions it can be sorted by date or by jurisdiction.

Member Moorehead wanted to know if it is possible to compare one jurisdiction with another or can you select only one jurisdiction. Ms. Ganter stated that you could select multiple jurisdictions (all the jurisdictions) or just one jurisdiction. She said the system is a streamlined and user-friendly website where participants can simply view data on the screen, or could choose to download data for manipulation in any number of computer programs such as Microsoft Excel.

Ms. Ganter stated that the county sheriffs and chief probation officers and their staff have been given their county-specific code, so in order to access the system, she suggested contacting the system administrator. She added that the BOC staff is always available for technical assistance.

Member Moorehead asked if the code was just to gain initial access to the system and, after gaining access, they would have the capability to retrieve other counties information. Ms. Ganter responded yes. Mr. Crout stated that at this point it is an Intranet System. It is for the exclusive use of local juvenile and adult detention systems to compare between themselves; it is not a public area where anyone can go. It is this way for now so that the system can be tested in the next year for any kinks and to make sure the data is accurate before it becomes a public domain.

Acting Chair Harper asked if in the future there would be the capability to go outside the state and compare with their systems. Ms. Ganter responded there are no plans to develop that capacity at this time. This is purely the state’s information. Mr. Crout stated that to get terms standardized within our own state took six months. To come to an agreement on definitions that each county would agree to use was a major Executive Steering Committee workgroup project. Trying to consolidate other states would be a massive project.

Acting Chair Harper asked if the members had any other questions or comments. The members congratulated Ms. Ganter on the project and said her presentation was excellent. Acting Chair Harper asked whether the data included completed suicides. Mr. Crout said the database reflects one completed suicide last year in a juvenile facility in the state.

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

Deputy Director Bill Crout reported that at the January 2001 Board of Corrections meeting, a history was provided of San Bernardino County’s Central Juvenile Hall (CJH) chronic crowding with population levels reaching over 200%. In addition, information was provided to the Board about the BOC’s responsibility regarding the determination of suitability of juvenile halls as mandated by Section 209 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Efforts to mitigate the crowded conditions in the juvenile hall were described in the county’s Suitability Plan and the Emergency Response Plan. With this information, the BOC determined that the CJH was a suitable place to confine minors and asked the Chief Probation Officer from San Bernardino County to provide a status report at each of its future meetings.

BOC staff reports that the county continues to work diligently to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in their Suitability Plan and Emergency Response Plan. The estimated completion date for some of these projects has fallen behind schedule due to unforeseen circumstances; however, the county continues to be dedicated to complying with the agreements made in this process. This is the fifth report from the San Bernardino County Probation Department outlining the progress made to date on their agreed-upon timeline for these efforts. Mr. Crout introduced Chief Probation Officer Wingerd who would present the county’s report.

Chief Wingerd stated he would be reporting on the county’s progress in meeting the elements of the Suitability Plan and Emergency Response Plan. The house arrest program that was implemented in April 2001 has served 792 minors to date. The county projected a goal of servicing 12.06 % of all the Central Juvenile Hall bookings, but they have actually exceeded this goal and serve 14.73%. They are significantly ahead of their target. They have returned 11% of these minors to juvenile hall for technical violations of the program and only two of the 792 minors committed a new offense. Chief Wingerd stated that San Bernardino County feels the program is significant and is producing the desired results.

The Central Day Reporting Center (funded through AB 1913) opened October 2001. There is one center operating in central San Bernardino. The county is very close to signing leases for the West End center site and the High Desert Day Reporting Center that are targeted for opening in August 2002. Chief Wingerd stated the county is now faced with the decision of whether or not to pursue this because of the AB 1913 May Proposed State Budget Revise elimination issue.

During the exploratory phase of the infrastructure in Central Juvenile Hall, it was found that the existing sewage system does not need replacing; however, the underground-galvanized iron piping system will be replaced. In addition, all the fixtures in the common restrooms will be replaced with stainless steel products. Ceramic tile will be replaced for the walls and floors in all of the main restroom and shower areas. This project, which will require about $1.1 million, is set to start in July or August 2002 with an estimated completion date of September 2004.

Concern about proper cooling during the summer months for the tent-housing annex has led to consultations with a mechanical engineer, who has recommended installation of additional HVAC units to ensure efficient cooling. Bids are out for additional units and they hope to have the units installed soon. The fabric for the tents has held up well, and they have only had to replace the doors. The Ward B Remodel, which is a facility that was once part of the county hospital, is now underway for demolition and removal of hazardous materials. The targeted completion date is September 2002. This remodeled facility will house an educational facility and will provide the option of moving the girls into this building.

The West Valley Juvenile Hall expansion project is approximately 70% complete. They are actually ahead of schedule and will report projected opening dates at the next BOC meeting. San Bernardino County also contracted with Fouts Springs Camp for a bed guarantee of 25. The yearlong contract, which has been very successful, will be up in June 2002 and San Bernardino County will be reapplying for renewal. The county has contracted with Vision Quest to assist with the pre-placement population needs, as well as a “6-month population.” Negotiations are complete and they are in the design phase. The anticipated target date to start construction is the Fall 2002, and it should take nine to twelve months to complete the 144-bed facility. There is discussion about reducing the bed capacity from 144 to a little over a 100 beds. This meets the county’s needs because the county contract is for 72 beds.

The House Arrest Program and the Day Reporting Centers are programs funded through AB 1913 (JJCPA Funding). There are 75 staff in the department funded through 1913 funds. Fortunately, with current funds, the programs can remain operational until the opening of the West Valley Juvenile Hall. The proposed reduction of these funds will have a serious impact at the Central Juvenile Hall and juvenile halls all over the state regarding bed space and overcrowding.

Report – BOC Member Visit – Del Norte County Juvenile Hall (Agenda Item J)

Deputy Director Bill Crout reported that on January 16, 2002, Board Member Donald Sheetz accompanied by staff, visited the Del Norte County Juvenile Hall as part of a familiarization tour of adult and juvenile facilities that fall under the responsibility of the BOC. This facility was going to be visited by the entire Board at the end of last year; however, the Board meeting was cancelled.

The Del Norte County Juvenile Hall is a new 44-bed juvenile hall that opened July 4, 2001, after 28 months of planning and construction. The facility was constructed using approximately $4.8 in Violent Offender Incarceration Grant funds administered by the Board of Corrections. This new state of the art facility replaced a 38 year-old juvenile hall that has been described by previous Board members who visited it, as a facility that you would expect to find in a third-world country.

The juvenile hall is a new-generation, podular facility, designed to provide significant efficiencies with respect to the services that are delivered to minors. This efficient design was the direct result of the hands-on oversight into all phases of design and construction by Chief Probation Officer Seymour and members of his staff. This validates the Board’s view that the more input/involvement the users have in the designing and construction of the facility, the better designed the facility will be. Mr. Crout asked if Member Sheetz had any comments regarding the tour.

Member Sheetz stated that one of the reasons he wanted to tour the facility was he had been briefed regarding the facility and had looked forward to touring it (previously scheduled Board meeting that was canceled) and learning from the experience, but when the Board had to cancel that meeting he was still intrigued. At the time he was on the Violent Offender Incarceration Grant (VOIG) ESC and felt it was important to learn as much about facility construction and need as possible. He stated that as a public member of the Board, he does not have the hands-on day-to-day access and knowledge that many of the Board members possessed. He felt it was a great opportunity to see a new facility and understand how the VOIG money is used. Acting Chair Harper asked Mr. Sheetz what Board staff attended with him. Mr. Sheetz responded that Deputy Director Bill Crout toured the facility with him.

Standards and Training for Corrections: Proposed Change in BOC Compliance Policy RE: Active Military Duty (Agenda Item K)

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated this is an action item recommending the Board of Corrections amend current policy, concerning the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) program compliance status relating to individuals called to active duty in response to a national security incident by declaring them exempt.

The STC Division carries out responsibilities identified in Penal Code (PC) Section 6035, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15, Subchapter 1, Sections 100 through 358 relative to the training standards for personnel employed in local corrections agencies. The Penal Code sets a very high standard of 100% adherence to all established standards in order to be in full compliance with the STC program, which is extraordinary and difficult to achieve. However, in some cases circumstances beyond the control of the department occur (i.e., on the job injury, pregnancy leave, disciplinary action), which are no fault of the department, that make full compliance impossible. After hearing testimony from participating departments detailing specific incidents in which a department believed there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify reconsideration of their agency’s good faith efforts, the Board directed staff to develop recommendations for how the Board could recognize “good faith no fault efforts” by participating departments. Board staff convened a workgroup, which considered the issue of compliance.

After considerable deliberation, the workgroup recommended that the Board develop a new compliance category. Staff presented this recommendation, and the Board adopted the recommendation creating a new category of compliance – Substantial Compliance and established the following policy for its implementation: In order to determine if a department qualifies for Substantial Compliance, Board staff will do a desk review and audit of all departments found out-of-compliance during the annual site monitoring process.

Staff will analyze the results on a case-by-case basis, and apply the five following guidelines:

As the policy requires each year between June 1 and September 30, Board staff conducts on-site monitoring of all participating departments. After these monitorings are complete, Board staff performs a desk review and audit on a case-by-case basis of each individual from departments that are not in Full Compliance. A report is then submitted to the Board recommending those departments meeting the criteria for Substantial Compliance.

In response to the terrorists attack on this country on September 11, 2001, our nation’s military was placed on highest alert. Many units of our military reserve were called to active duty. Attached to a number of those units were some of California’s local corrections finest who willingly answered the call to serve. An unanticipated consequence of this national mobilization is the impact felt by STC participating departments striving to meet full program compliance. In any given year, more than half of the participating agencies meet the full compliance requirements and take a great deal of pride in this. Given the exceptional nature of these recent world events, several STC participating departments suggested there be a mechanism in place to mitigate any negative impacts as a result of military call-up for staff working in jails, juvenile detention facilities, probation and requested that the Board consider amending the policy to allow an STC eligible person called to active duty or serving in the military to be exempt from program compliance for any year in which this occurs.

Board staff is requesting that the Board approve the recommendation to amend the STC Program Compliance policy to include the following statement: Any STC eligible person called to active duty or serving in the military during any portion of an STC program year is exempt from program compliance for the year in which this occurs.

Member Moorehead stated the following: Substantial Compliance should not be reached in lieu of Full Compliance based upon somebody doing military duty, because a subset of that is a lot of staff are reservists. The way it is written allows reservists to meet the qualification. Their time as a reservist can be 30 calendar days to serve for the military for the Los Angeles County, but the way it is written would mean they would be exempt from STC compliance. Mr. Moorehead suggested that the language be amended to indicate that minimum duty term must exceed and go beyond the normal military reserve obligations as a result of causes declared by the governing body (the government), and such exemptions be considered for individuals of participating agencies for compliance. Mr. Sida responded they were informed that active duty meant that, but maybe it should be put in the written definition.

Member Moorehead stated the reservists should still comply with STC requirements. Acting Chair Harper requested that the Board approve the language as it is today and asked if the maker of the motion would allow the moving of the motion with direction to staff to define active military involvement as just described by Member Moorehead.

A motion to approve the written language as is and direct staff to define active military involvement by the next Board meeting was made by Mr. Moorehead and seconded by Mr. Hill. The motion passed.

Board Member Duffy stated she was in favor of the motion, but she did want to bring to the Board’s attention that the ESC she is serving on is going to look at the entire issue of full compliance versus substantial compliance. It has been very difficult to have 100% full compliance as expressed here today; however a county administrator, Board of Supervisor member, or someone else may very much question why an agency does not have full compliance. Ms. Duffy said the Board might receive future recommendations from the ESC.

Proposed 2002-2003 Training Projections Based on Annual Training Plans Submitted on april 15, 2002 (Agenda Item L)

Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that every year by April 15 STC participating agencies are required to submit an Annual Training Plan (ATP). The Board staff use these plans to assess and project the number of agencies and the number of staff that will be participating in the STC training for the upcoming year.

As a result of the “new” online Annual Training Plan process, which is the second part of the ESTC project, ATP data is entered, modified, and tracked by local agency staff. This function is provided to our constituents over the World Wide Web and can be accessed anywhere, anytime and from any common browser connected to the Internet. Based on the ATP (all received electronically) for the upcoming 2002/2003 training year, we have 176 participating agencies that will be involved in the STC Program. This includes 165 local county and city corrections agencies that receive funding from the Corrections Training Fund (CTC) and 11 Community Corrections Facilities (CCF) that are under contract to the Department of Corrections (CDC) to house state inmates. The number of CCFs has been reduced by five, and STC is awaiting contracting authority through CDC to determine whether that will remain the same or if the Board will continue to monitor more of those agencies.

Based on the ATPs submitted by participating agencies, it is estimated that 31,822 STC participants will receive a minimum of 1,465,596 hours of corrections relevant training during the 2002/2003 training year.

Once again, the online ATP was developed as a second phase of the ESTC project. STC moved their systems over from a mainframe system to a client server system, which is accessed via Internet. There has already been a noticeable reduction in time associated with administrative overhead for agencies and Board staff, which they are very proud of. The online application will reduce future costs associated with program administration and will result in faster distribution and review of ATPs, program modifications, and quarterly progress reports. In addition, financial transaction accuracy has greatly improved due to the automation of a number of computational tasks.

Mr. Sida closed by stating that an online report printout has been included as part of the agenda packet. The online system is unique and there is staff available to go onsite to demonstrate the system if Board members would be interested.

Legislative Update (Agenda Item M)

Deputy Director Toni Hafey provided a brief update on proposed legislation of interest to the Board.

Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gloria Guerrero
Executive Assistant

Jerry Harper, Director, Department of the Youth Authority (Chaired the meeting in the absence of Robert Presley)
Edward S. Alameida, Director, Department of Corrections
Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
Linda Duffy, Chief Probation Officer, Stanislaus County Probation Department
Taylor K. Moorehead, Chief of Custody Operations, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, FSOD
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Darryl Datwyler, Field Representative, FSOD
Toni Hafey, Deputy Director, CPPD
Fred Morawcznski, Field Representative, CPPD
Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Field Representative, CPPD

Frank Battipede, San Mateo County Probation Department
Steve Bautista, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department
Carol Beck, Prison Industry Authority
Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Loren Buddress, San Mateo County Probation Department
Merita Callaway, Tuolumne County
Marilyn Coombs, Board of Corrections
Pat Costello, Siskiyou County Probation Department
Dan Cunningham, Napa Department of Corrections
Bob Dotts, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
John Drummond, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Baxter Dunn, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
John Falconer, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Andrew L. Fall, General Public
Sheralyn Freitas, San Mateo County Probation Department
Monica Gallagher, Orange County Probation Department
Stan Hein, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Rocky Hewitt, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Myron Kelso, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
David Keyes, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Ken Kipp, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Michael LaFave, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
Laura Magnani, American Friends Service Committee
Susan Montana, San Mateo County Mental Health Department
Michelle Mojas, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department
Cheryl Munyon, TRG Consulting, Inc.
Pauline Musick, Madera County Department of Corrections
Warren Nobles, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
J. Paul Parker, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department
Kevin Peters, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
Tim Pearce, Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department
Stewart Peterson, San Marin County Probation Department
Larry Price, Fresno County Probation Department
Tom Sawyer, Facility Group
Stuart Seiden, Fresno County Public Works
Shawn Small, Orange County Probation Department
Larry Smith, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Verne Speirs, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
Joe Warchol, El Dorado County Probation Department
Marilyn Weldon, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
David Williams, San Mateo County Mental Health Department
Ray Wingerd, San Bernardino County Probation Department
Barry Zuniga, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department