Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

Meeting held at: Fresno County Juvenile Justice Campus
3333 East American Avenue, Fresno, CA 93709

Mr. Bernard Warner, Acting Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.

Acting Chairman Warner directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:
Mr. Bernard Warner
Mr. David Bacigalupo
Mr. Robert Hernandez
Mr. William Powers
Ms. Linda Penner
Ms. Kimberly Barrett
Mr. John Ingrassia
Ms. Kim Petersen
Ms. Carol Biondi
Ms. Pamala Gilyard
Mr. Cleotha Adams
Ms. Karrie Eckhardt
Mr. Travis Townsy

A motion to excuse the absence was made by Ms. Kim Petersen
and seconded by Mr. Cleotha Adams. The motion carried.

Mr. Max Scott was scheduled to attend but for some unforeseen did not make the meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2007 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Acting Chairman Warner asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes. There were no changes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 11, 2007, Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by
Mr. Robert Hernandez and seconded by Mr. John Ingrassia.
The motion carried.

ELECTION OF A VICE CHAIR (AGENDA ITEM B)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director stated that this agenda item is for the Board to nominate a board member as Vice Chair. Penal Code Section 6024 requires that the CSA elect a Vice Chair from among its members at a regularly scheduled meeting.

The Chair will entertain nominations from the sitting members for election of the Vice Chair by majority vote.

A motion to elect Mr. Gary Penrod as Vice Chair was made by Mr. William Powers and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen.
The motion carried.

RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS (AGENDA ITEM C)
Executive Director Scott Harris introduced Mr. Armand Burrel, Director (A), Division of Reentry and Recidivism Reduction, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) whom presented this agenda in place of Ms. Marisela Montes, Chief Deputy Secretary of
Adult Operations, CDCR to update the Board on Re-Entry Programs.

Mr. Burrel stated since August 2006, when we formally initiated the Parole Reentry Partnership Initiative, many county and city representatives have responded positively to the invitation to meet and begin discussions on improving the management of adult offenders. Our focus has been on improving parole services and siting smaller facilities that would support intensive programming for adult offenders being released to parole or being returned from parole.

We greatly appreciate the meetings and discussions held with many of the Sheriffs, District Attorneys, and Chief Probation Officers throughout California. We specifically thank Bill Kolendar, Sheriff, San Diego County; Jim Anderson, retired Sheriff, and now Bill Brown, Sheriff, Santa Barbara County; Mark Pazin, Sheriff, Merced County. Each have delivered signed Agreements to Cooperate to Secretary Tilton for his consideration. Ongoing support has been received from John McGinnis, Sheriff, Sacramento County; Tom Bosenko, Sheriff, Shasta County; and Kamala Harris, District Attorney, San Francisco City and County. Extensive discussions and planning has occurred with each of their offices and staff. We have also met with other county and city officials and have follow-up meetings planned. Through the early efforts of these local elected officials we are both encouraged and challenged to continue with our collaboration and partnership development, with a focus on doing our part to improve California’s criminal justice system. The Parole Reentry Partnership Initiative began with the focus on those adult offenders with the highest risk of parole failure. A recent study (Blumstein & Beck 2005) reported that approximately 10 percent of the adult offender population returns to prison six or more times during a seven-year period. We know that those parolees returned through local jails.

Improving the management of adult offenders returning to California communities includes the goal to reduce recidivism in a way that enhances public safety and that reduces costs to the criminal justice system. The Secure Reentry Facility initiative sponsors a reentry model design that invites local government and communities into the planning process, sponsors focused programs and services to produce needed change in the offender, and an extension of the programs and services into parole and into the community. The design will apply sound research that recommends the following key principles the COMPAS as our standard risk and needs assessment instrument at intake and ongoing of each adult offender to identify individual criminogenic factors; tailored programming and services to support the learning style and needs of the offender; intensive programming, continuing seamlessly from the prison and into the community; treatment and other programs focused on changing patterns of thinking and behavior; purposeful incentives and sanctions; enhanced case-management structure in prison and in the community under which treatment and services are adjusted; enhanced programs and services in the communities through collaboration with law enforcement, health and human service agencies, community-based and faith-based organizations, and public education.

Representatives of the Governor Office are developing draft legislative language to clarify the use of the lease-revenue bond proposals for both the $4.4 Billion for Jail Facilities, and the $1.4 Billion for Secure Reentry Facilities. Contributing to this language development are Corrections Standards Authority representatives experienced in bond fund use efforts from past years. The CSA will use the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) process to develop criteria for the Request for Proposal (RFP) development for the Jail Facilities portion of the bond funds. The Office of Facilities Management and the Division or Reentry and Recidivism Reduction plan to collaborate with those partnering counties in the development of sites and construction plans for the Secure Reentry Facilities. The Department of Finance is participating with us in our combined planning process. Our renewed interest to enhance collaboration ties with each key member of local government and community-based organizations is at the core of our strategic plan. I heartily welcome your participation and partnership with us on this very challenging effort to improve the successful reintegration of adult offenders into our communities.

Ms. Carol Biondi asked if this will begin in one or more facilities and how will the participants be selected. Mr. Burrel stated that these particular blocks have lots of descriptive information and some of them are facility specific. It would consist of various facilities based upon physical space, ability to hire qualified staff, classification of the inmate and population availability, a variety of attributes. Ms. Biondi asked about the participation process, will inmates volunteer or will it be staff recommended. Mr. Burrel stated that it would be both processes.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS INFORMATION ITEMS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Field Representative Charlene Aboytes stated that this information item allows CSA staff the opportunity to advise the CSA of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction projects by describing minor project changes such as scheduling, minor project scope changes and grant award changes. This delegation policy was approved by the Board of Corrections (BOC) in 1998 and requires that staff actions be documented and identified on information items at future meetings. There are no project changes to report.

The remaining state funded project ( Santa Clara) and the remaining federally funded projects ( Sacramento, Alameda, and San Francisco) are scheduled to be completed in 2007.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCAL DETENTION FACILITIES (AGENDA ITEM E)

Field Representative Charlene Aboytes stated that Penal Code Section 6030 requires the CSA to establish and biennially review minimum standards for local adult detention facilities. To comply with this requirement, staff is requesting approval to begin the adult regulations review and revision process by requesting that the chairman appoint a CSA member to chair and a CSA member to
co-chair an ESC to oversee the process.

The regulations to be reviewed include minimum standards related to programs, procedures, health care nutrition, sanitation, planning and design for locally operated adult detention facilities. These regulations are located in Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations.

The intent of the regulations review is to meet the legislative mandate; refine and clarify issues that have developed in the field; identify any new issues that might have arisen regarding needed improvements in current regulations; and meet the needs of California and its rapidly growing and changing local detention system.

The CSA has always held three very basic beliefs. They are first, to involve our constituents and other stakeholders in the promulgation of regulations that will govern their quality of service delivery; this is done through the formation of an ESC and workgroups, input from the field, staff review and public hearings. Second, that it is critically important to use the knowledge and wisdom of the past to guide this ongoing process of incremental improvement; this is done by researching historical files as necessary. Third, that the standards need to provide a clear baseline of performance while allowing sufficient flexibility for each jurisdiction to comply with these regulations; these regulations must work for small and large facilities from Siskiyou County to
San Diego County.

Staff recommends that the proposed regulations revision process begin immediately following this meeting beginning with the appointment of two CSA members as chair and co-chair to the ESC. Staff would then meet with the chair and co-chair in April 2007 to develop a list of potential ESC members and formalize the tentative timeline for the process (Attachment A). Recommendations would be presented to the CSA during its scheduled May CSA meeting.

With CSA approval in May, the ESC will meet and develop a strategy to continue the process. One or more workgroups consisting of subject matter experts are typically formed to address identified issues, review the regulations, and return with recommendations to the ESC. The ESC will refine these recommendations and come before the CSA with final recommendations for any revisions. After a comprehensive public review process, the CSA will accept, reject or modify the recommendations and submit the Title 15 (operational) regulations to the Office of Administrative Law and the Title 24 (physical plant) regulations to the Building Standards Commission for approval before the new standards are published. Based upon past experience, staff projects the effective date of the revised Title 15 regulations to occur in November 2008. The Title 24 regulations are projected to be effective in March 2009.

Staff recommends the CSA direct staff to begin the local adult detention facilities review and revision process. The Chairman appoints a CSA member to chair, Captain John Ingrassia has offered to chair the ESC and a CSA member co-chair, Sergeant Cleotha Adams has offered to
co-chair an ESC. The CSA empower the chair and co-chair of the ESC to develop a list of recommended ESC members and review and bring back the proposed timeline for consideration at the May 10, 2007 CSA meeting.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Carol Biondi and seconded by Ms. Pamala Gilyard.
The motion carried.

PILOT PROJECT PROGRESS FINAL REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE – SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DORMITORY CAPACITY (AGENDA ITEM F)

Mr. Don Allen, Field Representative presented the request from San Bernardino County. Mr. Allen introduced Lieutenant (Lt.) John Marhoefer of the Adelanto Detention Center of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and Lt. Kevin Lacy from the Administrative Support Unit of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. This agenda item included a final report on the status of the pilot project at San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Adelanto Detention Center and a request by the county for an alternate means of compliance.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department purchased an existing correctional facility from the Maranatha Corporation. The facility has been operated as a Community Correctional Facility, holding state inmates on contract. The original design consisted of four 150-200 person dormitories, in addition to other smaller housing units. During the initial review of the facility, CSA staff informed the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department that the large dormitories were not compliant with Title 24. Applicable regulations limit dormitory occupancy to no more than 64 inmates. If the facility was to be compliance with the regulations and maximize the use of the facility, the department needed to structurally reduce the size and increase the number of dormitories. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department has operated a model jail system for years and they have always strived to meet and exceed the regulations. San Bernardino County performed a major facility remodel, including the construction of secure walls to divide each of the large dormitories into two separate units and as a result, eight dormitories were created from original design of four dormitories.

On March 16, 2006 the CSA approved a Pilot Project for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to increase the rated capacity of eight dormitories at their newly acquired Adelanto Detention Center from a maximum of 64 inmates to a maximum of 70 inmates. Pilot project status is generally granted for a one-year development and testing period. Upon completion of the pilot project, Title 24, Section 13-102 (c) (7), allows counties to apply for an alternate means of compliance, which allows for long-term departure from regulations.

The pilot project report was attached to the agenda item which outlined San Bernardino County’s initial request and rationale for increasing the rated capacity of their dormitories. The regulation affected by this request is Title 24, Section 470A.2.8 – Dormitories, which requires that the capacity of dormitories be limited to 64 inmates. The county requested the CSA receive the final pilot project report and grant an alternate means of compliance that would increase the capacity of eight dormitories (Dorms A, B, E, F, G, H, K, and L) at the Adelanto Detention Center to 70 inmates.

During the past year, staff of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department tracked a number of variables to measure the impact of the increased unit capacity. These outcome measures included inmate access to visiting, outdoor recreation, meals, and medical services; the number and types of grievances; the number of assaults between inmates and assaults on staff; and the average daily population. The 48 additional beds approved in this pilot project provided additional inmate housing options to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department without sacrificing the safety of inmates or security of the facility while maintaining compliance with Title 15 standards.

San Bernardino County has been plagued by crowding in recent years and the opening of this new facility has helped to alleviate crowding. Sheriff’s officials wished to maximize the opportunities offered at the facility by increasing the dormitory capacity. By granting the request, CSA will allow Sheriff’s staff to continue to transfer the additional 48 low and medium security inmates from the West Valley Detention Center to the more appropriate housing assignment in the Adelanto Detention Center. Once at the Adelanto facility, the inmates will enjoy more out-of-cell time, greater access to visiting, recreation and exercise, and generally a less restrictive daily program than would be required if they were to remain at the West Valley Detention Center. By freeing up the high security cells at the West Valley Detention Center, classification personnel will have more flexibility when making housing assignments to ensure the safety of staff and inmates.

Staff recommended this Board approve the request for an Alternate Means of Compliance to Title 24, Section 470A.2.8 – Dormitories, to increase the maximum capacity of Dormitories A, B, E, F, G, H, K, and L to 70 inmates at the Adelanto Detention Center.

Mr. Allen, Lt. Marhoefer, and Lt. Kevin Lacy were available to answer any questions. Mr. Warner and Ms. Biondi asked for clarification as to the report; if it was based on the pilot and the recommendation now is that the pilot project becomes a permanent exemption. Mr. Allen explained that it would be an alternate means of compliance as long as the conditions remain as they are now by housing only minimum and medium security inmates with no significant medical or mental health needs in these dormitories and continuing to provide all of the services and programs compliant with the adult regulations. CSA will continue to do biennially inspections to ensure compliance. Mr. Warner asked if there was a change in conditions, would you report back to the Board to reconsider. Mr. Allen said yes and reminded the Board that the alternate means of compliance is only applicable to this facility and these specific dormitories.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Kim Petersen and seconded by Mr. Travis Townsy.
All Board members voted yes except for Ms. Carol Biondi who opposed. The motion carried.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY (AGENDA ITEM G)
Mr. Gary Wion, Field Representative presented this action item requesting the determination of suitability of the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall. The CSA is mandated under Section 209(e), Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) to determine the “suitability” of all juvenile halls.
I
In 1998, the California Legislature amended Section 209(e) to address a juvenile hall’s noncompliance with minimum standards as it relates to sustained occupancy levels above its CSA rated capacity. Section 209(e) authorizes the CSA to develop guidelines and procedures for its determination of suitability in accordance with this section and provides a mechanism in which juvenile halls may operate with populations above the CSA rated capacity.

At its May 1997 meeting the Board (formally BOC) directed staff to create the Juvenile Facility Crowding Work Group. This group of SMEs developed the crowding assessment process. This process was formally adopted by the Board in November 1998 and implemented in January 1999, the same date that Section 209(e) took effect.

Title 15, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1343 requires that when any unit in a juvenile hall exceeds its rated capacity for more than 15 days in a month, a Crowding Assessment Report (CAR) must be submitted. The crowding assessment process allows for the Field Representative to make a determination of suitability after a review of the information provided in the CAR based on their knowledge of the facility. The crowding assessment process requires that on the third month of crowding, the county will submit a Comprehensive Crowding Assessment Report (CCAR). This is a more detailed and comprehensive assessment of the conditions at the juvenile hall. As part of the crowding assessment process, the Field Representative will visit the facility to observe the conditions first hand. Prior to the visit, the Field Representative will request the facility administrator begin the development of a suitability plan. This document will identify the immediate steps the county will take to mitigate the compliance issues created by the crowding, the plans the county will implement to control the crowding, and the future plans to correct the issues of noncompliance as they relate to the crowding. Requiring the facility submit to additional on-site visits may be included as part of the suitability plan.

Sacramento County Juvenile Hall was requested to submit a suitability plan in 1999, due to chronic crowding and facility inexperience. In 2000 a suitability plan was accepted by the Board, the juvenile hall has struggle since then to control the number of minors housed at the juvenile hall and has continuously exceeded the population limits set forth. A graph of Sacramento County Juvenile Hall’s population from December 1998 to December 2006 was attached to the agenda item.

During the CSA December 2006 on-site visit, it was observed that the minors housed in one of the units were required to spend half of the day locked in their sleeping rooms due to crowding. This adversely impacted the ability to provide minors education, as required by the Education Code and Title 15, Section 1370, and recreation and exercise as required by Title 15, Section 1371. Minors were observed in several units not attending school during school hours. Child supervision staff on duty at the time related this was due to the minors being placed on “overflow status”. Staff defined this as minors designated not to attend class due to crowding. In fact, there were more minors housed on Unit H than there were seats in the classroom for the unit.

Child supervision staff also related that locking down half of the group was routine and necessary due to classification issues that required some minors to be separated from other minors on the Unit H. Dividing the housing unit into two groups allowed each minor the opportunity to attend school and provided the necessary separation from different classifications. The end product of this was that each minor spent an inordinate amount of time locked in their sleeping rooms resulting in the loss of their required three hours of recreation and exercise per day as mandated by Title 15, Section 1371.

A review of the population history revealed the number of minors housed at the juvenile hall exceed the specified limits of the suitability plan 75 of the past 91 days occurring between the visits. During this time the population peaked at 381, with as many as 59 minors housed in Unit I; a unit rated for only 30 minors.

CSA staff recommended that the CSA make a determination of suitability or unsuitability for the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall and that the CSA require a representative from the Sacramento County Probation Department to attend each future CSA Board meeting to provide a report on the status of the crowding at the juvenile hall.

Chief Probation Officer, Vern Speirs respectfully asked to have this matter be continued as an agenda item at the next CSA Board meeting due to short notification of two possible different recommendations to be presented for the Board’s action. He stated that after receiving the 51 page document that they had less than 18 hours of receipt and less than 8 hours for staff to review the specific items and recommendations in order to prepare. He pointed out that Section 209(e) says that the Board can make a finding of unsuitability or unsuitable conditions if the conditions in the facility pose a serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of minors confined in the facility and if the Board is moving to make that determination or make that declaration, he would like be noticed of specific facts that the Board will be taking under consideration and that he has not been given any notice on the specific conditions that give rise this serious risk. For this reason, he would like to request that those specific particulars, issues be given to him in a timely notice of fact so that they can respond and engage with the Board at a future date. Chief Speirs informed the Board that the juvenile facility is operating well below the 318 cap since December because of various issues, such as the collaboration of many efforts that have been made, with structure and renovation of the facility. He stated that there is no condition within the detention facility that poses a serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of minors at this point in time but would be glad to continue this matter and appear before the Board again or meet with Mr. Wion or whomever the Board would direct them to meet with. Chief Speirs went on to make a specific request that the Board take action on his request based upon timely notice, lack of specific factual allegations as to the issue arise to the level of seriousness in the facility and that the Board take that under consideration.

Ms. Biondi was concerned that the specifics of the facts have been laid out by CSA staff in detail for six years and that a unit that has 15 incidents per week does pose serious risk to the staff and the juveniles. Mr. Wion commented that at this point whenever a facility reaches a certain level, and that level is always difficult to comply as to when it becomes serious. Three things have been established since 2000 is the facility can house minors and still provide programming and still meet all the requirements of Title 15 but if it goes beyond the 318 we start having problems with that. Mr. Wion stated that earlier when the numbers were at 340, 380, in his opinion that is not safe. Ms. Biondi stated that the capacity is 261 and with the State’s plan to stop in-take of all females and all non 707-B offenders, that the pressure on the facility is going to be greater, that the totality of the conditions would continue and construction will take too long. Ms. Biondi asked if it would be appropriate to make a motion to find this facility unsuitable. Mr. Warner suggested that further discussion be held before the motions are heard. Ms. Biondi later withdraws her motion.

Mr. Wion commented that yesterday he met with the juvenile hall Superintendent and walked through Unit H and looked at some in-take data, population data and they have been below 318 since January. This unit was the one having difficulty, yesterday it had 24 minors, all minors were out, population has been reduced. Unit H is going to be one of the first units to go to the 90-day beds facility, which is scheduled to open in 10 days. He also spoke with the school principal in regards to the overflow status and was assured that this is no longer going to happen. The principal assured Mr. Wion that all minors will attend school regardless of the population; there will be no overflow status.

Mr. Warner asked what the process is, as per Chief’s Speirs perspective, in terms of being noticed on the report and the ability to prepare a response to those allegations. Mr. Wion explained that the process that occurred was that a letter to Chief Speirs was sent after his December 22 nd visit, stating that the facilities unsuitability would be placed on the agenda. This was going to be the recommendation but obviously the last 60 days there have been some changes. Mr. Warner asked if a full report was sent to Chief Speirs or if it was just a letter of notice. Mr. Wion stated that it was a letter of notice. Mr. Warner asked what the implication was of the Board taking action of finding the facility unsuitable. Mr. Wion explained that if the Board finds the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall unsuitable, the finding would be posted on the internet, there would be no penalties, no sanctions, and we would not require the county to move the minors out of the facility.

Mr. Warner stated that this is a challenging decision for the Board to make because there is a lot of work that needs to be done, and the Chief is not disputing this, but there are things that have occurred, there have been some changes. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Wion if it was his recommendation to find the facility unsuitable. Mr. Wion’s recommendation at this point is that the facility is suitable for the confinement of minors but if the population exceeds 318 at some future time the Board will have to consider that. Mr. Warner asked if there was a conditional status that would require them additional reporting to the Board. Mr. Wion said that the practice would be whatever status the Board decided on. Mr. Ingrassia asked if there was any evidence that the population and program issues have been addressed. Chief Speirs replied that the population issue has been an on-going issue that is consistently being addressed and that in the last 72 months of that timeline, they have been out of compliance 17 months, which 75 percent of the time they have been in compliance with population. They have been working on this issue back in 1996, they have reengineered their in-take, expanding the units, added more beds, renovated an assessment center, and have opened another facility. Chief Speirs asked the Board for a continuous of 60 days before the Board decides on the suitability or unsuitability. More discussion was held.

Ms. Petersen concurred with Ms. Biondi in regards to the risk of the juveniles and staff but does acknowledge that steps have been put in place and they have been in compliance since December. Mr. Powers asked about the 90-beds within the next ten days, what increase in staffing will occur. Chief Speirs replied that they are fully staffed; the County has been very gracious in staffing the facility early to help with transition. Ms. Penner asked what exactly would be posted on the website. Mr. Wion stated that the posting would say that the Sacramento County Juvenile Probation Facility is unsuitable, and this would be posted on CSA’s website with the details of the Board’s actions. Ms. Penner asked if in fact Chief Speirs has made attempts and is currently under your rated capacity, are the findings at this current time suitable. Mr. Wion explained that the facility is not at its rated capacity but within the suitability plan which allows them to go beyond the rated capacity. Sacramento County can go up to 318 rated capacity and be suitable, however they have been out of compliance with some Title 24 issues, they have mitigated those. He monitors their compliance by the suitability plan. Mr. Wion stated that the continuous could possibly work, they have been in compliance since January and with the extension could be in compliance even longer but previous experience shows that the facility has been in compliance but are unable to maintain that status for a long period of time. However, Mr. Wion has seen a different approach as to how the facility is working on maintaining this compliance that seems to be working in difference to past actions.

Ms. Gilyard asked how many beds are opening. Chief Speirs stated that 126 beds have open or will be open in a short time plus 60 beds more in the future. Chief Speirs asked if the Board will be going retroactive as to the unsuitability or will they pick a certain time and consider them suitable and go forward. How far in history do you go back? Posting on the website as being unsuitable but now currently suitable could open up to litigation. If you define it and put some perimeters around it then that helps put it into some perspective, if fact you do get into some litigation.

Ms. Biondi asked how many minors will be returned to the facility from the State in July. Chief Speirs stated that the number was very low; he believes it to be four or five.

Mr. Bacigalupo asked what more could Chief Speirs respond to from the 51 page document. Chief Speirs responded that it would not just be responding to the document but looking at the particulars. What is the period of time you are looking at, what are the factors that you’ve taken into consideration, we may not be aware of some of the decisions that have been made, such as in the Education Department. We would look at the factor of the money as to where has it been put in the system and where are those monies right now, how would have those monies been spent. He would look at the specific areas and be able to give the Board a complete report back what those areas need and how we’ve tried to address them. Mr. Warner asked staff if a corrective action plan was ever asked from the county to respond to and address these issues. Mr. Wion replied that the closet item to a corrective action plan was the suitability plan.

Mr. Townsy asked Mr. Wion in reference to Title 15, education, recreation, exercise dealing with the minors involved is he dealing with that on an ongoing basis as far as keeping the program running. Mr. Wion stated that he provides constant monitoring, having communication with staff and the juveniles, conducting on-site visits. Mr. Brian Lee, Superintendent of the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall stated that due to the size of the space in Unit H the ability to provide programming to meet all the requirements at that point when we’re crowded we’re unable to provide all those services. At this moment we have addressed this issue and have been rectify, they are having school, they are programming.

Ms. Barrett appreciates Chief Speirs’ efforts as what we’re looking at today verses what has been going on. Ms. Barrett asked Mr. Wion if the facility is now suitable but if the population exceeded 318 you would find it unsuitable. Mr. Wion replied that this was correct.

Ms. Peterson made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation that as it stands today the facility is suitable and for them to continue to come back and report their status to the Board but if the population exceeds 318 then it would be unsuitable. Ms. Biondi asked for clarification, if there was a day that they exceeded 318 that it would automatically be found unsuitable. Mr. Warner stated that since we are in unchartered waters in terms of notification that more discussion be held before responding to the motion. Mr. Warner continued to say that to find the facility suitable or unsuitable is unclear of specific actions that are expected. His recommendation would be to extend this agenda item to the next Board meeting so that county has time to put together a more detailed, current suitability plan then the Board can make a decision to approve or disapprove that suitability plan. Ms. Petersen withdrew her motion. Chief Speirs noted that they have been working on this issue for some time now and are active participant in taking action.

Ms. Barrett made a motion, following staff recommendations, that the facility be determined suitable with a representative from Sacramento County Probation Department to attend future CSA Board meetings to provide a report on the status of the crowding at the juvenile hall. Ms. Petersen seconded the motion. Mr. Warner asked for clarification before voting, is the facility suitable as of today. Mr. Wion stated as of today the facility is suitable but it was not in December and if the population number goes up again it will be unsuitable. Ms. Barrett modified her motion to include the population cap of 318. Ms. Penner seconded the motion based on the modification. Ms. Biondi asked if it would be possible for the Sacramento County Probation Department to present the outcome of the assessments they have been doing for a year now at the next Board meeting.
Chief Speirs agreed to do this.

Mr. Wion brought it to the Board’s attention that the CSA Board does not have the authority to cap the population of a facility; it can only determine unsuitability and suitability. Ms. Biondi suggested that we modify our motion to say that if there is a violation of the suitability plan, it is then found unsuitable. Ms. Barrett revised her motion as stated by Ms. Biondi.

Ms. Gilyard asked for clarification of the motion. The motion states that CSA will determine the facility suitable as of today but if there is a violation of the suitability plan then it will be found unsuitable and that a representative from the facility will attend future CSA Board meetings to provide a report on the status of the crowding at the juvenile hall.

Mr. Warner stated that the motion does not reflect what had been discussed. The facility is suitable now however you have a report that is unsuitable prior to the last 60 days. The challenge is going to be at the next meeting if there is a time that they are exceeding that then we will determine it unsuitable. Mr. Warner’s recommendation is that we revise the suitability plan to better define the steps the county has taken to be in compliance and that we report on that suitability plan.

Ms. Gilyard made a motion to defer the decision of unsuitability or suitability until the next CSA Board meeting giving Chief Speirs enough time to respond. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chief Speirs informed Ms. Gilyard that she may be in a position of conflict of interest (she currently works for Sacramento County Probation Department). Ms. Gilyard agreed and withdrew her motion.

A motion to defer action on the suitability until the next CSA Board meeting at which time staff will report on the revised suitability plan was made by Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Ms. Kimberly Petersen. All Board members in attendance agreed; with one abstain by Ms. Pamala Gilyard.
The motion carried.

STATE ADVISORY GROUP STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM H) Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director informed the Board that the next three agenda items are State Advisory Group (SAG) recommendations and will be presented separately by CSA staff for the Board’s approval.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2007 3-YEAR PLAN UPDATE AND FEDERAL APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM H-1)
Corrections Consultant Connie Lucero presented SAG’s recommendation to the Board requesting approval for the submittal of the federal fiscal year 2007 application and State Plan update for the Title II Formula Grants Program. Although state allocations have not been finalized by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), it is anticipated California will receive approximately $7,788,500 in Title II funds from this application. The amount is based upon fiscal year 2006 award.

CSA is responsible for the statewide administration of the Title II Formula Grant program, including the development of the annual application (the application was made available to Board members). The application is comprised of a Program Narrative, a Budget Detail Worksheet, and updated Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) activities. It also provides update on compliance monitoring activities undertaken by CSA staff that inspects local adult and juvenile detention facilities. The item was approved by the SAG at the February 20, 2007 meeting.

A motion to approve the State Advisory Group recommendations was made by Mr. William Powers and seconded by
Mr. John Ingrassia. The motion carried.

ANNUAL TITLE V FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM H-2)
Corrections Consultant Shalinee Hunter presented SAG’s recommendation to the Board requesting approval of the submittal of the application for the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program to the OJJDP for federal fiscal year 2007.

The Title V Community Prevention Grants program supports state and local efforts to reduce risk factors for juvenile delinquency, to enhance protective factors to prevent youth at risk of becoming delinquent from entering the juvenile justice system, and to intervene with first-time and nonserious offenders.

CSA is responsible for the statewide administration of the Title V Community Prevention Grant program, including the application which is comprised of a Program Narrative, a Budget Detail Worksheet, and a three-year Timeline corresponding with the grant cycle.

The application was made available to Board Members. For the purpose of this application, it is estimated that California will receive approximately $56,000 based on last year’s award. The timeline outlines the Title V activities over the course of a three-year grant period that began in July 2005 and concludes in June of 2008. We are now moving into our last year of the three-year cycle.

The Program Narrative consists of five areas of interest including the number of subgrants; compliance plan for both the four core requirements and federal performance measures; geographic information; monitoring plan for subgrants; and coordination efforts between Title V and other prevention efforts within the State.

The SAG recommends that the CSA approve the submission of the Title V application to the OJJDP for fiscal year 2007.

A motion to approve the State Advisory Group recommendations was made by Ms. Kim Petersen and seconded by
Mr. David Bacigalupo. The motion carried.

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT (AGENDA ITEM H-3) Field Representative Allison Ganter presented the SAG’s recommendation to the Board requesting approval for CSA staff to compile and submit comments and suggestions regarding Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 2002 to the federal OJJDP.

The CSA is the designated State agency for compliance monitoring of the JJDPA and Congress is currently considering the reauthorization of the act. OJJDP has notified the CSA that they’re accepting comments relative to the authorization through March 16th. Recent technical assistance in training has prompted discussion among many states including California regarding current JJDPA requirements and interpretations and their impact on current compliance monitoring plan systems.

At the February 20 th SAG meeting the SAG approved staff’s request to compile and submit comments regarding the JJDPA’s language, supporting regulations guidelines and interpretations. Staff is requesting approval to submit comments and suggestions including comments regarding the following issues: the definition of a secure facility, and whether or not a cuffing fixture would classify a facility as secure; also current data collection requirements in the JJDPA supporting regulations.

Mr. Townsy asked what a cuffing fixture was. Ms. Ganter explained that cuffing fixtures were used in facilities to detain a person, such as a cuffing bench or cuffing rail.

Ms. Biondi asked the same questions she asked at the SAG meeting, what would facilities receiving for a funding were determined to be secured facility, would they loose their 4E status which could affect their funding which would negatively affect or impact their funding. Ms. Ganter explained that right now if a facility falls under the JJDPA as it’s currently constructed, it is considered secure. OJJDP considers any facility that has a cuffing fixture as secure. It would not change what the facility had in their construction right now.

A motion to approve the State Advisory Group recommendations was made by Ms. Kimberly Barrett and seconded by
Mr. William Powers. The motion carried.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2006-2008 UPDATE TO RFP RECOMMENDATIONS ( AGENDA ITEM I)
Ms. Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant presented this information item to update the Board in regards to the approval of the funding recommendations for the Title II Formula Grants program RFP.

At the January 11, 2007 CSA meeting, staff was prepared to submit a funding recommendation for the top 16 rated proposals. However, prior to this meeting a review of the master file of proposal scores it was identified that Phase I rater’s entered data incorrectly for the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal. The correction revealed that the proposal should have moved to Phase II. Staff reviewed all data entry points for the remaining 140 proposal scores. It was determined that this was an isolated occurrence.

At the January meeting CSA authorized staff to forward the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal to the Phase II eight-member panel for rating. Once the proposal was rated, staff was to determine if the recommended rankings would be affected. If the proposal ranked within the top 16 proposals CSA approved staff to re-rank the 16 proposals. If the proposal did not rank high enough to affect the current top 16, CSA gave staff the discretion to move forward with the current recommendations. In addition to approving the second rating of the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal and re-ranking, if necessary of the top 16 proposals CSA approved staff to initiate grant contracts with the agencies identified in the results of the new ranking.

The Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal was read and rated by the eight Phase II raters. In order to affect the rating of the top 16 proposals the Antelope proposal would have had to receive above 368 points. The proposal scored 351.1 points; therefore, not affecting the original ranking of proposals. Staff has begun initiating grant contracts with the agencies identified in the results of the original ranking.

JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM J)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative stated that this action agenda item is a request for the Board’s approval and subsequent submission of the federal Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) application for 2007.

Some background information is that CSA is a pass-through agency for these grant funds which are administered at the federal level by the OJJDP. These grant funds flowing through CSA, go to primarily the local level; cities and county governments throughout the State for programs that promote greater accountability within the juvenile justice system. Attachment B of the agenda packet lists the 17 program purpose areas, or focal points, that represent the very broad spectrum of areas within the juvenile justice system to which our grantees under CSA can then target their funding. An additional purpose area was just added this year addressing reentry systems and programs. Each of the localities receiving funding has typically had the discretion to determine which focal areas would best be served by this funding.
At the crux of this agenda item is CSA’s annual application to the federal government which is non-competitive, as State appropriations are based on each state’s juvenile population numbers. The amount of funding estimated to be received by CSA for this year’s application, pending federal budget determination is $4,014,900, which mirrors our 2006 allocation.

Staff is recommending that the Board approve the final draft 2007 federal JABG application and authorize staff to submit the final application to the OJJDP for 2007 JABG funding.

Mr. Warner commented that this application is to draw the federal funds down, it doesn’t necessarily prioritize any of the purpose areas that the counties request as long as they fall within the 17 purpose areas. Ms. Heller stated that he was correct. He then asked the difference between direct allocations, set-a-side allocations, and unrestricted funds. Ms. Heller explained that direct allocation and all of these numbers are determined by the OJJDP they are just provided to us and we parrot that back to them in an application. The direct allocation amount reflects the allocations that are going to those counties and cities that meet the federal funding threshold. They apply a formula to every city and every county within the state of California. It’s based on law enforcement expenditures and violent crime data. And when that formula is applied to every single county, it translates into dollars, any locality that meets at least $10,000 and above then receives a direct allocation. Those that fall below the $10,000 threshold that is then represented by the set-a-side allocation figure which they provide to us. We then have to administer the funding in a way that benefits the jurisdictions that fell below the funding threshold. The State administration portion is just support dollars for us to administer the funding. The unrestricted funds are basically, represents a pool of funding that this Board will determine at a later meeting what to do with that funding. How it should be distributed.

Ms. Biondi asked if California uses the SAG for advisory purposes on grants, like other states. Mr. Yarber stated that other states do utilize their SAG to oversee expenditures but the federal laws for JABG are different than the Title II and Title V funding. Title II and Title V is very explicit that the SAG is the oversight body. For JABG it says an advisory board and then it suggest the make up. Mr. Warner stated that there is nothing that would prohibit the SAG being involved in an advisory role in terms of purpose areas and how this money may used. Ms. Heller responded that this would be for the Board’s decision.

Ms. Biondi made a motion to move that this federal funding grant from the same source as all of the other grants that the SAG be included and the proposals from counties be reviewed in the same matter as they are for Title II and Title V. Ms. Barrett asked if we are adding another layer because this motion would direct counties and cities that currently get the direct allocation go through SAG and CSA. Ms. Heller stated that she was correct. Mr. Warner suggested that since SAG only recently has been revitalized that staff work with the SAG and come back to the Board for proposal in terms of how SAG would be involved with the process. Ms. Biondi amended her motion as stated below.

A motion to approve the staff recommendations and report back on how SAG can be involved in the JABG funding was made by Ms. Carol Biondi and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen.
The motion carried.

A ten minute break was taken, the meeting resumed at approximately 11:50 a.m.

JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM K)
Deputy Director Marlon Yarber provided an update of activities regarding the administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA).

The State Controller’s Office (SCO) distributes funds directly to counties on a per capita basis. However, these funds may not be allocated by the county auditor/controller for juvenile justice programs until the CSA approves the county’s Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP), which must be updated annually.

Fiscal year (FY) 2005/06 marked an increase in statewide funding and a shift in the timeline for disbursement of JJCPA funds. To more closely align the fund disbursement date with the actual commencement date for implementation, the 2005/06 fund disbursement was shifted to spring and limited to approximately 25 percent of the previous allocation. The SCO disbursed $119 million to the participating counties to support program expenditures from October 2006 through
September 2007 (end of the first quarter of FY 2007/08).

To document how the funding increase for FY 2006/07 would benefit each county, CSA staff developed two supplemental applications; one for counties that chose to identify new program efforts, and the other for counties that chose to expand their existing efforts. Staff also provided technical assistance to counties regarding identification of budget and program outcome measures in relation to the supplemental applications.

CSA staff also worked with counties to ensure that program outcome and expenditure data reported in October for the 2005/06 FY were complete and accurate. Staff developed the fifth annual legislative report on the JJCPA program and transmitted a draft to the Administration. As required by law, this report includes information about the effectiveness of the local planning process, program expenditures, and six statutorily mandated juvenile justice outcomes.

Ms. Biondi recommends that we add the staff necessary to monitor the programs. She does not believe the State ask for enough information of each program, it just does an overall of numbers. Some of the programs that the counties are doing do not have good outcomes and there needs to be a more critically look into each one of them for accountability. Mr. Bacigalupo thanked the staff for this report. He asked if there was any specific information, any specific programs of gang intervention verses at-risk. Mr. Yarber stated that much of the needs are determined on a local level. Ms. Biondi asked if there was any consideration of using a State hired evaluator for all the counties verses each county having their own, would this be a better way of approaching it. Mr. Yarber is unsure if this would be better but it is an option. Ms. Penner stated that counties are diverse and it is very difficult to use one evaluator at the State level but certainly understands the desire for accountabilities but communities throughout the State are very different. She sees it very valuable for counties to determine what programs are needed in their community.

Mr. Warner excused himself from the meeting to attend another obligation. Mr. Warner asked Mr. John Ingrassia to serve as Chair in his absence.

MENTAL ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM L)
Deputy Director Marlon Yarber provided the Board an update of recent activity regarding the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program.

The CSA approved the grant awards recommended by the ESC via teleconference on December 20, 2006. Since then staff have begun to finalize contracts with all the successful competitors and have also worked on finalizing invoices and budget modification forms, the data dictionaries and monthly data collection tool. They have also worked with counties in the development of semi-annual progress report. Staff developed project descriptions, which are being posted on the web site following a review by the grantees.

CSA staff also followed up on a potential opportunity for a collaborative partnership aimed at assisting MIOCR grantees with their various training needs. As a result of conversations between staff with the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and CSA, DMH has indicated that it will dedicate up to $400,000 in Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds each year for up to three years for training aimed at assisting the MIOCR grantees with project start-up and ongoing training needs. DMH has determined that it will contract with the California Institute for Mental Health (CIMH) to provide training or subcontract with training providers, as needed. Staff informed grantees of the likely parameters for the use of the MHSA funds that CIMH would provide training to assist in the development or expansion of evidence-based (EBP) that do not have licensed training requirements, provide “introductory training” only on licensed EDPs, and provide topic-specific training on cultural competency, interagency partnerships, mental health courts, crisis intervention, and the use of “state of the art” medications.

JOB COMPONENTS ANALYSIS PROJECT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Evonne Garner, Senior Correctional Consultant updated the Board on the Job Components Analysis Project (JCAP). CSA was tasked with development, approval, and monitoring of standards for the selection and training of entry-level state correctional peace officer classification. Currently there are two major activities underway. The first activity is job analyses of the Correctional Officer (CO), Youth Correctional Officer (YCO), and Youth Correctional Counselor (YCC). The second activity is the interim written exam for these classifications.

A meeting in January with CDCR Administration resulted in the approval of funding for the CSA to complete job analyses for the CO, YCO, and YCC classifications. Several Lieutenants were assigned to serve as liaisons between CSA and the state correctional institutions. They will select subject matter experts (SME) based on our sampling criteria, schedule and arrange visits, and locate space for meetings among other things.

A series of three meetings are scheduled in Sacramento in March/April during which CO, YCO, and YCC job incumbents and supervisors from a small sample of institutions will evaluate and confirm the task consolidation work. After these meetings, JACP staff will be traveling out to approximately 20 adult and juvenile institutions between May and August to meet with a larger sample of SMEs who will provide ratings of importance and frequency of performance for each of the task statements. In addition, staff is currently coordinating with the Office of Labor Relations to ensure that the labor union is properly notified. Upon completion of the field work the data will be analyzed, the task statements will be made and the final job analyses report will be available by December 2007.

The second major project activity that staff is working on is the interim basic skills written exam. This single exam is currently being used in the selection process of COs, YCOs, and YCCs until such time that the job analyses are completed and new selection standards are developed. Last week CSA delivered five new exam forms which piloted 75 additional test items. Over the next nine months, more than 200 test items will be piloted and prepared for use in future versions of the exam.

On final note, CSA is aware of Legislation that has been introduced to reinstate the formal Commission on Correctional Peace Officers Standards and Training (CPOST) and transfer the responsibility for selections and training standards of correctional peace officers.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM N)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided an informational legislative update. This brief legislative update is an information item, keeping the Board abreast of current legislation affecting CSA. As with recent legislative updates to the Board, we’ll address new and not previously mentioned legislation that specifically names CSA.

The first new bill directly involved in CSA is Senate Bill 987, introduced by Senator Romero which impacts CSA in two separate functions, and is a result of legislative proposals that CSA, through CDCR, has put forth.

First, the bill addresses the California Council on Criminal Justice, which among other duties is required to act as the supervisory board of the state planning agency [CSA] pursuant to the federal laws that govern our juvenile justice grant programs. This bill would require CSA Board to act as the supervisory body of the state planning agency [CSA] and avoids the duplication or burdensome additional layer of oversight.

The second portion of the bill pertinent to CSA is in response to language in a prior bill which is now law, which tasks CSA with providing the presentation of training to peace officers on tracing missing persons and victims of violent crimes. This bill would instead require the CPOST to provide this venue, and which is where this responsibility more appropriately lies since CSA does not cross over into standards and training responsibilities related to non-corrections personnel.

The second bill, which was mentioned in the previous agenda item, is Assembly Bill 890, introduced by Senator Aghazarian. Essentially proposing to shift responsibility from CSA and reinstitute the CPOST.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (AGENDA ITEM O)
Mr. Patrick Wilson, an engineer for Los Angeles and a former prison inmate discussed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rule of law which are held to high standards but rises and falls according to gender and income and ethnicity. He continued discussing the misconduct of the justice system.

Ms. Carissa Gonzalez-Phelps was a former juvenile of the Fresno County Juvenile Justice Campus. While an inmate, Ms. Gonzalez-Phelps met Mr. Ron Jenkins, a Counselor at the juvenile hall who was concerned for her future when she would be released (she would be homeless and back on the streets). He introduced her to various programs to direct her in the correct path for a better future. She is very thankful for him. Ms. Gonzalez-Phelps is currently a law student at UCLA and wants to be there for other juveniles to show them other paths that they can take for a better future.
An announcement was made informing everyone that the next CSA board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to be held in Sacramento.

Meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Originally signed by

YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Robert Hernandez, Subordinate Officer
William Powers, County Supervisor
Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer
Kimberly Barrett, Chief Probation Officer
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Kim Petersen, Public Member, Represents Interests of Crime Victims
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Cleotha Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff
Karrie Eckhardt, Rank & File Representative, State Parole Officer
Travis Townsy, Rank & File Representative, State Adult Correctional Facility

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Bob Takeshta, Deputy Director, FSO
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director, STC
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative
Don Allen, Field Representative
Gary Wion, Field Representative
Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant
Shalinee Hunter, Corrections Consultant
Allison Ganter, Field Representative
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Evonne Garner, Senior Correctional Consultant
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant
Tina Perez, Information System Technician

Guests
Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Probation Department
Bill Fenton, Alameda County Probation Department
Ron Roken, Amador County Sheriff’s Department
Jim Macedo, Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department
Robert Alvillar, Fresno County Probation Department
Sean Herrera, Fresno County Probation Department
Karen Roach, Fresno County Probation Department
Norm Baird, Fresno County Probation Department
Jill Chandler, Fresno County Probation Department
Bryan Crump, Fresno County Probation Department
Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Department
Tom Charnock, Fresno County Probation Department
John Jesper, Fresno County Probation Department
Keith Nelson, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Vetrice Mitchell, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Kim Trujillo, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Doug Papagni, Madera County Probation Department
Susan Patterson, Mariposa County Sheriff’s Department
Heidi Porter, Merced County Probation Department
Sue Frontella, Merced County Probation Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
George Malim, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Rod Merydith, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Ron Ashford, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Brian Wilkerson, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Dana Fredendall, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Bill Diyoro, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Vern Speirs, Sacramento County Probation Department
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
Brian Lee, Sacramento County Probation Department
Craig E. Deutsch, Sacramento County Probation Department
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Jon Marhoefer, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Ed Schroeder, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Yvette D. Klepn, San Diego County Probation Department
Michelle Cole, San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department
Barry Shortz, San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department
Jenny Sams, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department
Don Bevins, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA Representative, Tulare County Sheriff’s Department
David Williams, Tulare County Sheriff’s Department
JP Jones, Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Department
Richard Lindstrom, Fresno City College Police Academy
Donna Myrow, Los Angeles Youth
Armand Burrel, CDCR
Carissa Gonzalez-Phelps, UCLA
David Sauvago, UCLA
Patrick Wilson

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links

Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes