Mr. Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director provided an update on the programs administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division.

This agenda item provides an update on several of the programs administered by the CPP Division of CSA, including:  the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding Program (JPCF); Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA); Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCR); Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) Program; and Title II Formula Grants Program.

JPCF (State funds) – The fiscal year (FY) 2006-07 budget included an appropriation of $201.4 million for JPCF to support an array of county probation services targeting at-risk youth, juvenile offenders and their families.  Of this total, $168.7 million helps fund core probation services, and $32.7 million is disbursed to those counties operating juvenile camps/ranches (with allocations based on the participant county’s proportionate number of reported occupied camp/ranch beds each quarter).  To date, the 57 participant counties have submitted invoices totaling over $168.6 million (99.9 percent of the available funds).  In regards to the camp portion of this funding, the total allocation of 32.7 million has been distributed to the 28 counties eligible to receive these funds.

To capture pertinent programmatic data, counties are required to submit semi-annual progress reports identifying the types of programs funded; the services provided through these efforts; the number of youth and families receiving those services; and the extent to which inter-agency collaboration occurred.

We are currently working with counties to reconcile issues with regard to data for 2006-07.  Since June, staff has also assisted counties in finalization of their JPCF Agreements for
FY 2007-08.  Lastly, the 2007-08 Budget Act contains an allocation of $201.4 million for JPCF.

Ms. Biondi asked for clarification on what it means by staff is going to reconcile issues in regards to that which is submitted.  Mr. Yarber explained that we get the reports from counties and they are often times locations in the report where the numbers don’t add up and we try to know what happened so we like to allow the counties explanation on what did occur.  Ms. Biondi asked what if you were made aware of wrong numbers, is there any penalty for that in the legislation, what would you do if a county said they were paying for one program with two of these monies.  Mr. Yarber stated that we don’t have any administrative funds to operate the program but we have a duty to pursue any indication of wrong doing in misappropriation of funds or erroneous reporting; this would be brought back to the Board for direction.

JJCPA – In regards to this program, we have completed approval of the annual applications and updated juvenile justice plans submitted by the 56 participants’ counties within the statutorily required 30 days from submission to the CSA.  This action, combined with notice to the County Auditor Controller, authorizes county expenditures of funds for FY 2007-08.

On July 3rd the JJCPA on-line system was opened to counties so that they could begin reporting on statutorily required outcomes as well as county specific outcomes and expenditures information.  These data, which are due each year on October 15th, are incorporated into the CSA’s annual report to the Legislature on the JJCPA program.

Note that the FY 2005-06 report was highlighted at the March CSA Board meeting in Fresno, and has since been posted on the CSA website after receiving approval from the Governor’s office.  The FY 2007-08 Budget Act contains an allocation of $119 million for JJCPA.

Ms. Biondi stated that the report doesn’t contain all the data, and asked if there is a way to post the information or make the report more comprehensive with the materials we have without creating more work.  Mr. Yarber stated we could pursue this but as mentioned with the JPCF program we’ve had to give on some things, one of those being the amount of work involved in terms of putting together a report such as the JJCPA annual report.  Crunching the numbers is also difficult in that all the programs look different.  Ms. Biondi requested that on the information we have, maybe updating the short descriptions of each counties programs.  Mr. Yarber replied that the history section allows the lay person to be able to see what happened in the past, in case there are questions and should have current information on it also.

MIOCR – The MIOCR grants awarded by the CSA began implementation January 1, 2007.  As with other grant programs, initial activities have largely consisted of recruitment and hiring of project staff (such as sheriff’s deputies or juvenile corrections officers, deputy probation officers, psychiatrists and other clinicians, etc.); training those project staff in evidence-based practices (note that all counties were required to anchor their projects in evidence-based practices); program site selection and development of subcontracts with community-based service providers; and identification and screening of program participants.

As noted in the most recent issue of the MIOCR Matters newsletter which is available on our website, much of the required program training is being provided at a reduced rate or no cost to grantees through our partnership with the California Institute for Mental Health, which received funds from the California Department of Mental Health to support development of evidence-based and promising practices.  Training to date has included session on Functional Family Therapy and Aggression Replacement Therapy.  Future sessions will focus on Crisis Intervention Training, Assertive Community Treatment, and Mental Health Courts.

Despite the focus on startup activities and extended delay of the State budget, many of the projects have begun enrolling participants.

Through July, counties have reported that 221 adult participants and 130 juvenile.  We are collecting demographic, historical and outcome data each month from the projects, and will provide an overview of preliminary findings at the CSA’s meeting in January.

Mr. Yarber was available to answer questions on this matter.  There were no questions.

JABG – Consistent with our administration of the JABG program, we are in the process of reviewing final progress reports from the FY 2006-07 period of implementation and are also processing contracts for the 39 cities and counties eligible for a direct grant award form this program for FY 2007-08.  The first handful of these contracts were signed yesterday.

This program provides funds to states and units of local government to enhance their efforts to combat serious and violent juvenile crime through accountability-based reforms.  We are required to pass through a majority of the funding (75 percent) to eligible units of local government.  Funding amounts for units of local government are based on a formula that takes into account law enforcement expenditures and Part I Violent Crimes.

With the recent approval our Federal Fiscal Year 2007 JABG award from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), staff has initiated discussions with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Accounting Unit to review post-award roles and responsibilities as well as closeout procedures for expiring grants.  This interface along with other measures will aid in the proper administration and full expenditure of current and future JABG funds.

Of recent note regarding JABG, in May, Governor Schwarzenegger announced the California Gang Reduction, Intervention and Prevention Program (CalGRIP), an initiative that will provide $48 million in State and federal funding toward local anti-gang efforts including support for job training, education, and intervention programs for at-risk youth.  CSA has been directed to allocate $1.1 million in uncommitted, discretionary JABG funds toward this purpose.  With the signing of the budget we anticipate further instruction from the Governor’s office regarding CalGRIP.

Ms. Biondi asked if it is separated juvenile and adult or is it general.  Mr. Yarber believed our portion is dedicated towards juvenile programs only.  CalGRIP has a larger focus but may include young adults as well.  Ms. Biondi asked if the $1.1 million is juvenile.  Mr. Yarber responded yes.

Title II Formula Grant Program (federal funds) – The Title II grants awarded by the CSA began implementation April 1, 2007.  The 16 new Title II grantees have for the most part completed typical startup activities, such as hiring staff and developing client referral processes.

Consistent with priority areas outlined in our State Plan, Grants were awarded in four program purpose areas, Substance Abuse Treatment; Gender Specific Services; Gang Prevention and Intervention; and Aftercare and Reentry Services.

Additionally, in June, each of the project directors attended the Title II Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) training provided by CSA in collaboration with Monique Morris, a nationally know expert and current Senior Research Fellow at University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Ms. Morris facilitated a DMC expert panel discussion that included “lessons learned” that participants were able to take back to their own agencies and communities.

Panel members included State Advisory Committee member Sandra McBrayer;
Dr. Barry Krisberg, President of NCCD; Julie Posadas Guzman, co-founder of the Girls Justice Initiative; and Chief Probation Officer Judy Cox from Santa Cruz County.  This training opportunity was very well received by those in attendance.

Ms. Shalinee Hunter, Corrections Consultant presented this agenda item requesting approval to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to award up to $200,000 of federal funds for the Enhance Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Project (DMC-TAP) Process Evaluation.

In November 2006, Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) awarded phase one of the Enhance DMC-TAP grants to Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Cruz county probation departments.  For the purpose of developing department infrastructure towards Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) reduction.  At that time CSA also dedicated $200,000 in available federal funds for an independent process evaluation designed to identify the projects operational strengths and limitations and to elicit recommendations from the participants for improvement.  This process evaluation is slated to begin in January 2008 in all five counties and simultaneously going to start with the second phase of the Enhanced DMC-TAP grant stakeholder collaboration.  The funds for the process evaluation must be distributed through a competitive RFP process.

The Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (ACJJD) previously known as the State Advisory Group (SAG) established a DMC Subcommittee made up of subject matter experts and chaired by committee member Sandra McBrayer of the San Diego Children’s Initiative.  The eight-member Subcommittee convened July 17th to develop the RFP.  This process focused on addressing seven key issues and defining the rating criteria and has resulted in the draft RFP.  There are several items of interest about this RFP.  The ACJJD was interested in finding out what works within the pioneering approach of the Enhanced DMC-TAP grant by better understanding the environments in which the required activities were implemented.  The process used to implement these activities and the impact of program fidelity on the desired outcomes.  The Subcommittee members fully embraced the principals of cultural confidence and embedded the cultural competency requirements into the RFP itself.  The DMC Subcommittee members would be responsible for the proposal merit review process.

The Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) program involved the web based training that was very well received by the raters.  CSA staff will be using that same innovative technique which proved to be a really effective way of showing the ability of the process.  Staff recommends that the Board approve the issuance of the RFP recommended by the DMC Subcommittee for the Enhanced DMC-TAP Process Evaluation grant.

Mr. Warner asked if the monies awarded to the five counties were sent out.  Ms. Hunter stated that they went out January 1, 2007.  Mr. Warner commented that there were three phases that would culminate in December 2009 and that this scope of work will start the process evaluation January 2008.  Ms. Hunter agreed.  Mr. Warner asked if technical assistance to the five counties receiving the grant would be provided.  Ms. Hunter explained that they wouldn’t be receiving technical assistance.  That they are actually being evaluated on the processes that are currently underway so that process evaluation includes data analysis and collection and part of that was to involve DMC experts that then the county could solicit.  So that first year the evaluation that this money will go towards as the process evaluator identified will then go back and evaluate how that process took place.  Mr. Warner stated that is just seems a little premature to be looking at a new process this early in a three phase effort.  Ms. Hunter replied that it actually should have started simultaneously with the beginning of the DMC-TAP grant and at the time we didn’t have the resources to simultaneously release two RFP’s on one particular program.  Process evaluations typically start at the same time as the actual activities are being undertaken so we are actually behind the ball and what we are trying to do to make up for this is allowing for once the evaluators have been identified, they will have access to all the information immediately so they can do some of the background research and then start the focus groups and the actual evaluation process in order to catch up to speed this first year and as we move into the second year.

Mr. Warner asked some questions.  What is the difference between process evaluation and how that relates to outcomes?  There are several DMC grants, how does that affect DMC within the system?  Is it billed toward looking at an outcome evaluation to see what the change in those jurisdictions?

Ms. Hunter responded that certainly the DMC Subcommittee and the ACJJD were looking to this process evaluation to identify how the State can move forward.  The local jurisdictions are collecting local data, that’s a big part of what the first year is all about, is looking at the data analysis and coming up with policies that may impact those overrepresentation numbers.  We do collect that information both on a quarterly report and through monitoring.  At the site visits, we have been out in the field making sure these things are undertaken.  The combination of all that information, the process evaluation and also quantitative information that each county pulls together should guide the State in eventually moving forward or what we are going to do from here.

Ms. Hunter continued stating, part of what makes this process worthwhile in measuring is innovative.  No other state has focused on infrastructure department wide towards DMC reduction so the education component for the first year sets it aside from what other jurisdictions in other states have proceeded in the past.  We are hoping that through this, this will show that this is actually the best approach.

Ms. Biondi commented that since the goal of the first phase was system change in the infrastructure, she would like to see the evaluator actually review the first phase.  She didn’t think it is second nature for the departments to automatically think about anything they put in place or even policies they already have as being in conflict, hypothetical, if a minor has gone home, the parents receive a $5,000 bill for the child’s incarceration, the parent is an undocumented person doesn’t have the inability to pay and they lien his car.  That has tremendous minority negative implications and if we have processes even if they aren’t policies, ways that departments have been doing this all along, but the evaluator would have no requirement or opportunity to review some of the practices, there might be information lost.  Would it be possible to make it slightly more explicit in the RFP that they spend some time reviewing policies or practices that could really negatively impact their minority?  Ms. Hunter stated that certainly we could add whatever additional language you might like to go along with that.  They through the proposal process are required to indicate through references and work products have experience in handling both the juvenile justice system as well as the preference points that they have experienced to in regards to disproportionality.  Part of what their evaluation design component is supposed to shed light on is to illustrate what is their plan for that first phase.  They do have to be able to, the raters will be reviewing that plan and if they don’t indicate that they are going to involve that first phase I would certainly imagine that the raters will not score them very high so our intent is through that process we will weed out evaluators that don’t know an accurate explanation of what they plan on measuring that they would not be given the grant.  Ms. Biondi asked if Ms. Hunter thought the language that’s already included is responsive to her concern.  Ms. Hunter thought that it does and asked for
Ms. Gilyard’s input.  Ms. Gilyard stated the Subcommittee did discuss this and it would be better to have greater detail to the items that they look at.  Ms. Hunter would be available to discuss further.

Ms. Hunter made the Board aware that she is the DMC coordinator at the state level; and the three phases that are occurring at the local level, each one of those jurisdictions have a coordinator at the local level.

Deputy Director Debbie Rives presented this action item regarding the Minimum Standards for Training.

At the May 10, 2007 meeting, the Board had approved the modifications to the proposed regulation changes to Title 15, Section 176 of the California Code of Regulations for the purpose of initiating a formal public comment period.  The Board also adopted the two proposed public hearings recommended by the staff and Ms. Pamala Gilyard to chair the public hearing panels.

The two public hearings were held on July 12, 2007 in Orange County and on August 16, 2007 in Sacramento County.  No comments were received during the 45-day public comment period or at the public hearings.  As a result this is a follow up that we are coming back to the Board to advise of that and are now desiring to submit the rulemaking files to the Office of Administration Law and we recommended to the Board to first approve the modifications to the proposed regulation changes to Title 15, Minimum Standards for Training and secondly to authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Ms. Biondi asked if this is only adult or adult and juvenile.  Ms. Rives stated that 176 goes on to juvenile corrections officer core, an increase to 160 hours.  Mr. Penrod asked what it was before.  Ms. Rives replied 128 hours.

Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided a brief legislative update.

The biggest news since the last meeting was the signing and enactment of the Budget Act and all the corresponding Budget Trailer Bills.  The Budget Act is comprised of Senate Bill (SB) 77 and SB 78.  The Corrections’ Omnibus Budget Trailer Bill is SB 81.  SB 81 predominantly deals with the realignment of the DJJ population (non 707b’s).

Governor’s Signing Message of SB 81 - The relevant portion of the signing message in the bill summary of SB 81 on the Legislation of Interest Report.  The Governor recognizes several implementation hurdles including the need to clarify responsibilities and lack of resources.

Assembly Bill (AB) 191 which is currently on its way to the Governor which would, among other things, clean-up several provisions contained within SB 81 directly relating to the DJJ population realignment.  As far as CSA impact, it modifies the two probation pilot projects language to provide that CSA is no longer required to design and implement the pilot projects.

Finally, AB 890 (Aghazerian) which would have reconstituted the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST), did not pass out of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  When CPOST was abolished some of its duties and responsibilities were given to CSA.  You may visit the Legislative Counsel’s website at www.leginfo.ca.gov for more detailed information.

Ms. Biondi asked about SB 718 regarding the jails and inmate welfare fund and the ten percent of the funds that could be used for the local facilities.  Did it pass and does it apply to juvenile and adult, would juvenile halls also get ten percent of the charges?  Ms. Heller stated that as September 6th it was enrolled and is on its way to the Governor.  She does not believe that juvenile halls would get the 10 percent.  Mr. Harris suggested to confirm this and to make sure who it applies to, adult or juvenile and sending Ms. Biondi the results.

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.

There were no comments from the public.

An announcement was made informing everyone that the next CSA board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Napa County and the Board meeting calendar for 2008 would be discussed.  Also, the next State Advisory Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

Meeting adjourned at 10:33 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 Offenders
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Ed Prieto, Sheriff, Yolo County
Gary Penrod, Sheriff, San Bernardino County
William Powers, County Supervisor
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
Cleo 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, CFC
Gary Wion, Deputy Director, FSO
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director, STC
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant
Shalinee Hunter, Corrections Consultant
Dollye Dockery, AISA Supervisor
Patricia Sanchez, IT
Reizo Shibamoto, Division Secretary
Melinda Ciarabellini, Field Representative
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant

Guests

LaDonna Harris, Alameda County Sheriff’s Department
Dennis Huberty, Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department
Jose Flores, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
Doug Papagni, Madera County Department of Corrections
Tim Pearce, Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Ray MacLaughlin, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Marcia Parsons, Monterey County Probation Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Bill Diyorio, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
Edward Escamilla, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Rob Reid, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Steven Hendrickson, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Michelle Cole, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Tracy Matich, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Lewis McElfresh, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA Representative, Tulare County Sheriff’s Department
Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting
Jerry Scribner, Ellison-Wilson Advocacy
Tom Romstad, City of Santee
Elizabeth Howard, California State Association of Counties
Rosemary Lamb, California State Association of Counties
Chris Gold, CCSO
John Dietler, Retired CDC
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group