Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes

MINUTES 
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

Meeting held at: 660 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814

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

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director conducted the Oath of Office swearing in the new Board members:

Mr. Scott Kernan Mr. Ed Prieto

Acting Chairman Warner directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:

Mr. Scott Kernan Mr. Bernard Warner Mr. David Bacigalupo Mr. Ed Prieto Mr. William Powers Ms. Linda Penner Mr. John Ingrassia Ms. Kim Petersen Ms. Carol Biondi Ms. Pamala Gilyard Mr. Cleotha Adams Ms. Karrie Eckhardt Mr. Travis Townsy Mr. Max Scott

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Campos announced the absences of board members and due to prior commitments or illness were not able to attend.

Mr. James E. Tilton Mr. Gary Penrod Mr. Robert Hernandez

Acting Chairman Warner asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by
Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen.
The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2007 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Acting Chairman Warner asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes.

Ms. Biondi had some minor changes for agenda item G and H-3. On agenda item G where it talks about the State’s plan to stop in-take of all females and all non 707s offenders, it should state “…non 707-B offenders…”. Also, in the beginning of that same paragraph the concern was that “…the specifics of the facts have been laid out by CSA staff in detail for six years…”

For agenda item H-3, last paragraph, the questions should be “if a place that was receiving of the funding was determined to be secured facility, would they loose their IV-e status which could affect their funding, negatively affect or impact their funding”.

Mr. Warner asked that Mr. Vern Speirs’ name be corrected on the minutes in which he was mistakenly identified as Mr. Dan Speirs.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the March 8, 2007,
Corrections Standards Authority meeting with corrections was made by Mr. William Powers and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS INFORMATION ITEMS
( AGENDA ITEM B)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented this information item which allows Corrections Standards Authority (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.

At their July 2004 meeting, the BOC authorized staff to supplement Sacramento County’s 90-bed juvenile hall expansion grant up to its fully eligible amount of $9,045,000 if funds revert from other construction grant projects. Their grant award was increased by $102,400 for a new total of $7,305,827 due to a supplement from unused administrative funds. (Balance remaining to original grant amount $1,739,173.)

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.

Ms. Aboytes asked if there were any questions. There were no questions.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCAL DETENTION FACILITIES (AGENDA ITEM C)
Field Representative Charlene Aboytes presented this action item requesting for the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) to approve the composition of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC), together with the timeline, for the Minimum Standards for Local (adult) Detention Facilities biennial review process.

At its March 8, 2007 meeting, this Board directed staff to begin the regulations review process for the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities. They appointed members John Ingrassia as chair and Cleo Adams as co-chair of the ESC for this process and directed staff to work with the chair and co-chair to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a timeline for consideration at this May Board meeting.

In April staff met with Mr. Ingrassia and Mr. Adams to review the proposed timeline and to develop a list of names for the ESC. Consideration was given to individuals that would represent a spectrum of facility sizes and geographic locations. Each of these people were contacted and have committed to serve pending the Board’s approval.

With the Board’s approval of the ESC membership and timeline for the process, staff will work with the chair and co-chair to develop a strategy to review the regulations. This typically will involve four or five work groups comprised of subject matter experts from large and small facilities: individuals such as facility managers and health care professionals (nurses, physicians, and nutritionists) and involves lengthy public comment periods and public hearings. It is anticipated that after a thorough review and, if necessary, revisions to the regulations, the ESC will provide recommendations for final approval by the Board at the January 2008 CSA meeting. Staff recommends approval of the composition of the ESC and the timeline for the adult regulations revision process.

Mr. Powers asked if the chair and co-chair got the representation they needed for the recommendations. Mr. Ingrassia responded with a yes.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen.
The motion carried.

IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 478 FEMALE INMATES AND WARDS FINAL ADOPTION (AGENDA ITEM D)
Deputy Director Bob Takeshta presented this action item requesting the Board’s approval. At the November 2006 CSA meeting, the Board directed staff to begin the regulation development process to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 478, Female Inmates and Wards. Also, at the January 10 th meeting, the Board approved the proposed amendments to the regulations.

This agenda item requested the Board to consider the comments received during the 45-day public comment period; to review the responses to those comments; grant final approval for the proposed changes to the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities and the Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities; authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.

At the November 2006, the Board appointed, now retired, Cal Remington as chair and
John Ingrassia as co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC). They empowered the chair and co-chair to work with staff to: identify and select local subject matter experts as members of the ESC; formulate a timeline for the process; meet prior to the January 2007 Board meeting to develop regulations; and update the Board at its January 2007 meeting.

The composition of the ESC was handed out as Attachment A. The ESC on December 13, 2006 first as a large group, then as separate groups (the Adult Regulation and Juvenile Regulation
Sub-Committees).

Co-chair John Ingrassia chaired three hearings. The first hearing was held at the CSA’s office on February 21, 2007, the second was held at the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department headquarters on March 28, 2007, and the third was held at the CSA’s office on April 17, 2007.

Written comments were received relating to the following five Title 15 regulations; Section 1357, Use of Force; Section 1358, Use of Physical Restraints; Section 1206, Health Care Procedures Manual; Section 1248, Medical Diets; and Section 1417, Pregnant Minors.

Co-chair John Ingrassia reviewed the comments and directed staff to respond to each by incorporating the considerations of the ESC and the statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

With CSA approval, staff will prepare the regulations and appropriate documentation for submittal to the Department of Finance (DOF). Upon DOF approval, staff will compile the regulations into a rulemaking file and submit the package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The OAL has 30 days to complete their review of the Title 15 regulations. With their approval, they will submit the regulations to the Secretary of State for final endorsement.

The staff requested the Board approve the proposed regulation changes to Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities and Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities; authorize staff to submit appropriate documentation to the DOF for review and approval; and authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Ms. Biondi asked if there was a regulation on visitation; if a minor gives birth while incarcerated would she be allow visitation with the child in the hospital and when she returns to the facility.
Mr. Takeshta informed her that there was a regulation and that the minor would be allowed visitation both in the hospital and back at the facility.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Linda Penner and seconded by Mr. Bernard Warner.
The motion carried.

REQUEST TO ESTABLISH EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE JAIL BONDS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (AGENDA ITEM E)
Mr. Bob Takeshta, Deputy Director presented this agenda item requesting the approval of the Corrections Standards Authority’s (CSA) to establish an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) in response to the recent authorization of jail construction funding; to appoint a chair and co-chair to serve on this committee; and to direct staff to work with the chair and co-chair to assemble an ESC comprised of specified local government representatives.

On April 26, 2007 the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 900. The Governor signed it on May 3 rd and it was chaptered by the Secretary of the State on the same day. The legislation appropriated $1,220,000,000 for jail construction of local adult facilities. Historically, the Legislature has authorized the Board of Corrections (BOC), now CSA, to administer the local detention facility construction grant program (such as jail bonds, state and federal construction grants).

The precedent for administering this competitive construction grant effort has been the utilization of the ESC process. Members typically represent the California State Sheriff’s Association,
Chief Probation Officers of California, and the California State Association of Counties. The committee is responsible for crafting the Request for Proposals that is used to solicit proposals from counties interested in jail construction projects; establishing the rating criteria to be used in the competitive proposal process; and the rating of proposals submitted in order to establish a rank-ordered list to bring before the CSA Board for funding recommendations.

Staff recommended appointing Sheriff Gary Penrod as chair and Sheriff Ed Prieto as co-chair to serve on the ESC; direct staff to work with the chair and co-chair to assemble the committee with membership representing the California State Sheriff’s Association, Chief Probation Officers of California, and the California State Association of Counties; authorize staff to coordinate a special Board session (teleconference) prior to the July Board meeting, so that the CSA Board can approve or deny the composition of the ESC; and direct the chair and co-chair to convene the ESC to initiate the development of the grant process and timeline.

Ms. Silbert asked for clarification on the money for prison and jail beds and who will oversee the process; how much goes into new prison construction. Mr. Takeshta stated that the bill is very specific on how the money is allocated. This amount of money is specified in legislation for local beds and there is a separate amount of money for re-entry beds. Ms. Silbert asked who is overseeing the money that was put for the prison beds if CSA is overseeing the local construction. Mr. Warner explained that the legislation established that the money flow through California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This in turn allows CDCR to administer the local portion of the money which is the $1,220,000,000. There is some separate language in the bill that has the oversight process for the State dollars going towards construction of new State facilities. Ms. Silbert asked who has that oversight. Mr. Warner stated that there are a couple of levels (i.e, panel of Inspector Generals, Judicial Council).

Ms. Silbert commented that it seems confusing to be given responsibility upholding the standards of the prison system and then not having anything to do with the dollars that go into building what, where, and why. Mr. Takeshta stated the Governor has appointed some strike teams for rehabilitation, facilities which will do an assessment, come up with a plan to reestablish. Mr. Warner asked the Board to review this item as action for the local dollars and then work with Secretary Tilton for a presentation in terms of State building and oversight process at the next Board meeting and discuss the Boards role in that process.

Ms. Biondi asked if this was for juvenile and adult. Mr. Takeshta stated that juvenile did not receive any funding in the legislation. Mr. Harris stated that it was negotiated with the Legislature, so some things that were originally proposed by the Governor were not in this particular bill but hopefully some of it will be addressed in the May Revise that is suppose to come out the next week.

Mr. Patrick Wilson asked if any former inmates are on any Executive Steering Committee, so it doesn’t get lost. Mr. Harris informed Mr. Wilson that questions are not taken from the public during the agenda items but comments can be given during the public comment section, but if one of the members would like to ask the question they are more than welcome to. Mr. Wilson then stated that no one will ask the question.

Ms. Silbert has had some concerns since the beginning understanding the Board’s new responsibilities. Since the Board is held responsible for the conditions of the prison system, she would like to know the responsibility of the Board as it moves in different directions. Mr. Powers echoed Ms. Silbert’s comments and would like to know in what direction is the rest of the money going to, what else is being funded. Mr. Harris remarked that staff will follow up with more clarification or additional information through Secretary Tilton. Ms. Biondi informed Ms. Silbert that she has asked the question a few times and the answer that she has received is that the Legislation that gave the Board authority, has first asked the Board to develop minimum standards for state facilities in the same way the Board has done for local facilities. Although the Board was suppose to complete that in January 2007, someone has to give the Board the order to do that.
Mr. Harris suggested that this be addressed at the next meeting by Secretary Tilton.

A motion to approve to elect Mr. Gary Penrod as chair and
Mr. Ed Prieto as co-chair of the ESC and approval of staff recommendations was made by Ms. Kim Petersen and seconded by Mr. Ed Prieto. The motion carried.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY (AGENDA ITEM F)

Mr. Gary Wion, Field Representative presented this action item requesting the determination of suitability of the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) is mandated under Section 209(e), Welfare and Institution Code (WIC) to determine the “suitability” of all juvenile halls. The request for determination of suitability came as a result of the conditions observed at the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall during the December 22, 2006 CSA on-site visit.

This agenda item was discussed at length at the March 8, 2007 meeting in Fresno. Due to the complexities of this issue the Board voted to carry this agenda item over to the next Board meeting for further discussion and action. Since the March CSA meeting, Sacramento County has maintained the population at the juvenile hall below the limits specified in the April 26, 2006 Suitability Plan (SP). An on site visit was conducted by CSA staff on April 11, 2007. Staff noted that the population and remained below the limits specified in the SP since January 19, 2007 and that the facility appeared neat and clean. The juvenile hall staff reported that the use of force incidents had significantly fallen since the population had been reduced.

The Sacramento County Probation Department submitted an update SP to the Board and staff on April 24, 2007. This SP was reviewed and accepted on April 26, 2007. Based on the observations during the April 11, 2007 on site visit, the population record since January 1, 2007, and the steps taken by the county to mitigate the crowding, the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall appears to be a suitable place for the confinement of minors.

Staff recommended that the CSA determine the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall a suitable place for the confinement of minors contingent upon the following: the county’s conformance to the agree-upon elements contained within the April 27, 2007 SP; the county’s continued submission of monthly population data for each living unit within the juvenile hall; progress reports presented by Sacramento County Probation staff at each bi-monthly CSA Board meeting to provide a report on the status of the crowding at the juvenile hall.

Chief Vern Speirs, Chief Probation Officer for Sacramento County Juvenile Hall appeared before the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and for their consideration on CSA’s staff recommendation, in which they are in-agreement-with. He presented a brief update on their detention risk process and their detention criteria, detention instrument they are using in their risk assessment progress. Chief Speirs introduced Dave Simon, Assistant Chief Deputy, Sacramento Probation Department and Sean Hodgeman, Director, Assessment.Com, whom assisted him with the update.

Mr. Simon stated that four years ago their department began to aggressively pursue a transition that would change the cultural of the department and move towards Evidence Based Practices (EBP). Based on over 30 years of research EBP, their intervention for which there is consistent, scientific evidence demonstrating improved treatment outcomes and reduce the rates of recidivism along offenders. EBP methods focus on measuring the criminal gender factors proving to correlate with risk of offending and re-offending and then targeting offender’s risk and needs with precise effective supervision and treatment services.

In late 2003 Chief Speirs arranged with Dr. Edward Latessa, Chair of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, to take part of his annual ‘Trading Secrets’ conference. The entire management team and all supervising probation officers received two days of training, securing training in organizational development, trained management, and strategic planning. By July 2007 Sacramento Parole Department will have trained and certified all of the sworn officers ranging from line-staff to their most senior managers in motivational interviewing, a highly developed practice for changing behavior.

In November 2005 the department assembled a committee of line-staff through senior managers to research the risk needs assessment instruments for their adult and juvenile populations. These tools are designed to identify individual’s level of risk to re-offend and what specific needs each offender requires in order to best reduce their likelihood of re-offending. After a lengthy process of research and review the committee determined that www.assessment.com was the best choice for their department. Assessment.com is one of the best leading nation providers of software and other serves to help state and county probation agencies more effectively and efficiently manage their day-to-day activity.

Mr. Hodgeman briefly discussed the larger scale assessment tool that the department is in the process of implementing on the juvenile side which is a positive achievement change. The idea of what he can offer is to measure what matters, measure your progress and measure your improvements. The concept of the risk assessment or needs assessment is to use it as the measuring tool for “are we helping the client” or our kids. You have to have a base line approach to determine what you have done and what has worked.

Ms. Silbert asked how many years out has the Assessment.Com done of follow up data. Mr. Hodgeman stated that the assessment process has been validated in Washington, New York and Florida. Ms. Silbert asked in addition to validating the instrument, has there been follow up data on the success of your projections on the kids and how many years out did you follow them. Mr. Hodgeman state that they follow them for seven years in the state of Washington and have been looking to see if it has been appropriately targeting the right intervention. Ms. Silbert asked what the result was of the follow up data for the seven years. Mr. Hodgeman replied that it was appropriately targeting the right interventions. Ms. Silbert asked if they had recidivism data. Mr. Hodgeman stated that there is and would be willing to provide it. Ms. Biondi requested a copy of this data. Mr. Hodgeman informed the members that the progress seems small but it is great progress, it is 4% reduction from the years prior which makes it 60% recidivism, which nationally is going up to 67%.

Mr. Townsy applauded Chief Speirs for the great progress that has been made and asked what in the last three months has occurred to make such a progress. Chief Speirs stated that this process was not an overnight occurrence; it’s been in process since 1997. It is a combination of the programs and bed space capacity. Some of the things that have occurred is the controlled process of booking on violation and probations; issues of juvenile releases, facilitating the youth in a location until a guardian can be found to release the youth to; expanding the GPS program; court has given permission for the department to make decision on administrative time, enabling releasing the youth in half the time; and increased furlough time at the ranch program, youth can serve their time at home.

Mr. Warner thanked them for their presentation and commended Chief Speirs for his leadership. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Wion if we define detention suitability as in a point of time or whether it’s around compliance with the plan. If at one time the population exceeds the 318 count, what is the staff’s recommendation on how the Board should address that? Mr. Wion stated that this Board would have the authority to determine the suitability; they would weigh the previous days that they were within the population count, look at the suitability plan and all the efforts, and determine at that time the suitability, it’s not an automatic ‘you’re out of compliance therefore you’re unsuitable’.

Ms. Biondi was impressed with this improvement but stated that it is not always the overcrowding that creates the situation where kids aren’t getting their schooling, programming, it’s the staffing also. How is it recorded when you have staff issues, like illnesses. Mr. Wion stated that there continues to be on-site visits, inspections, quarterly reports, and if there was a compliance issue with the suitability plan it would be noted. Sacramento County does not have an issue with staffing, its issue is with the population but if this was an issue for this county then it would be part of the suitability plan.

Ms. Petersen commended Chief Speirs and his staff for making a dramatic improvement since the last meeting, not only in numbers but also in making sure the youth are receiving the education that they are entitled to. Ms. Petersen also acknowledged the good minutes from the March Board meeting.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Carol Biondi and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. All Board members voted yes except for Ms. Pamala Gilyard whom abstained. The motion carried.

Mr. Harris thanked Ms. Silbert for hosting the April State Advisory Group meeting at the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco. This is a wonderful facility where rehabilitation is actually implemented there.

STATE ADVISORY GROUP INFORMATION – ROLES AND RESPONSIBIILTIES, OFFICIAL NAME, AND MEETING SCHEDULE (AGENDA ITEM G-1)
Deputy Director Marlon Yarber provided an update to the Board regarding the State Advisory Group (SAG) roles and responsibilities; official name; and meeting schedule.

At the March 8, 2007 Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) meeting, staff was directed to work with SAG members towards the development of their roles and responsibilities in relation to juvenile justice issues. Staff was asked to consider the role the SAG could play in regards to the CSA administration of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program.

At the April 17, 2007 SAG meeting, hosted by the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco, staff presented several options to the members for consideration. In addition to the suggested roles and scenarios presented by staff, Mr. Bernard Warner, Chief Deputy Secretary for the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), addressed the members and asked them to consider among its various activities, fulfilling the role of the State Commission on Juvenile Justice. As detailed in Senate Bill 737, the State Commission on Juvenile Justice if to provide comprehensive oversight, planning, and coordination of efforts leading to the improvement of juvenile justice among state and local agencies.

Upon lengthy discussion, the SAG elected to undertake all of the responsibilities and tasks required of them by federal law, with a plan to reexamine this course in 12 months, and also sub constitute the SAG as the Governor’s Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It is the intent of this committee to fully serve the interest of promoting policies that are progressive and aimed at problem solving in the area of juvenile justice. The committee recommends the CSA Board advocate to the Governor for resources necessary to support this direction. Mr. Warner clarified that he does not have the authority to ask the SAG to fulfill the role of the State Commission on Juvenile Justice but asked the SAG to help in supporting that role.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF MENDOCINO (AGENDA ITEM G-2)
Corrections Consultant Connie Lucero presented State Advisory Group’s (SAG) recommendation to the Board requesting approval of funding of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Mendocino at the level the project originally requested in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The amount requested is $347,813. The Title II Formula Grants Program RFP was released with an anticipated total of up to $7,000,000 to be distributed to local assistance through this RFP process.

At the time staff made the award recommendations to CSA, a review of Title II funding indicated that we should only fund projects totaling $6,500,000. Upon completion of the rating process, staff recommended funding 15 projects at the level they each requested. In an effort to fund as many projects as possible, staff also recommended funding the 16 th rated proposal reducing their request by $107,913 to keep all 16 projects totaling $6,500,000. The Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Mendocino project agreed to the reduced amount and the action was approved by CSA.

In the past month Title II realized a saving of $552,274 in fiscal year 2003 administrative funds which have been moved to local assistance funds. Approving Big Brothers and Big Sisters at the full request of $347,813 will allow the project to fully implement the program they outlined in their rated proposal. The SAG recommended the CSA Board approve funding the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Mendocino at the level the project originally requested $347,813 in the RFP. Ms. Lucero asked if there were any questions. There were no questions.

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

LONG BEACH BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB YOUTH CENTER CONSTRUCTION (AGENDA ITEM H)
Field Representative Aaron Long presented this informational agenda item. The Long Beach Boys & Girls Club (LBBGC) was awarded a Proposition 12 youth center construction grant in 2003 for the amount of $1,000,000. The original construction contract executed by the California Youth Authority was for the term of June 30, 2003 through December 30, 2004. The LBBGC experienced difficulty in obtaining the required local permits to construct a facility during the original contract phase. The California Youth Authority was processing a contract extension at the time that the Youth Center/Youth Shelter Program was transferred to Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) [reorganization of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2005]. CSA completed a contract amendment and extended the construction until June 30, 2007.

The LBBGC did not begin construction of a facility even after the contract extension was approved. The LBBGC reported that the delay in beginning construction inflated the cost and they were seeking additional funding. In February of 2007, CSA received a letter from the LBBGC (dated January 12, 2007) declining the grant award and requesting termination of the contract.

Proposition 12 funds were originally set to expire on June 30, 2005. The former California Youth Authority (now Division of Juvenile Justice) was able to arrange a two-year extension of the Proposition 12 funds prior to transferring the Youth Center/Youth Shelter program to the CSA in April of 2005. Proposition 12 funds must be expended by June 30, 2007.

The CDCR Accounting Office was advised that the $1,000,000.00 was to be disencumbered and reverted to the General Fund. There is insufficient time to develop a new contract with another agency and still have the funds expended prior to the June 30, 2007 deadline.

Mr. Warner asked if the LBBGC spent the money. Mr. Bacigalupo asked if property was purchased or was the plan to expand the existing site. Mr. Long replied that the money was not spent and that LBBGC wanted to expand their existing site but couldn’t get the permits for that site, then they started looking to purchase land near their facility but were not able to complete that purchase.

STC PROGRAM APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 (AGENDA ITEM I)
Deputy Director Debbie Rives updated the Board on the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program.

Every year Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) staff invite agencies to participate in the STC Program. Agencies are requested to submit applications along with an Annual Training Plan by April 15 th. This plan identifies the number of staff by category that they will need to train throughout the year. Each agency is also asked to forecast the number of core courses that they estimate will be required during the next fiscal year.

This application also expresses the intent by submitting agencies to adhere to the established CSA staff selection and training standards and to identify their desire for access to the CSA written selection examination. This application process also reports if an agency is electing to use an alternative exam and their acknowledgement that this alternative exam will meet the minimum prescribed standards of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Currently, approximately 90% of the participating agencies utilize the CSA exam.

This year all prior participating agencies have submitted applications and two additional agencies have joined the STC program for fiscal year 2007/2008. These applications represent 166 local corrections agencies and 13 Community Corrections Facilities throughout the State. A listing of these agencies was provided in Attachment A and B in the packet. (New Agencies: Chula Vista Police Department (PD) and Seaside PD).

There are several benefits for agencies to participate in the STC Program. Access to the CSA entry-level written selection examination; these selection tests are validated instruments that are based directly on the local corrections jobs as they are performed in California. These exams are developed through the collaborative participation of local agency representatives with our research staff to ensure the selection of the best performing candidates in the field.

STC also offers to participants a course certification system; this course certification system is based on industry trends, agency needs, and job relevancy. This process provides for various levels of review of courses that ensures cost effectiveness, job-relatedness, quality of content and delivery, and instructor expertise. This system has become the recognized standard for over 26 years.

Centralized development and maintenance of Core Curricula; the STC Division’s ongoing research and use of local subject matter experts assures job related standardized training for newly hired, entry-level personnel.

Coordinated training documentation and delivery system; STC maintains a statewide training system at no cost to those participating agencies. This system has been created through partnerships with local agencies, community colleges, and private vendors. This system allows agencies the flexibility to address local community needs and issues and deliver courses to the field efficiently maintaining the competency of their workforce.

Lastly, but certainly not least is the benefit of strength by numbers; The STC Program provides the ability for local agencies and practitioners to define a “standard of practice” for California. Local agency participation allows the STC Program to collect information on a continuous basis regarding industry trends, training costs, selection standards, and training efficiencies. This data is then utilized in the research studies and job analyses to provide the best possible selection tools and training delivery systems for all local corrections in the state.

These services have great value to the field and we are very encouraged that the California local corrections community has continued to support and take advantage of the many services and products that STC has to offer. The support we receive speaks to the strong commitment of the local correctional professionals to the areas of selection and training promoting the continued improvement in the quality of the workforce.

Ms. Silbert asked when this was initially funded the training was person-on-person, did we loose this funding and is now primarily computer training? Ms. Penner explained that the money left the Governor’s budget for a period of time and it came back in our budget last year. Ms. Rives stated that training has always occurred by the local agencies and we received funding back this year. Training is extensive and the certification system that we are able to assist them with in order to have the document and validation of it, has continued even in the time when there was no funding. Ms. Penner complimented staff for their incredible effort because all of the corrections system benefit from them.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR TRAINING TITLE 15, SUBCHAPTER 1, SECTION 176, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS ( AGENDA ITEM J)
Field Representative John Prince requested the Board’s approval to review and adopt the recommended revisions to the Minimum Standards Training, Title 15, Section 176, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Section 176 pertains to the minimum training standards for entry-level Juvenile Corrections Officers who wok in local juvenile detention facilities throughout the State.

The job analysis that is the foundation for the 2007 curriculum revision collected job performance information from over 400 Juvenile Corrections Officers and 230 supervisors from 20 local agencies throughout the State. The information was collected through a process that included the following: task force groups; on-site observations; document reviews; and written surveys.

Representatives from local agencies, course instructors, and subject matter experts evaluated the existing curriculum by examining a number of factors, including job analysis information; practitioner and supervisor input; course evaluations from trainees; training provider and instructor input; current trends and new technologies; operating standards for juvenile corrections facilities (Title 15); topical expert consultation (e.g., medical, fire, and life safety, exercise physiology, etc.); other core training course delivery practices. The scope of the revisions focused on the following: instructional objectives; testing methodologies; sequencing of topics; time allocation for topics; and practical considerations for course delivery. The proposed revision calls for an increase to 160 hours from a current standard of 128 hours. These additional 32 hours afford entry-level employees enhance opportunities to master complex skills necessary for successful performance. Major instructional areas that were increased, expanded and refined during the revision process included the following: professionalism and ethics; report writing; communication skills; fire and life safety; defensive tactics; and physical conditioning.

Staff recommended for the purpose of initiating a formal public comment period, approve the recommended revisions to the Minimum Standards for Training, Title 15, Section 176, of the California Code of Regulations, for submission to the Office of Administrative Law; adopt the two proposed public hearings (June 21 st to be chaired by Ms. Gilyard and July 12 th to be chaired by Ms. Penner) including the dates and locations; appoint a CSA Board member to chair public hearing panels for each date.

Ms. Silbert asked if ‘practical considerations for course delivery’ is like role playing. Mr. Prince stated that in the course manual the performance objective identifies exactly what needs to occur in classrooms, whether in discussion or role playing, scenarios, writing reports. It emphasis is to move away from lecture and be much more interactive, transfer of skill from the practitioner to the trainee. Mr. Scott asked if any of it is on-the-job training. Mr. Prince replied that the intent of this course is entry level prior of them going into the institution. Mr. Warner asked if this section pertained to state juvenile correctional officers. Mr. Prince stated that it did not. Ms. Biondi asked if the entire proposed course was available on our website. Mr. Prince stated that the proposed core manual is available. Mr. Prince informed that Board that after the public hearings process if there are any issues, staff will present those issues to the Board and if any revisions need to be made staff will make them.

A motion to approve the staff recommendations was made by
Mr. David Bacigalupo and seconded by Ms. Ed Prieto.
The motion carried.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM K)

Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative, as customary, provided an informational legislative update and a focus on “what’s new” since the last meeting. A Legislation of Interest was handed out.

The legislature has been very busy, keeping Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) in mind there are a total of seven bills with CSA’s name newly written into them, just in the last two months. To provide a picture of the full array of what could potentially be on CSA’s plate, she touched very briefly on each one. None of these bills have passed through the legislature, and therefore have not been signed into law, with the exception of the first one. Assembly Bill (AB) 900 (Solorio), addressing $1.2 billion in jail construction grants, as was addressed in a previous agenda item.

Three bills task CSA with administration of new competitive grant programs: AB 161 (Bass) is related to an unspecified total dollar amount in grants for the purpose of establishing and operating reentry services for offenders – without specification as to state or local; AB 868 (Davis) is related to $2 million in grants for the planning for reentry facilities for parolees leaving prison;
Senate Bill (SB) 390 (Runner) pertains to a yet unspecified amount in grants for gang activity prevention.

Moving in a somewhat opposite direction from adding programs for CSA, is AB 1381 (Nunez) which proposes removing the federal juvenile justice grants administered currently by CSA and placing them under a new Office of Statewide Violence and Gang Prevention within the State Office of Emergency Services.

SB 518 (Migden) tasks CSA with taking steps to ensure that minors in the care of local juvenile detention facilities are afforded certain rights, including age and developmentally appropriate orientation, and would do so by requiring the development of regulations and then monitoring for compliance.

Lastly, SB 959 (Romero) establishes an involuntary home detention program through the use of electronic monitoring, and CSA would be required to collect participant and success rate information from local corrections.

If you are keeping track of the score with these bills in terms of potential impact to CSA, there are six add-ons and one take-away; in some cases with support dollars attached to perform the functions requested, and in some cases not, CSA staff is working to provide our input for amendments to these bills.

Ms. Silbert asked if Ms. Heller was the Legislative Liaison. Ms. Heller informed the members that she is the liaison today but is currently being reassigned, so Mr. Doug Carlile will be taking her position. Mr. Harris commented that any legislative information goes through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Legislative, Ms. Joyce Hayhoe, Legislative Liaison who works directly with Secretary Tilton and then acts as our liaison with the Governor’s office.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (AGENDA ITEM L)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director informed the public if they wish to address the Board they may do so during the Public Comments period. Comments are limited to ten minutes.

Mr. Patrick Wilson made some general comments. He stated it was strange that there are no formal inmates on any of the committees, their voices are shut out. Ms. Biondi clarified that that was an incorrect statement because State Advisory Group does.

Mr. Wilson stated that the legislative has passed the prison expansion budget but there is no parole reform, sentence reform, it’s proposed but it is not passed. So no matter how well trained you are when you are out of prison no one will hire you. The only question now is whether the federal judges are going to take over the prison system or not. Are they going to support the principals and the constitution of not allowing cruel and unusual degrading treatment of those incarcerated or are they going to support the criminal justice industry. There is no incentive for CDCR staff to help rehabilitate any inmate.

An announcement was made informing everyone that the next CSA board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to be held at the Youth Leadership Academy in Orange County.

Meeting adjourned at 11:14 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Originally signed by

YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
Scott Kernan, CDCR, Adult Operations
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Ed Prieto, County Sheriff
William Powers, County Supervisor
Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Mimi Silbert, Local Community-Based Correctional Program
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
Max Scott, Community-Based Youth Service Organization

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
Gary Wion, Field Representative
Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant
Aaron Long, Field Representative
John Prince, Field Representative
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant
Reizo Shibamoto, Secretary, CPP
Tina Perez, Information System Technician

Guests
LaDonna Harris, Alameda County Sheriff’s Department
Doug Austin, Colusa County Sheriff’s Department
Jose Flores, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
Chirld Phipps, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
Keith Nelson, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Crystal Esberg, Lake County Sheriff’s Department
Doug Papagni, Madera County Probation Department
Jim Pearce, Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Marcia Parsons, Monterey County Probation Department
George Malim, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Rod Merydith, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Bill Diyorio, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Robert Johnson, Sacramento 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
Shawn Ayala, Sacramento County Probation Department
Dave Simon, Sacramento County Probation Department
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Ann Sasaki-Madigan, San Diego County Probation Department
Myron Kelso, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Michelle Cole, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Traci Matich, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Rob Reid, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Don Van Buscur, Shasta County
Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA Representative, Tulare County Sheriff’s Department
Sean Hodgeman, Assessment.Com
Jan Myers, Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center
Tom Sawyer, Governor’s Office
Chris Gold, CCSO
John Dietler, Retired CDCR
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Patrick Wilson