Board of Corrections Meeting,Thursday, September 19, 2002

Executive Director Thom McConnell introduced newly appointed Board members: Robert E. Hoffman (Administrator, Local Detention Facility) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Billy J. Nettles (Rank and File Representative-Juvenile), Los Angeles County Probation Department; and Gary W. Mann (Rank and File Representative-Adult) Men’s Central Jail, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Chairman Robert Presley then asked the new members to join him next to the flag and raise their right hands for the swearing in. The Chairman read the Oath of Office and had the new members repeat the oath. Chairman Presley then welcomed members, Hoffman, Nettles, and Mann to the Board.

Chairman Presley called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. and declared the presence of a quorum.

Chairman Presley asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the May 16, 2002, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Curtis Hill and seconded by Mr. Tom Soto. The motion carried.

Chairman Presley opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice Chair for the Board of Corrections. Member Don Sheetz stated he was pleased to nominate Member Tom Soto for the position of Vice Chair. Chairman Presley stated that Mr. Soto is currently the longest standing member of this Board. He has distinguished himself with years of service to this Board by serving and participating on many different Executive Steering Committees. Mr. Soto is currently serving on the Executive Steering Committee for the Juvenile Regulations Revision. So please join me, if you would, in accepting into nomination the name of Mr. Tom Soto for the position of Vice Chair.

A motion to accept the nomination of Mr. Tom Soto for the position of Vice Chair for the Board of Correction was made by Mr. Don Sheetz and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

Chairman Presley asked if there were any other nominations. There were none. The Chairman declared the nominations closed and called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Soto. The Board voted unanimously for the election of Mr. Soto as Vice Chair. Chairman Presley congratulated Mr. Soto on his appointment. Mr. Soto thanked the Board and Mr. Sheetz for his nomination.

Number of Board Meetings for Calendar Year 2003 (Agenda Item C-1)

Mr. McConnell reported that as was the case last year, the State of California is still struggling through very difficult times with regard to budget and fiscal issues. As a result of the state’s fiscal situation, the Board of Corrections (BOC) last year reduced its meetings by 50% and held only three meetings. Chairman Presley has determined that the BOC can save critical State General Fund dollars, while conducting all necessary BOC business, by continuing on a reduced schedule for calendar year 2003. He has ordered, however, that the number of meetings be increased from three to four.

The Board’s meeting dates for calendar year 2003 are January 16, April 17, July 17, and October 16.

Location for 2003 Board Meetings (Agenda Item C-2)

Consistent with past practice, the Board determines the locations of its meetings by vote. The BOC has received requests from the counties of Placer and Ventura to host a meeting. Staff made the following recommendations regarding meeting locations for 2003:

A motion to accept the recommended meeting locations for calendar year 2003 was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky. The motion carried.

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

Deputy Director Toni Hafey congratulated Mr. Soto on his appointment as Vice Chair and newly appointed Board members Robert Hoffman, Bill Nettles and Gary Mann. Ms. Hafey stated this item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes.

Ms. Hafey stated that the agenda packet reflects ten county requests, eight juvenile construction projects and two adult projects. As noted in the information, there is one scope change increasing the number of beds; three timeline changes necessitated by federal environmental requirements, necessary design changes, and subcontractor performance; and six grant award changes due to nearly $1.7 million in reverted funds due to bids that were accepted significantly below what the counties had anticipated on their projects.

Ms. Hafey asked if the Board had any questions regarding the material presented, there were none.

Request for Time Extension – Contra Costa County (Agenda Item E)

Ms. Hafey stated this agenda item is Contra Costa County’s request for a nine-month extension to the construction completion date, moving the approved date from June 30, 2003 to March 31, 2004, to accommodate a number of unforeseen circumstances that added time to the project. A memo from Contra Costa County dated August 26, 2002 requesting the extension was included in the agenda packet.

The request focuses on three key areas: 1) delays caused by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The Board awarded Contra Costa’s grant on May 20, 1999. At that time the federal government determined that NEPA did not apply; however, this ruling was later reversed and NEPA was retroactively applied. BOC staff was precluded from issuing an approval of the County’s construction bidding documents until the federal government issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” for the project. Contra Costa County could not proceed to bid the construction project nor commence construction until approval was received. The County planned to fast track the project through two separate competitive bid packages. The first bid package would have been for the site work (Phase I), and then the County would have bid the grant funded construction portion of the project (Phase II). This could not occur with the federal NEPA requirements.

2) There were a number of unforeseen site complexities. The County’s initial planning studies and the grant awarded by the BOC anticipated a stand-alone 240-bed expansion building that would be adjacent to the existing juvenile hall. However, as the schematic design concept developed, it was clear that there would be some inefficiencies in the design and the expansion needed to be fully integrated with the existing juvenile facility and physically connected. This was no easy task. There were issues related to utilities relocation, undocumented underground utilities, wet expansive soils and excavation, and residential property owners did not want to see the facility from where they lived.

Because of the concern of the residential property owners, this expansion needed to be strategically located below an extensive tree line that defines the property line and is outside of the security perimeter. To accommodate concerns about the height of the facility not exceeding the tree line, the site has been excavated to allow a portion of the expansion to set substantially below the ground floor. Further, there were special procedures to mitigate the impact to ongoing operations such as intake, courts, and visiting while maintaining the facility’s secure perimeter.

3) The last issue has been contractor performance. The general contractor has not kept pace with the aggressive schedule outlined in the construction contract. Changes have also occurred to the on-site superintendent and field engineering staff during the first four months of the project that further exacerbated an already difficult situation. Staff has met with County officials on several occasions and the County’s project management consultant has agreed to have full-time on-site construction managers and inspectors who will monitor construction progress, cost, and quality during the course of the project.

If the BOC approves this request, BOC staff will also provide on-site monitoring of the project and reimburse the County for performance consistent with the anticipated expenditure and performance targets included in the County’s request. The County will be required to submit written progress reports prior to each Board meeting and to appear at all subsequent Board meetings until the project is complete. The County has a significant financial commitment to this project and is highly motivated to complete the project consistent with the proposed revised time frame. In addition to the $22 million grant from the BOC, Contra Costa County committed to over 40% cash match or $9 million and also provided another $2 million to the project when the bids came in higher than anticipated.

BOC approval of this request would be contingent upon staff seeking a technical change to the 1998-99 Budget Act to allow for these federal funds to be reappropriated and available through Fiscal Year 2003-04. At the time the grant was awarded to Contra Costa County, federal funds were only available through June 30, 2003. However, because of subsequent grant supplements, VOI/TIS funds consist of one grant that is available, consistent with federal guidelines, through September 2006.

Ms. Hafey stated that Mr. John Sweeten, the County Administrative Officer, is here today and Chief Probation Officer Steve Baptista, as well as project staff, should the Board have any questions about the project.

Chairman Presley stated that his understanding is that there will be no additional costs to the state for this project. Ms. Hafey responded that is correct.

A motion to authorize extension of the construction completion date from June 30, 2003 to March 31, 2004; require the County to complete written progress reports for BOC review and to appear at subsequent BOC meetings to address project progress; require BOC staff to conduct on-site monitorings of the project to ensure progress and to reimburse the County based upon performance consistent with the expenditure and performance targets included in the County’s August 26, 2002 request; and further, the County’s request is contingent upon staff seeking a technical change to the 1998-99 Budget Act to allow for federal funds to be reappropriated and made available through Fiscal Year 2003-04 was made by Mr. Edward Alameida and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

State Construction Grant - Reallocation of Grant Funds (Agenda Item F)

Deputy Director Toni Hafey stated this agenda item provides a staff recommendation for the distribution of $1,020,885 in juvenile construction funds to Sacramento County to supplement its current partial grant to expand the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center by 60 beds. These supplemental funds are available from the State General Funds reverted from Santa Clara County. Staff is also recommending that the Board (consistent with past practice) provide staff authority to supplement Sacramento County’s project with any additional reverted funds from the 2000/2001 construction grant fund allocation, until such time as the project reaches the maximum eligible grant award of $4,624,201.

Provided in the agenda packet was a rank-ordered list of juvenile construction projects that was established on May 17, 2001. At that time, twelfth-ranked Sacramento County received a partial grant award of $2,325,069, and requested that the Board supplement its grant up to the fully requested and eligible amount of over $4.6 million if grant funds reverted from higher ranked projects. Sacramento County filed a letter with the Board (August 10, 2001) regarding the request for reverted funds, which is included in the agenda packet.

Santa Clara County (also on the rank-ordered list) accepted a construction bid for less than the Board grant award for its 210-bed juvenile hall housing unit replacement and expansion project and is in the process of executing a state/county grant contract for $20,071,384 (versus the Board’s grant award of $21,092,269). The BOC received a letter dated August 26, 2002, from Santa Clara County confirming the reversion of the grant balance of $1,020,885.

Therefore, consistent with the Board’s past practice, staff recommends that Sacramento County’s Warren E. Thornton Project grant be supplemented in the amount of $1,020,885 and that the Board further authorize staff to supplement the grant up to the fully eligible amount from any dollars that are reverted from the rank-ordered list.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to award a grant supplement of $1,020,885 to Sacramento County for the 60-bed expansion of the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center (BOC Project #057-00) to increase the grant award to $3,345,954 and to authorize staff to continue to supplement Sacramento County should any additional 2001 reverted funds become available, until such time as the project is funded to the maximum eligible amount of $4,624,201 was made by Mr. Curtis Hill and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants – Marin County Presentation (Agenda Item G)

Field Representative Darryl Datwyler stated that this agenda item would provide the Board with an overview of the demonstration project implemented by Marin County. Mr. Datwyler introduced presenter Miles Kramer, a licensed clinical social worker who manages the day-to-day operations for Marin County’s STAR project.

Mr. Kramer said that he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Board about a program that he believes in. Mr. Kramer said that the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant in Marin County was funded in July 2001, however the County spent the first six months of the program locating and hiring staff. He gave the following overview for the STAR (Support and Treatment After Release) program in Marin County:

Mr. Kramer stated that the program offers the assertive community treatment model with some modifications. He said one of the most interesting things about the program is their extensive use of mental health peers. Mental health peers are individuals, who also suffer with mental illness, that work directly with mental health consumers.

The Marin County STAR program has been recognized nationally. The PBS network will broadcast a program entitled “Visionaries” in late October, which will document the STAR program and the restorative policing efforts that have been developed in Marin County.

The STAR program has extensive ties with the Criminal Justice Services, Public Defender’s Office, District Attorneys Office, and Community-Based Organizations. The program has designated liaison officers from every single law enforcement jurisdiction in the county, with the exception of the California Highway Patrol. Out on the street these organizations are the “eyes and ears” for the STAR program in the community. The STAR program staff don’t just show up when the clients are in need of being corrected or behaviorally modified, but they are also available in a supportive capacity and are very involved in an advocacy role. When a social worker tries to get a community program to open a door to a mentally ill offender, they sometimes don’t have near the success that a law enforcement officer does.

In the summer of 2002, while the public broadcast documentary was being made, a focus group met that included many mental health peers and stakeholders. One of the staff members was quoted as asking “if you drew a picture of all the different agencies involved what would the organization chart look like?” A woman who has lived her entire life with major depression and many hospitalizations, and is now the coordinator for the Peer Provider Program in Marin County said, “just imagine a circle and we are all in there.” Mr. Kramer said that is pretty much the way they work. The partnership that occurs in Marin County is very uncommon. Because there is good communication between the partners, they are able to coordinate care in ways that other organizations may have difficulty with.

Mr. Kramer said the eleven Mental Health Liaison Officers on staff are not funded solely by Marin County. The County gives a stipend to each department to backfill for overtime and makes those officers available to support the program out in the field. One of the first things the program implements when they hire a new staff or intern is to send them out for a ride-along in a patrol car for the day. Most mental health staff do not have this experience and they usually enjoy it. On staff are a couple of case managers, one peer provider, a dedicated nurse and a dedicated doctor, so when a client has a medical concern, they are able to examine the client instead of referring the client out. Because of budgetary reductions, one probation service position and one peer provider position will not be filled.

Mr. Kramer stated that program enrollment began January 14, 2002. They currently serve 37 clients, eight of which are in the control group, which is lower than anticipated. Twelve clients are women and 25 are men. What complicates this population is the level of dual disorders and substance abuse, which is much higher than anyone anticipated. The most prominent diagnosis is major depression. When a person gets hopeless, it doesn’t take much for them to get arrested. The population that is diagnosed with schizophrenic disorders is also commonly arrested for minor crimes.

Listed below are positive program highlights and program challenges presented by Mr. Kramer:

Mr. Kramer shared a story about a STAR participant who is diagnosed as Bipolar and her success since enrollment in the program. Marjorie (not her real name) is currently training to be a peer counselor. After five years of homelessness, she is off the street and much engaged in treatment. The peer provider that works with Marjorie had a lot to do with her success. One of the things that peer providers say is, “I’ve been there, you can’t tell me what it’s not like.” These folks like to compare war stories and this was a turning point for Marjorie.

Board member Mimi Silbert asked how much of the treatment is medication versus interpersonal? Mr. Kramer said in Marjorie’s case, a lot of it was medication. In Bipolar disorders medication is part of the treatment. Getting a participant to believe and trust in the medication, regular dialogue with a psychiatrist and someone to provide treatment is the interpersonal piece. Mr. Kramer said he believes this program is very successful, and they are regretful that they won’t run it as long as they originally planned, but the positive is they did have some sense of infrastructure in this area prior to the funding. What is deeply regrettable for him and others is the state’s situation because community mental health across California will be facing cuts and these are the sorts of programs that seem the first to go, since these are the individuals that are the most difficult, most resource intensive, and most time intensive to serve.

Mr. Kramer stated he has fears for clients like Marjorie. Hopefully, the clients that have progressed in the program and are stable will continue to be so. Clients that are still a little resistant are slowly moving away from their criminal behaviors, but there may not be enough time because of the fiscal situation. He said they would continue to do what is needed and continue to believe in what they do. Mr. Kramer thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak about the program today.

Mr. Harper asked what the age cut off is for their clients. Mr. Kramer said, interestingly enough, they operate an adult program, which means clients must be 18 years old. But, there is one case manager who has developed an almost entirely youth-in-transition caseload. She has ten to twelve clients that are between the ages of 18 and 20. He said what is interesting in the youth system, at least in mental health, is when a youth acts out they are counseled and when an adult acts out they get booked and processed. That comes as a surprise to the average 18 year old. These findings will be presented at this year’s Forensic Mental Health Association Conference in Asilomar. The youth-in-transition caseload will be discussed in-depth there.

Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) Update (Agenda Item H)

Field Representative Fred Morawcznski stated this agenda item would provide the Board with an update of activities associated with administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) since the BOC meeting on May 16, 2002. This Act has been known by several different titles over the last three to four years starting with AB 1913, which is the legislation that initiated it; the Schiff-Cardenas Act, named after two legislators who were pivotal to its passage and the Crime Prevention Act of 2000. Since the ongoing funding is anticipated, it has been renamed the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. Mr. Morawcznski reported that the JJCPA was funded for FY 2002-2003 for $116.3 million, which will extend program operations through June 30, 2004.

Since July 2000, there has been nearly $238 million allocated to local jurisdictions. Another $116.3 million is scheduled for allocation this fiscal year. Specifically, 56 counties have applied for this money, and the program is operating 190 individual juvenile justice programs statewide. As previously reported, the BOC developed an on-line reporting system for counties to report on program outcomes and expenditures. This system not only allows counties to report information, but also allows them to make an on-line application modification to their particular programs. BOC staff recently made some amendments/adjustments to the on-line system. In August of this year, workshops were held in Sacramento and Rancho Cucamonga to solicit input from counties and provide the necessary information to utilize the on-line system effectively.

On April 6, 2002, the Governor signed SB 823, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2002. This action made clarifications to the existing law regarding the expenditure of funds. Counties are now required to report outcome and expenditure data annually to the BOC by October 15, and the BOC is required to report annually to the Governor and the Legislature beginning March 15, 2003.

Standards and Training for Local Corrections Officers and Probation Officers, Title 15, California Code of Regulations-Consider for Adoption the Executive Steering Committee’s Recommendations and Establish a Public Comment Period (Agenda Item I)

Deputy Director Jim Sida extended a warm welcome to the new members of the Board. Mr. Sida stated that at the November 15, 2001 meeting, the Board of Corrections directed staff to begin the Minimum Standards for the Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers Review and Revision Process and reiterated that Chairman Presley appointed then Board member Taylor Moorehead as chair and Board member Linda Duffy as co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to facilitate the process.

On January 17, 2002, the Board appointed a 13-member ESC. The ESC subsequently met on March 13 & 14, 2002 and engaged in organizational and priority setting business, received constituent and public input regarding the regulations, received BOC staff recommendations and identified issues for assignment to workgroups. At the conclusion of this meeting, the ESC accepted for recommendation minor non-substantive changes to the regulations as supported by BOC staff. Most of the minor changes dealt with aligning the regulations with the STC automated on-line administration system.

The ESC charged staff with assembling workgroups to review and make recommendations concerning Title 15, Sections 131, 182, 184 and 261. Three workgroups were convened on dates in April, May, and June 2002. The workgroups consisted of 26 individuals representing urban, rural, and suburban areas throughout the state.

Mr. Sida briefly went over sections 131, 182, 184, and 261.

Section 131 - Selection of New Candidates

The ESC directed the workgroup to consider a revision that would specify guidelines as to how background investigations of new employees were to be conducted. Currently, the selection standard for background investigations is a procedural standard. That is, participating departments are required to conduct a background investigation, but the Board does not spell out what this investigation must cover. The workgroup was asked to examine the need for possible STC guidelines. The workgroup recommended no change in the regulation based on the fact that most agencies are using the POST background investigation guidelines. The ESC did recommend however, the BOC continue to support the Chief Probation Officers of California in any future efforts to develop a comprehensive background investigation guideline.

Section 131 (a) (5) - Probationary Period for New Hires

Current regulations require competence in the performance of entry-level duties as demonstrated by successful completion of the probationary period. This particular standard is procedural. The BOC does not set a timeline for the length of time a person is on probation. BOC staff recommend a change only if the necessary research was conducted to ensure legal defensibility and a state budget allocation was made available to support that effort. After discussion and polling of counties, the workgroup recommended no change in the regulation and the ESC did adopt that recommendation.

Section 182 – Probation Command College

The ESC directed a workgroup to consider a revision that would permit the Probation Command College (PCC) to be substituted for the Manager/Administrator Core Course. The Manager/Administrator Core Course is currently an 80-hour course that provides baseline training in management and administrative skills. The workgroup identified that the PCC is actually an advanced course that builds on those basic skills, and therefore, the workgroup did not recommend the substitution of the PCC. The ESC adopted the workgroup’s recommendation. The ESC does recommend continued support by the BOC in the development of courses to enhance management skills.

Section 184 – “Annual” Hourly Training Standard

The workgroup was directed to examine the “annual” hourly training standard for various STC job classifications. Currently the journey level standards vary among the different disciplines. Some of the factors the workgroup considered included: existing training practices throughout the state; complexity of duties in the various job classifications; variety of assignments performed by the various job classifications. The workgroup recommended no changes in the regulation.

The ESC is recommending that the BOC direct staff to assemble another workgroup comprised of members of the current ESC to conduct a comprehensive and detailed analysis of this issue, which may result in a requested change to the regulation at a later time.

Section 261 – Issuance of Certificates of Course Completion

The workgroup was directed to consider a revision that would require training providers to issue certificates of course completion to each trainee, each time a trainee completes an STC certified training course. On average, approximately 8,000 course presentations occur each year for regularly certified STC courses. Approximately 160,000 course certificates would be generated each year, if all trainees received a certificate upon completion of each course.

The workgroup recommended the following changes to the regulations: adopt new language enabling (permissive) the BOC to require a training certificate to be issued to trainees for all core courses; seek a recommendation from the ESC that STC staff incorporate language in the Policies and Procedures Manual for Participating Departments that local agencies make training records available to staff upon request for a designated period of time (e.g. that records be available for three years after the training is completed); policy change requiring training providers to issue certificates for the successful completion of core courses.

Mr. Sida stated as a result of the review of regulations for Selection and Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers, the ESC recommends the following changes to the STC Policies and Procedures Manual for Participating Departments and Training Providers be approved.

Mr. Sida extended an invitation to all ESC members and Board members to attend the public hearings and serve on the panels.

Member Curtis Hill wanted to know who would be responsible for storing the training records for three years, and who would provide copies of the training records when they are requested? Mr. Sida stated it would be the responsibility of the eligible participants agency.

Member Gary Mann asked if certificates of completion are being issued only for core courses. Mr. Sida said that is correct. The rationale being the core-training certificate could be used for those individuals seeking a lateral entry type position. Member Mann wanted to know if certificates are currently being issued statewide for core training. Mr. Sida stated that certificates are issued, but there is no regulation requiring that it be presented to the individual. This change would require that a certificate of completion be issued to the participant.

Mr. McConnell stated the department often kept the training certificate for the employee in their personnel file. If this change were implemented, the department would then be responsible for giving a copy to the employee for his/her personal file.

A motion to 1) adopt revisions recommended by the ESC to the Minimum Standards for the Selection and Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers, Title 15, CCR, for the purpose of beginning the public comment period; 2) adopt changes to the STC Policies and Procedures; 3) direct staff to commence with the public comment period; and 4) adopt the proposed public hearing dates and appoint panel chairpersons was made by Mr. Tom Soto and seconded by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky. The motion carried.

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

Mr. Crout stated that this is the sixth report from San Bernardino County Probation Department outlining the progress made to date on their agreed-upon timeline for these efforts. The Probation Department has continued to work on a number of elements contained in their Suitability Plan and their Emergency Response Plan. The estimated completion date for some of these projects has fallen behind schedule due to unforeseen circumstances; however, the county continues to be dedicated to complying with the agreements made in this process.

Mr. Crout stated that the San Bernardino County Probation Department has consistently maintained its strong commitment to meeting the goals of its Suitability Plan and Emergency Response Plan. Although there have been deviations from the original ERP in some areas, there have also been significant mitigating measures taken by the county to ensure the overall success of the ERP. Perhaps the most meaningful measurement of the county’s success is the declining overall average daily population (ADP) at the juvenile hall (reduced by one third). BOC staff report their confidence in the county to continue to successfully implement their Suitability Plan and ERP until their new West Valley facility is open and the ultimate goal of the ERP is met.

Mr. Crout introduced Chief Probation Officer Ray Wingerd of San Bernardino County who would present the county’s report. Chief Wingerd stated he has seen this as a real partnership between the County of San Bernardino and the Board of Corrections. He said he appreciates the working relationship with BOC staff Charlene Aboytes, Bill Crout, Toni Hafey, and others. Chief Wingerd stated he would be reporting on the program elements of the Suitability Plan and the ERP:

Chief Wingerd stated there has been some remodeling done in the High Desert Probation Office. Within a month or two the county will be operating a Day Reporting Center out of their own probation office in Victorville. They are still searching for a site in the west end of the county.

Chief Wingerd stated that he was pleased to report that throughout the summer, with the addition of another 5-ton air conditioning unit, they were able to keep the temperature in the tents at a comfortable level. Chief Wingerd was also pleased to report there have been no significant behavioral incidents in the tents. Any issues regarding the tents have been related to the mechanics of heating and cooling.

San Bernardino County is projecting to move the minors out of the tents and into the West Valley Juvenile Hall in December 2002. A dedication ceremony for the new hall is scheduled for October 31, 2002. As soon as the minors are moved to the new hall the tents will be closed permanently. Chief Wingerd stated that the West Valley Juvenile Hall was partially funded with construction grants through the Board of Corrections.

The county broke ground for the 200-bed High Desert Juvenile Hall in August 2002. Ms. Hafey represented the BOC at the groundbreaking ceremony and will also be in attendance at the West Valley dedication. Chief Wingerd said they appreciated Ms. Hafey’s attendance. The High Desert Juvenile Hall will be a two-year project targeted for completion in June 2004.

The County Board of Supervisors has approved a contract with Vision Quest to assist the county in meeting its placement needs. Vision Quest has purchased 10 acres in Hesperia and is scheduled to start construction of a 144-bed facility in January 2003. Out of the 144 beds available, San Bernardino County will contract for 72 beds for assessment and placement. The county continues to contract with Fouts Springs for 30 minors, and they fill those beds almost daily. This has proven to be a good contract.

Another element of the plan was to improve the infrastructure of the CJH plumbing system. The Board of Supervisors has approved requests for bids.

San Bernardino County and BOC staff are in discussion to decide the best way to bring closure to the Suitability Plan.

Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations Consider for Adoption Executive Steering Committee’s Recommendations and Establish Public Comment Period (Agenda Item K)

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that at the July 19, 2001 meeting, the Board of Corrections directed staff, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 210 and 885, to begin the review and, if necessary, revision process for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities. Chairman Presley appointed Board members Sheriff Curtis Hill as chair and Tom Soto as co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee for this process. The ESC membership was subsequently developed and approved by the Board at the November 2001 meeting along with the proposed timeline as well. Mr. Crout acknowledged the presence of ESC member Doug Carver, Acting Chief Probation Officer, from Nevada County.

The ESC met in January and adopted a review approach that utilized eight different workgroups. Members for the workgroups were solicited from the 13-member ESC. The workgroups consisted of 73 subject matter experts. The ESC developed a number of issues that they directed the workgroups to address during the revision process. Those issues came from the ESC as well as through letters and email messages sent to the Board, as a result of a solicitation to the field. BOC staff also recommended a number of issues to the ESC.

The workgroups convened for up to four days in April and May to review and develop recommended revisions to the regulations. The workgroup chairs presented their group’s recommendations to the ESC on June 5 and 6, 2002. In addition to the recommended regulation revisions, three of the workgroups presented issues to the ESC for review. After discussion, the ESC concurred with the recommendations and elected to forward these items to the Board today for consideration. These issues are as follows:

First, the subject matter experts participating in the Medical/Mental Health workgroup have requested, through the ESC, that an “issues paper” be considered by the Board. The workgroup discussed several policy issues related to the provision of mental health care to detained minors and produced an “issues paper” that summarizes the ideas and suggestions offered by members of the workgroup for addressing these critical problems. The “issues paper” concludes with a recommendation that the ESC forward these suggestions to the BOC. They have done this.

Second, one of the key policy issues the ESC directed the Jails and Lockups workgroup to contemplate was moving the regulations pertaining to minors in adult detention facilities from the Juvenile Facilities Subchapter 5, Title 15 CCR to the Adult Facilities Subchapter 4, of Title 15 CCR.

Historically, the standards related to adult facilities detaining juveniles have been contained in the juvenile regulations. Originally, the California Youth Authority (CYA) had the responsibility for inspecting juvenile halls and camps as well as adult facilities that held juveniles. Over the last six to seven years since the BOC has taken over the responsibility for inspecting juvenile halls, the BOC has experienced issues associated with this. Oftentimes jail administrators and managers would get confused about what the regulations were for juveniles being placed in adult facilities, because they were not contained in the normal set of adult regulations that they were familiar with. The Jails and Lockups workgroup is recommending that the standards pertaining to minors be transferred to the adult section.

Finally, one of the issues that emerged, during the solicitation of comments from the field, was a concern that there is only one type of physical plant design requirement for all juvenile facilities. The regulations recognize two types of juvenile detention facilities: Juvenile Halls (including Special Purpose Juvenile Halls) and Camps. One set of standards applied to both types of facilities. That became problematic when those standards were applied to camps. Camps, oftentimes, use non fire-rated buildings, which means that the buildings cannot be locked. As an example, the standards require security glazing to be placed into all types of facilities that are constructed under these standards. Security glazing is extremely expensive and it doesn’t make sense to put this type of material into a building that may not be locked.

After discussion, the ESC recommends that a subcommittee of the Physical Plant workgroup be established outside of the regulation revision process and that, during the next two years, the subcommittee would develop recommendations for physical plant regulations that pertain to camps. Formation of a subcommittee would allow a more detailed, practical approach to determining, if indeed the regulations should provide more distinctions for the physical plant requirement of camps. This is another recommendation before the Board today.

Mr. Crout stated that BOC staff is making the following recommendations:

A motion to accept all five recommendations was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.

Chairman Presley thanked Mr. Crout for a thorough report.

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated this agenda item is a request for an Alternate Means of Compliance from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department for dayroom space. At their July 2001 meeting, the Board of Corrections approved a Pilot Project for Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department regarding the time-phase use of their Administrative Segregation Unit for dayroom space. The Pilot Project allows dayroom space access to no more than 20 inmates at one time, and is valid while the unit functions as an administrative/special housing unit (SHU).

The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department provided their first progress report (six-month report) to the Board of Corrections at its January 17, 2002 meeting and it showed that the project was successful. The six-month report explained there were no dayroom related grievances and that only seven out of 25 incident reports were dayroom related. The report explained that all of these were behavior related and strongly supported the need for phased dayroom access. However, the six-month report did not track the average daily population (ADP) and classification of inmates housed in the affected unit. As a result, BOC staff requested the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department to include the SHU’s ADP numbers for this unit in the second six-month report.

Mr. Crout stated he would present the second progress report on the Pilot Project to the Board today. He reported that the highest population for the SHU was 39, but they usually average about 37 inmates out of a 40-rated capacity. In reviewing a sampling of the logs and other relevant materials documenting access to the SHU’s dayroom and recreation area, Board staff has verified that the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department continues to meet or exceed the intent of the regulations, and is therefore recommending that the Board approve Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department request to convert its Pilot Project for the phased-use of the dayroom space for its SHU to an Alternate Means of Compliance, as specified in Title 24, CCR.

The recommendation to convert the Pilot Project to an Alternate Means of Compliance is contingent upon conditions specified in the Pilot Project. Specifically, that the Alternate Means of Compliance is valid only while the unit continues to function as an administrative/special housing unit. Member Gary Mann stated he certainly appreciates the need presented and motioned to accept.

A motion to approve Stanislaus County’s request for an Alternate Means of Compliance to allow the County to convert its Pilot Project for time-phased use of the dayroom space in the SHU was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky. The motion carried.

Member Silbert asked whether the seven incidents listed on the progress report were behavior. Mr. Crout stated that there was two staff in attendance (Sergeant Brenda Suarez and Deputy Becky Roberts) from Stanislaus County to answer any questions. Sergeant Suarez replied that the incidents were for recalcitrant behavior by inmates.

Deputy Director Toni Hafey stated that the Governor is currently reviewing approximately 1200 bills, along with all of the accompanying material. The report today describes some of the bills the Governor has signed. A full report will be forthcoming as the remainder of the bills are signed by the Governor.

The principal bill, signed by the Governor on September 17, that impacts the Board of Corrections (BOC), as well as the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and the California Youth Authority (CYA), is SB 1242 (Brulte). SB 1242 allows law enforcement and corrections personnel to use reasonable force to collect blood samples, saliva samples, or print impressions for inclusion in the Department of Justice databank. This legislation also requires CDC, CYA, and BOC to adopt regulations governing the use of reasonable force as it relates to collecting those DNA samples. The measure requires that all reasonable force only be used after voluntary attempts to secure DNA have failed and officials have received written authorization etc.

What this means specifically for the BOC, CDC, and CYA is that, in addition to putting together the regulations and monitoring the inspection process, all three departments are required, by January 1, 2005, to prepare a report for the Legislature regarding the implementation and progress of SB 1242.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency

Jerry Harper, Director, Department of the Youth Authority

Edward S. Alameida, Director, Department of Corrections

Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department

Robert Hoffman, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Linda Duffy, Chief Probation Officer, Stanislaus County Probation Department

Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Bill J. Nettles, Deputy Probation Officer, Los Angeles County Probation Department

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links