Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes September 19, 2006

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

Meeting held at: Town & Country Resort & Hotel, 500 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, CA 92108

Mr. James E. Tilton, Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone and explained that there were new board members that would have to be sworn in before commencing with the meeting.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Chairman Tilton asked the new board members to raise their right hand and state the Oath of Office. He conducted the swearing in of:
Mr. William Powers
Mr. John Ingrassia
Ms. Kim Petersen
Mr. Max Scott

Chairman Tilton of the CSA, called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

Chairman Tilton directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:
James E. Tilton
David Runnels
Bernard Warner
David Bacigalupo
Robert Hernandez
Michael Prizmich
Gary Penrod
William Powers
Calvin Remington
John Ingrassia
Mimi Silbert
Kim Petersen
Carol Biondi
Pamala Gilyard
Cleotha Adams
Max Scott

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Campos announced that due to an emergency at her office, Ms. Deborah Botts would not be attending today’s meeting.

Chairman Tilton asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by Mr. Cal Remington and seconded by Mr. David Bacigalupo. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 19, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
(AGENDA ITEM A)
Mr. James Tilton, Chairman asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes. There was no discussion or change. Mr. Tilton asked for approval of the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the July 19, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 30, 2006, CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY TELECONFERENCE MEETING
(AGENDA ITEM B)
Mr. James Tilton, Chairman explained that this conference call was held for approval from the board in the issuance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) recommended by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the August 30, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority teleconference meeting was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi. The motion carried.

Mr. Harris referred to the e-mail of an update on members received from Mr. Alberto Roldan from the Governor’s office, replacing Ms. Heather Lambert. The CSA board has seventeen members with 2 vacant positions; the Rank and File Representative, State Parole Officer and the Rank and File Representative, State Adult Correctional Facility. There are people under consideration for these positions.

Mr. Yarber responded that to the federal administration of grants programs, the SAG is required in the federal legislation; however it isn’t for the state general funding programs. Typically, this body is used to oversee those funds and provide updates.

Mr. Tilton commented that one of the things he will be doing as Secretary of CDCR is reassessing the reorganization. Clarifying the structure of these entities and providing the resources necessary. Mr. Tilton asked for the board’s sense of priorities to move forward as a board. He suggested an off-site to discuss the board’s roles and responsibilities. Mr. Remington thanked Mr. Tilton for the comments and agreed that there are some positives in the reorganization.

LEGAL OPINION REGARDING CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY’S AUTHORITY
(AGENDA ITEM D)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director informed the board on the authority of the board. He referred to the fax received this morning from the attorney of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) at CDCR regarding board member requests for information and the ability of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) or its board members to take action with respect to documentation or information that is within the purview of the CSA.

The faxed information stated the CSA has provided that the types of inquiries posed have included requests to hear from different departments and key staff from CDCR (or CSA) about current priorities or projects or to hear from representatives of Prison Industries Authority (PIA) on what is being done to expand rehabilitative programs and training, particularly at Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in light of the settlement of Prison Law Office (PLO) lawsuit.

Pursuant to SB 737 (Chapter 10, statutes of 2005), which facilitated the reorganization that created the CDCR, the former Board of Corrections was abolished and the CSA established within the CDCR. The CSA is authorized, among other things, to study of the entire subject of crime and penology and report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature at such times as they may require and to establish minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities in areas including, but not limited to, health and sanitary conditions, fire and life safety, security, rehabilitation programs, recreation, treatment of persons confined in state and local correctional facilities and personnel training. The CSA is also authorized to conduct biennial inspections of each local detention facility in the state.

Given that the statutory language that defines the CSA’s scope of responsibility is exceptionally broad, questions such as a request to hear from key CDCR or CSA staff regarding current priorities or projects, or from PIA concerning what is being done to expand rehabilitative programs and training, seem particularly suited to the CSA’s mission.

Under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Act), the policy of the state is to conduct the proceedings of public agencies openly so that the public may remain informed. The Act applies to every state board, commission or any similar multimember body, including the CSA. CSA board members, like their counterparts in state service, should be cautioned to take only such actions as are allowable in an open meeting format and to request additional direction regarding their responsibilities under the Act when questions arise.

Concerning the issue of authority to conduct inspections of state prisons, the CSA’s authority is defined in the provisions of the Penal Code. For example, the CSA is expressly authorized to establish minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities. Under Penal Code Section 6031, the CSA is required to inspect, biennially, each local detention facility in the state. State correctional facilities are not included with the definition of “local detention facility” and there is no companion provision that mandates inspection of state prison facilities.

It is conceivable, however, that the CSA could inspect state prison facilities in a number of situations. For instance, the CSA could resolve to inspect such facilities as part of its mission to study the “entire subject of crime,” as a part of the process of establishing minimum standards or under the auspices of a “special commission” established upon request of the CSA or the Governor. In each of these circumstances, the CSA is authorized to report its findings and/or make recommendations as established in the Penal Code.

While this response does not represent a formal legal opinion of the OLA, it may be useful in facilitating CSA board discussion concerning the direction to be taken in the management of its statutory duties.

To synopsize the e-mail, Mr. Harris stated that the authority of CSA is that it can inspect state jails but it’s usually under direction of the Secretary. It’s not as specific as the language used for the locals. The language used for inspections of local jails states that specifically that CSA is in charge of that but it is not as clearly stated for state institutions. The Secretary has the discretion and has actually in the past has had CSA audit an institution.

Ms. Biondi was confused about the information in the New Member Orientation binder where it refers to Penal Code 6030, as to CSA shall establish minimum standards for state & local correctional facilities. In the first board meeting there were four safety issues on Youth Authority facilities and a proposed timeline to complete an inspection of all 32 by November 2006 or January 2007. Within the timeframe of the last reports, there should have been 14 adult and seven juvenile facilities inspected.

Mr. Harris reminded Ms. Biondi that the Secretary has already stated that he is going to reassess. As far as what are the inspections that can be done or what minimum standards means, it means that we set the standards doesn’t necessarily mean that we inspect for compliance, although this could change under the discretion of the Secretary. Direction was given by the previous Secretary for the last inspection.

Ms. Silbert agreed that the reorganization plan is difficult to understand and would like for the responsibilities to be made clear of what they are. CSA has done a phenomenal job on state standards in jails. Mr. Tilton agreed with Ms. Silbert, the reorganization needs to be clarified. The concepts in the reorganization make a lot of sense. How do we make the process that’s incremental in terms of moving forward? Getting back to basics, having the board determine what are certain tasks they want to invest their time and resources then making sure they have incremental support in terms of resources to processes to move the project forward.

Mr. Tilton is very sensitive to CSA and doesn’t want to deter that by giving CSA too big of a responsibility that can’t be handled appropriately and discrediting this body that has a long standing history of doing well.

Ms. Biondi asked the status of the four inspections that were done. Mr. Runnels and Mr. Warner informed Ms. Biondi that a corrective action plan has been developed for each of the inspections.

Mr. Remington agreed with Mr. Tilton’s suggestion of having an off-site and looks forward to an update from Mr. Tilton on the responsibilities and recommendations of CSA.

Just as a background, Mr. Read stated that the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) board establishes regulations for design and construction of local detention facilities. If a county wants to depart from those standards, they have to make out an application for a pilot project to describe any issues that may arise from not following the minimum standards.

At the March 16, 2006 CSA meeting, San Bernardino County requested pilot project status to hold 70 inmates in dormitories; regulations limited dormitory maximum capacity to 64 inmates. San Bernardino County bought a former community correctional facility that had been privately operated by the Maranatha Corporation and did some extensive remodeling. Initially, the facility had four very large dorms, 150+ people in each of the dorms. CSA staff met with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to determine what they had planned for the facility which was not compliant with regulations. Their plan was to divide the four dormitories in half. They met all of the regulations except the limiting of the capacity to no more than 64. As a condition of the pilot project status that was approved at the March meeting, they were required to provide a 6-month update to the CSA Board. Attached is the result of the 6-month update. The grievances at the Adelanto Detention Center are fewer than at any other detention facility. They’re exceeding the minimum standards for recreation time, there are more empty rooms for visiting, they’re addressing all non-emergency medical requests within 24 hours, they have adequate staffing, there have been no assaults on staff and there are less inmate fights. It appears that at this 6-month review, the progress is good on the pilot project status.

Captain Virgil Merrett and Lieutenant Kevin Lacy, both of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, were available to answer any questions.

Mr. Tilton asked how long the pilot project status lasts. Mr. Read stated that generally it lasts about a year. They are scheduled to return in March for their second 6-month update. In conjunction with that, they will make their application for an Alternate Means of Compliance, which a is permanent process so they can continue to house 70 inmates. This is provided that the board approves it.

Mr. Tilton asked if there were particular types of inmates housed to provide these statistics. Captain Merrett explained that the inmates are classified as low to medium risk, general population. They are pre-trial inmates that are hand-picked depending on their classification scores. Mr. Remington asked if this process would continue to be an on-going policy. Captain Merrett stated that this is a written policy and they do not intend on changing it.

Mr. Ingrassia stated that based on this type of criteria, that in another six months this could be permanent and this affects other facilities. At what point will Title 24 revision occurs. Mr. Read replied that generally in the revision process, the results of the pilot project is re-visited, and the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) will have the opportunity to address the success of the pilot project prior to the revisions.

JUVENILE DETENTION PROFILE SURVEY – 2005 ANNUAL REPORT
(AGENDA ITEM F)
Mr. Jerry Read, Field Representative combined both of his presentations, item F and G and gave a briefing on the key findings of the 2005 annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) and the Jail Profile Survey (JPS).

The CSA has been gathering statistics for the adult jails for the last 11 years and the last seven years for the juvenile facilities. The population driven data is what Mr. Read discussed but stated that there is data on a lot of different variables, such as the classification of inmates; the gender of the inmates that are being held; etc.

As an overview, the JPS reports that there are currently 74,000 rated beds in California jail systems. The average daily population during 2005 was 79,615. The profile survey has statistics on the highest one-day count. Each one of the jails report during one month the highest inmate count during that month; this could be a different day depending on which jail. Then they aggregate those for each month. The average highest one-day count in county jails is 86,000 inmates and we have rated beds of 74,000! Already there is a demonstrated need for about 12,000 beds in county jails. Numbers are also taken for a capacity need; the average daily population is taken and then 10% is added. The 10% covers the highest one-day count, the fluctuation for that and also covers the fact that you have to classify inmates. You’ll never have the right type of inmates to fill every bed. There are too many of the higher classification types to be segregated. You have to have a considerable amount of vacant beds to satisfy the classification needs.

On an average month, 7,900 pre-trail inmates are being released because there are not enough beds. Each month there are 11,542 sentenced inmates that go home early; they don’t finish their sentence. This amount is on top of the 12,000 beds that are needed, it’s a pretty bad situation and it is getting worse.

The average bookings per month are the highest numbers that have ever been at 106,000 since the jail profile survey started 11 years ago. The percentage of felony inmates has gone up; currently the average is 78.1%. The non-sentenced average population is at 66.8%, so the majority of them are non-sentenced. All the sentenced inmates are at work release or doing some alternative incarceration. Inmate assaults on staff are up 20% in 2005. There are, on average, 303 assaults on staff that were reported. The average length of stay is 21.3 days, which is getting to be less and less.

The JDPS is a little brighter. The rated capacity is higher than both the average population and the highest one-day count. There are 7,904 rated juvenile beds currently. The highest one-day count, on average, for 2005 was 7,587, so it’s about 300 beds less. This isn’t to say that other juvenile halls aren’t crowded; there are still a number of facilities that have crowding issues.

The bookings per month have gone down for juvenile facilities. The average is 305 bookings each day. The percentage of males in both juvenile halls and camps has been decreasing since 2005. There has been an increase in females; it has gone up to 16.2%. Suicide attempts have gone down, 41% since 1999. In 2005 there were 643 suicide attempts, a decrease of 440 attempts since 1999, which continues to go down every year. A number of mental health cases in juvenile are going up, though the use of meds is going down. The down fall to juvenile populations is that the numbers in the first part of 2006 are very high.

This information is provided as a highlight of the report attached to the agenda. This report will be posted to CSA’s website.

Ms. Biondi asked if there are plans to do more evaluations in the CSA about what works and what doesn’t. Mr. Read stated that there was numerous researches done on this and now we know what works that the attempt is to apply the money to services rather than the research.

JAIL PROFILE SURVEY – 2005 ANNUAL REPORT
(AGENDA ITEM G)
Mr. Jerry Read, Field Representative combined both of his presentations, item F and G, and gave a briefing on the key findings of the 2005 annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) and the Jail Profile Survey (JPS). Please see item F.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
(AGENDA ITEM H)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented this informational agenda item on the ministerial staff decisions on state and federally funded construction grants listing any timeline changes, budget changes, or minor scope changes.

Seven federally funded projects remain. Construction is completed for the Fresno and Napa County projects. Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Mateo counties are still under construction and are currently on track to be completed before the end of 2006. Alameda County is scheduled to complete their project in October 2007. Only one state funded project remains; Santa Clara County is scheduled to complete their project in 2007. Orange County has completed their project.

There were two timeline changes since the July CSA meeting. Sacramento and Riverside County requested and received time extensions.

Ms. Aboytes asked for any questions. No questions were asked or discussed.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2006-2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RATING PROCESS
(AGENDA ITEM I)

Mr. Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director requested the board’s approval of the rating process for the Title II Formula Grants Program Request for Proposals (RFP) released in July 24, 2006.

Mr. Yarber stated that this is an action item relative to the Title II Formula Grants proposal rating process. There is included in the agenda item some background in regard to the Title II RFP. This is the first time that CSA has administered the Title II Formula Grant RFP which was previously administered by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Subsequent to the abolishment of that office we inherited the juvenile justice grant programs, and have administered those effectively since January 2004. We are hoping to make new awards with this process.

The rating process is traditionally customized with regard to each competitive grant program CSA administers. It is anticipated that 200-300 proposals will be submitted in response to the Title II RFP; 270 proposals were submitted the last time the RFP was issued. Due to the expected volume of applications and time required, it will be necessary to further alter the current rating system in order to fairly assess each application. Were the traditional system utilized without modification, it is estimated that subject-matter experts would be asked to volunteer 200-300 hours of service to the rating process.

A two-tiered approach has been developed that will address the need for rating the volume of proposals expected. In the first phase, a panel of readers will convene and attend training on the rating process, they will then rate the proposals based on selected rating criteria approved by CSA and included in the RFP. Different combinations of rater pairings will be used so that rater tendencies can be compared and rater reliability can be assessed. The second phase of the modified rating process will include only the top proposals identified by the first group of raters. CSA staff will convene a second rating panel of subject-matter experts and current practitioners to rate the identified finalists. State Advisory Group (SAG) members will be called upon to participate as raters during this process. As part of this second phase of review, all of the raters will read and score all of the proposals. Once rated the scores of each proposal will be entered into the software program to analyze the ratings, determine the level of rater agreement, and rank proposals according to merit. The first rating phase will require approximately 60-80 hours of review time for each rater. We anticipate the second phase of rating will require approximately 30-40 hours of review for each rater. CSA is having a difficult time gathering volunteers due to the fact of the long hours required. Discussion has been brought to CSA attention of possibly giving compensation for these hours. Stipends of $3,000 could be afforded to each rating panel member participating in this first phase. As an option to this expense, raters could be paid hourly at the Field Representative salary rate, approximately $55 per hour. Currently there are three volunteers for the first tier and CSA is working diligently trying to identify five more.

Ms. Silbert asked if this staff recommendation included the payment or if it is just the approval of the two tier process. Mr. Yarber clarified that the board approval of the recommendation includes the payment. Ms. Silbert stated that this is a horrible precedent to have payment involved for selection of people and doesn’t believe this is a good idea.

Ms. Petersen asked in regards to filling the two phases, would there be an issue with some being paid and others not and also is there a perception that those being paid are of a higher quality versus the ones volunteering? Mr. Yarber stated that there would be a difference in the first phase of review.

Ms. Biondi asked why not hire consultants at the same cost and then have SAG, do the work? Mr. Yarber stated that the first panel could be viewed as consultants without straying too far from the traditional model that has been successful. Mr. Remington thought hiring retired annuitants for review is a good idea but he agreed with Ms. Silbert of not setting the precedent of payment. Mr. Prizmich suggested increasing the number of evaluators in the first phase.

Mr. Yarber stated that this could be an option but the minimum number has to be achieved first. Ms. Biondi commented that the more people you have, the standard is lowered. Ms. Silbert stated that there could be actual measurable things that more people could do without breaking up objectivity, using more discretion on the second phase of evaluators. Mr. Tilton agreed that we don’t want to set a precedent and better solution would be to use more people and be very specific with the selection criteria. As board members we should reinforce the importance of getting some volunteers. The time element is the problem, maybe at this stage count on staff to identify additional raters. Mr. Powers stated that our efforts and focus has to be in criteria and making them specific before going into processes.

A motion to approve the modified rating process for the 2006-2008 Title II Formula Grants Program Request for Proposals without funding for the first phase and leave it up to the staff for final volunteers was made by Mr. James Tilton and Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi and Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

UPDATE ON CORRECTIONS PLANNING AND PROGRAMS LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
(AGENDA ITEM J)
Deputy Director Marlon Yarber presented an update on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCR); Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program; and Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) as administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division.

On September 13 and 14, CSA staff conducted MIOCR Request for Proposals (RFP) workshops in San Bernardino and Sacramento, there were approximately 150 attendees. CSA received great feedback on these workshops.

As update for JABG, there are now 38 contracts in place with only one county awaiting a Resolution from their Board of Supervisors. There are 26 Set-Aside contracts. Notification was received of our JABG allocation 2006 award. The allocation is $4,014,900, which is a 7% reduction from the 2005 award of $4,326,483.

The DMC-TAP, as part of our statewide response to the core requirement, is designed to assist probation departments in understanding and identifying DMC, and foster leadership among those departments in local DMC reduction effort. CSA sought out volunteer counties to participate in the DMC effort. This RFP will hopefully afford enough funds to service five counties, perhaps six counties. On August 22 nd, CSA staff held a RFP workshop in Sacramento, 65 attendees and 23 counties participated. There was an excellent round-table discussion among the attendees.

Mr. Warner asked if the proposals will come back to the board for final recommendation.
Mr. Yarber stated that the proposals will return to the board, a rating team is in place for that project.

INFORMATION SHARING PLAN
(AGENDA ITEM K)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative requested the board’s approval of a plan for information sharing and highlighting of programs for the members in areas related to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

At the last board meeting, Mr. Harris had indicated he had had requests from board members for more information on corrections activities, particularly at the state level now that we are joined within CDCR as a single agency. As discussion ensued on that agenda item, key strategies surfaced as potential recommendations about how the educational opportunities and sharing of information might be accomplished such as: distributing via e-mail important articles; having presentations at board meetings on programs or operational topics; focusing on both the adult and juvenile entities; developing a sub-committee of the board to plan for these issues and events on on-going basis; and holding Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) meetings at local or state detention facility sites, with the site providing a presentation.

The outcome of that agenda item discussion was that staff was asked to develop a plan for the process of providing pertinent information to board members. Since the last board meeting staff has reviewed the meeting’s discussion notes and talked about ways we can be helpful, yet also reasonable within our own existing resources and the resources of our state and local constituents. Staff recognizes the varied makeup and the broad spectrum of experience that the board represents and believes that with the aid of our collaborative partners within CDCR, and consultation with our board members, we can bring forth valuable information and experiences that will provide enrichment in the area of corrections-related issues.

Staff is recommending that the board approve an Information Sharing Committee comprised of two board members. They would coordinate with CSA staff and specific staff assigned from both the Division of Adult Operations and Adult Programs, and also the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for the purpose of planning for an information sharing event for potentially each CSA board meeting, utilizing the strategies suggested by board members. They could direct staff to disseminate to CSA board members any relevant news or magazine articles affecting CSA.

Mr. Tilton suggested having CDCR’s Communication staff distribute these articles to the board members. Ms. Silbert suggested having a meeting in San Francisco or Los Angeles to meet prior to the board meeting to get to know the board members since there are lots of new staff, maybe having lunch together. Mr. Tilton stated it would be good to build a good working relationship with one another. Ms. Gilyard agreed with having an off-site to share information together and not create more work for CSA staff.

Mr. Tilton recommended that the board be put on a CDCR distribution list so they could receive the news articles and not add more work to the CSA staff. This agenda item required no action to be taken at this time. All the board members agreed.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
(AGENDA ITEM L)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative introduced staff from the San Diego County Probation Department, who provided a presentation on a selection of juvenile justice programs administered through their agency. Ms. Heller stated that San Diego Probation is the recipient of a number of both federal and state juvenile justice grants administered through our Corrections Planning and Programs Division. They have a reputation of being strong performers with their programs, some of them award-winning.

Handouts relating to this agenda item were provided by the presenter, Ms. Kim Broderick, Probation Director. Ms. Broderick presented a sampling of their juvenile justice programs, the Community Response Officer Program (CROP) and the Multisystemic Therapy (MST).

The CROP was established in February 1999 and is part of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG). There are 12 deputy probation officers and one supervisor involved in the program. Probation officers are stationed at law enforcement agencies to act as liaisons with law enforcement, schools, community organizations and the Courts. San Diego County’s funding from JABG is $214,903. A 10% match from the County is required ($23,878) for a total of $238,781. The total program cost is $1,525,220. Some of the CROP outcomes for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 included participation in over 50 sweep efforts, contacting more than 1,000 juveniles, assisting in clearing 535 juvenile detention orders, and participating in over 300 collaborative meetings with school, community based organizations and law enforcement. CROP achievements included a customer satisfaction survey which had 163 respondents and satisfaction rating of 3.73. They received the California State Juvenile Officers’ Association (CSJOA) Distinguished Program Award.

The MST was established in July 2005 and is part of Title V, Community Prevention Grants. MST is a community-based, family-driven treatment program to address antisocial and delinquent behavior. MST focuses on empowering caregivers (parents) to solve current and future problems. MST is an evidence-based treatment model. A study conducted by the University of Colorado reviewed 700 treatment programs and named MST as one of 11 “model” programs in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency and substance abuse. Taxpayers gain approximately $31,661 in subsequent criminal justice cost savings for each program participant. Adding the benefits that accrue to crime victims increases the expected net present value to $131,918 per participant, which is equivalent to a benefit-to-cost ratio of $28.33 for every dollar spent. Based on the Washington State Institute Public Policy report, a typical average cost per MST participant is about $4,743. MST is different because all services are provided in the home, school, neighborhood and community. Length of treatment averages three to five months. MST emphasizes collaboration across the systems within which youth are embedded and utilizes the strength of each of those systems to facilitate change. Some of MST outcomes for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 include number of youth served – 62 (exceeded the target); number who offended – 8 new arrests; educational improvement – 67% improved success in educational setting; change in behavior – 60% involved in pro-social activities; and completed program goals – 82% met all or some of their program goals. San Diego Probation Department’s future goals are to apply for Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Grant, apply for Title II Formula Grant to implement a gang prevention/intervention program, and apply for Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant to assist juveniles and adults who have mental illness.

Ms. Broderick, in closing, thanked CSA for their support. Mr. Remington asked about the MST team. Ms. Broderick stated that the school district that they worked with had someone from the mental health resource center with extensive MST experience, four therapeutic staff trained and certified in MST and three of those are Spanish speaking, which in San Diego is a real commodity and there is a probation officer who works as a liaison from the law enforcement perspective. Ms. Biondi asked if these kids are allowed to have a felony record. Ms. Broderick stated that the guidelines are very clear that only first-time offenders can participate.

Mr. Warner asked about the partnership with state parole and San Diego. Ms. Broderick stated that under Senate Bill 618, there is an opportunity for the partnership with adult and juvenile programs.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
(AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided an update of bills that have specifically named Corrections Standards Authority (CSA).

The Legislature convened for a special session in August focusing on prison overcrowding and adjourned at the end of August. None of the bills introduced in the special session went anywhere (stopped in their tracks). A few bills were introduced naming CSA.

Of particular interest to our local constituents, with support from State Sheriff’s and Chief Probation Officers, was a bill that was introduced into each of the Houses focusing on local detention facility construction funds for both adult and juvenile facilities, a process to be administered by CSA. This would have gone to voters for approval for bond funding. This is a significant issue to our local constituents and is likely to surface again in the not too distant future. It is not likely that the Legislature will reconvene by November 30 th (official end of session).

The legislation of interest regarding current bills was given to board members for review. This report is a list of bills that are currently in motion. Please note the “location” designation, which on this report is showing either enrolled or chaptered. The Governor has three choices of action within 30 days of receiving the enrolled bill. Within the report are four bills that name CSA specifically.

AB 1806 – State government - budget bill (chaptered) – Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program, to be administered by the Division of Juvenile Justice in consultation with CSA, to award competitive grants to counties and non-profit organizations for reentry services.

All three of the following bills are in enrollment - on the Governor’s desk awaiting his action.

AB 1849 – Sex Offenders - Would require each probation department to report to the CSA relevant statistics and information regarding the electronic monitoring of sex offenders, and the CSA would report this information the Legislature and Governor every two years. Some of the information includes recidivism rates and cost of monitoring.

SB 1128 – Sex Offender Punishment, Control, and Containment Act of 2006 - Would require the CDCR and each probation department to administer a specified sex offender risk assessment tool. The CSA would be responsible for developing standards for the training of probation personnel who would administer the assessment tool.

SB 1356 – Suicide Prevention – Would establish the California Suicide Prevention Act of 2006, and would require the State Department of Mental Health, in consultation with specified state departments including the CSA, to adopt and distribute a statewide strategic suicide prevention plan.

For more detailed information on any of the bills, visit the Legislative Counsel’s website (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov).

PUBLIC COMMENTS
(AGENDA ITEM N)
Mr. Patrick Wilson a piping engineer for a Los Angeles firm, asked to speak. Mr. Wilson asked why the model, the Delancey Street Foundation, that has been tested, demonstrated for years for its effectiveness and supported by many members of the legal law enforcement community been not formally adopted by the Corrections Standards Authority long ago. Mr. Wilson stated that the Delancey Street Foundation has been so successful providing for citizen re-entry for the last 30 years and there are only five sites in the state but 60 sites are needed to adequately deal with the returning citizens who need a place to stay once you place them on the bus with their $200.00. You kidnap them off the streets and worry constantly how they’re escaping but how much honest interest is there shown on how to put them back to recovery from incarceration. Mr. Wilson commented about the overcrowding, high recidivism rates and poor health care in the prison system and asked the board if they have played a role in developing these conditions and who else should be held responsible. Mr. Wilson stated that the Delancey Street Foundation will reduce recidivism to zero.

Mr. Tilton informed Mr. Wilson that state funding cannot be used to support the Delancey Street Foundation but, since January of this year, the Governor has been working on putting community programs, risk programs, back in place, but the Legislative did not accept those proposals in January. The special session was not just to reduce the overcrowding in prison but to put citizens in the community with programs to provide transition. Mr. Tilton suggested that Mr. Wilson support the special session to give funds and to identify programs in the system that are successful. Although these programs are not the same as the Delancey Street Foundation they are very similar. Mr. Wilson asked if these programs are successful and Mr. Tilton responded with a yes because each of these programs are evaluated and made sure that they are meeting the needs of the inmates. Mr. Remington stated that efforts have been made to duplicate the Delancey Street Foundation

The public was excused temporarily for a closed session per the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Section 11126 (e) (2) (A).

Meeting reconvened at 12:05 p.m., no further business conducted.

Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Originally signed by
YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links

Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes September 19, 2006