CSA On-Going Regulations Review System

 WHAT DOES THE Corrections Standards Authority REGULATE?

The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) regulations are contained in Title 15 and Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CSA develops and promulgates regulations for the: building and renovation of city/county jails and juvenile halls/camps; management and operation of city/county jails and juvenile halls/camps; and, selection, hiring, and training of staff employed by local corrections agencies, including jails, juvenile halls/camps, and probation departments.

Regulations must be met for food, bedding and clothing of confined persons; the management and operations of facilities; physical plant construction by county public agencies that apply for and accept funds from state construction bonds and grants; and, selection and training of staff by cities and counties that participate in the Standards and Training for Corrections program.

WHY ARE THE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY REGULATIONS IMPORTANT?

CSA regulations deal with significant life, liberty, safety, health and employment issues in areas that are subject to extensive legal oversight and judicial involvement. CSA regulations help protect state, city and county management interests, and support safe and effective facility operations, and the treatment of adult inmates and juvenile detainees in accordance with minimum constitutional requirements.

The conditions-of-effort required are supported by the vast majority of affected cities and counties. CSA regulations have historically received strong support from affected constituent agencies and their professional associations (e.g. California State Association of Counties, California State Sheriffs' Association; California Chief Probation Officers' Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, among others). Major reasons that cities and counties support CSA regulations include: Minimizing Liability Risk by Safe and Competent Operations: CSA regulations are benchmarks for the safe and effective construction, management and operation of facilities, staffed by competent and well-trained personnel. CSA regulations are both constituent-driven and research-based, and have been looked to, cited and supported by federal, state and local courts. The involvement of courts into facility operations that do not meet minimum constitutional standards affect facilities nationwide and have been well chronicled by the media in the last two decades.

Achieving Cost-Savings and Maximizing Cost-Avoidance: CSA regulations allow cities and counties to achieve cost savings estimated in the millions of dollars. This has occurred during the past 20 years and is continuing as many jurisdictions opt to construct and operate "new generation" designed facilities. New generation facilities, based on popular design and direct supervision staffing and operations, enables immediate cost-savings during construction and allows for double occupancy sleeping rooms with appropriate staffing and classification systems, thereby saving millions of dollars in construction and operational costs during a typical 30-50 year lifespan. Construction techniques can also lead to more efficient operations and savings in improved sight lines to supervise offenders. In addition, cities and counties know that being responsible for the confinement of people is a risky business and places an enormous burden on them to operate safely and professionally. CSA regulations provide significant protection to the state and its cities and counties not only in avoiding costly court judgments, but also by helping prevent injuries to staff and inmates/detainees, thereby reducing workers compensation claims and costs.

HOW DOES THE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY ONGOING REGULATION REVIEW SYSTEM (ORRS) WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE GOVERNOR'S POLICY GOALS TO ACHIEVE REGULATORY REFORM?

The CSA has historically operated an Ongoing Regulation Review System (ORRS) to ensure that every regulation under its jurisdiction is subjected to a comprehensive review and, if necessary, revision or repeal on a biennial or triennial schedule depending on the area of regulation. ORRS examines each regulation's linkage to current legal statutes, and evaluates each regulation for current relevance, validity, fairness, and cost-benefit of implementation. ORRS is responsive to affected cities and counties, and involves administrative-level constituents and subject matter experts through their service on a Local Executive Steering Committee and related task forces. ORRS promotes creativity and critical thinking in crafting regulations that are the least intrusive, most responsive and achievable rules to implement the law.

HOW DOES THE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY FOSTER ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EASE OF USE FOR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE?

Once regulations are adopted and become effective, the CSA allows cities and counties to demonstrate compliance in different ways that promote ease-of-use. Most cities and counties meet the regulations through direct compliance. However, to foster on-going creativity, cost-effectiveness, and entrepreneurship, the CSA has adopted two other methods by which many cities and counties comply with certain regulations. They can apply to the CSA for approval of "pilot projects" or "alternate means of compliance" as follows: Pilot Projects: The CSA will consider approval of one-year local pilot projects by cities and counties that want to try an approach to regulatory compliance that has not been done before. The approach does not technically meet the requirements of a regulation, but proposes to demonstrate regulatory compliance with its intent by a new and innovative method. Many cities and counties have used this option, and the results of each pilot project are thoroughly evaluated by the CSA. Staff monitor pilot projects through on-site reviews; local jurisdictions formally report results to the CSA at six-month and 12-month intervals. Results of many local pilot projects have been successful, and enabled easier and more cost-effective compliance with the intent of regulations.

Alternate Means of Compliance: Results of successful pilot projects often become accepted alternate means of regulatory compliance. After a successful one-year pilot project, cities and counties may elect to make the innovative process permanent. In such cases, a petition is made to the CSA, providing evidence of success and the parameters under which it will continue to operate.

The results of pilot projects, and alternate means of compliance methods, provide vital information and data that is used by ORRS in reviewing, revising or repealing CSA regulations.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES THAT DEMONSTRATE RESPONSIVENESS, COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP?

Below are brief general descriptions of impact that ORRS, pilot projects, and alternate means of compliance methods have had: Occupancy celling regulations were revised which allowed cities and counties to increase jail populations by over 6,000, provided that appropriate staffing and classification systems were implemented. This enabled capacity increases at minimal cost, while still meeting constitutional housing requirements and not compromising safety. This avoids new construction and staffing; the resultant cost-avoidance is several million dollars annually.

Construction and physical plant regulations were streamlined and consolidated into the Uniform Building Code. This increased efficiency of review, reduced business costs, and helped developers, architects, and government to work easier and faster during construction and renovation projects.

Together with the State Fire Marshal, California Department of Corrections, and the Youth Authority, the CSA, in a cooperative effort, streamlined and consolidated detention facility fire regulations into one section of the Uniform Building Code. In addition, fire suppression and control regulations were revised significantly, and the resultant cost-savings for new construction and renovation is several million dollars annually, while not compromising safety.

CSA training regulations promote a decentralized, free-market approach for cities and counties to meet compliance. Private vendors, community colleges, and public agencies compete to provide training. Allowing private vendors to compete in a free-market lowers costs to cities and counties, while increasing quality and selection of training courses.

Other specific examples of responsiveness and cost-savings are:

• Allowing innovative approaches to medication disbursement in certain facilities saved money, without compromising medical safety.
• Combining entry-level training courses for administrators and managers eased training burdens and reduced costs.
• Allowing electronic signaling, in lieu of audio monitoring, in certain direct supervision style facilities saved money and staff time, without compromising inmate/staff safety.
• Plumbing/shower fixture ratios were increased, without compromising health or cleanliness.

There are many other specific examples too numerous to list that can be provided upon request. The Corrections Standards Authority website is rich with information on all aspects of its regulations and operational processes, including technical assistance activities and written guidelines to help business and local government.