Corrections Standards Authority Meeting

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2008

600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 445-5073
 Meeting held at: 660 Large Conference Room, Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95811

 

 Mr. Bernard Warner volunteered to Chair, welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. Maria Rodriguez, Secretary, Corrections Standards Authority took roll call.

The following members were in attendance:
Mr. Kernan
Mr. Warner
Mr. Bacigalupo
Mr. Prieto
Mr. Powers
Ms. Penner
Ms. Arnold
Mr. Ingrassia
Ms. Silbert
Ms. Petersen
Ms. Biondi
Ms. Gilyard
Mr. Adams
Mr. Penrod
Mr. Townsy

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Rodriguez announced the absences of Board members and reasons as to their absence.
Mr. Tilton, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Eckhardt had prior commitments.
Mr. Robert Hernandez was ill.
Mr. Warner asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by Mr. John Ingrassia and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi.
The motion carried.

Mr. Harris announced as a reminder to the audience, that there would be public comments allowed after each item before they were voted on.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2007 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
This Agenda Item was put off until the next board meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 2007 SPECIAL SESSION CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM B)

A motion to approve the December meeting minutes was made by Mr. Scott Kernan and seconded by Mr. Bernard Warner. Ms. Carol Biondi requested a correction to be made to the minutes reflecting the correct spelling of December.

The motion carried.

EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE – LOCAL JUVENILE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM C)
Presented by Deputy Director Robert Takeshta
This Agenda Item requested the approval of the Juvenile Facilities Construction Executive Steering Committee (ESC). On August 24 th, 2007, the Governor signed the budget act that included funding to implement the Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction Grant authorized by SB 81. This Legislation included $100 million in lease revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, design, renovation, or construction of Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facilities. Board Members Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer of Fresno County was appointed as the Chair, Adele Arnold, Chief Probation Officer of Siskiyou County and Carol Biondi, Public Member were appointed as Co-Chairs of the ESC. Staff will be working with the Chair and Co-Chairs regarding issues such as Legislative intent for this funding and provide progress updates in the Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction Funding Process to the Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Ms. Carol Biondi suggested that instead of using the word “Detention” we use “Rehabilitative” in order to define the facility.

A motion to approve the ESC membership and Ms. Biondi’s amendment was made by Mr. William Powers and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen. The motion carried.

ASSEMBLY BILL 900 (AB900) – JAIL CONSTRUCTION UPDATE AND APPORVAL OF THE DRAFT REGULATIONS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Deputy Director Robert Takeshta presented this action item.
At the December 13 th special session meeting the Board was given a progress report showing the RFP as amended that included changes resulting from the feedback session. The recommended changes included revising preference points for siting reentry facilities and modifying the funding set asides. The legislative intent of AB 900 that counties site reentry facilities receives preference for jail construction funding. Board members agreed that the points for reentry preference should be doubled from the previously recommended 150 points to 300 points. To receive the maximum point’s counties would be required to sign a siting agreement with CDCR. This would also allow for parolees with mental health or substance abuse problems to receive a continuum of care so that they can continue to receive care at the end of their parole. The Board agreed to redistribute the $700 million for phase 1 into two allotments. $650 million for large and medium counties and $100 million for small counties, the project cap remained at $100 million for large counties and increased to $80 million for medium counties and $30 million for small counties. The Board recommended staff to make these changes and then release the RFP to the field. This was done on December 20 th, 2007. The implementing draft construction regulations have continued to evolve. At the December 13 th, 2007 meeting staff requested and the Board agreed for the approval of the draft regulations. With the boards approval staff will resubmit the initial filing of these emergency regulations for the State Office of Administrative Law. After OAL approval, the regulations will be adopted and in effect for 160 days. CSA staff will send the regulations on to public comment and we will hold two public hearings, one in Sacramento on March 12 th, 2008 and one in San Bernardino on April 10 th, 2008. After the public comment period and the public hearings staff will assemble the comments and present the CSA Board with any recommended modifications at the May 2008 meeting. Staff recommended the Board approve the draft submitted, and direct staff to commence with the public comment period.

A motion to approve the draft Jail Construction Funding Regulations, to commence with the public comment process and the proposed public hearing dates was made by Mr. Scott Kernan and seconded by Ms. Linda Penner.

The motion carried.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCAL DETENTION FACILITIES – TITLES 15 AND 24, CALIFORNIA CODES OF REGULATIONS REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM E)
Field Representative Don Allen presented this action item.

This item provides the Corrections Standards Authority with an update of activities associated with the 2008 Adult Regulations Revision Process for Titles 15 and 24. This item reports the recommended revisions from the 14-member Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and incorporates the efforts of the 50 individuals who participated on the four workgroups. The item also requests the CSA approve and accept the revisions recommended by the ESC and direct staff to submit the revisions to the Department of Finance, Office of Administrative Law, and the Building Standards Commission for the purpose of commencing the public comment period.

At the March 8, 2007 meeting this Board directed staff to begin the regulations review process. The Board appointed members John Ingrassia as chair and Cleo Adams as co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for this process and directed staff to work with the chair and co-chair to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a timeline. At its May 2007 meeting, the CSA approved the ESC membership and timeline for the revision process. (Attachments A and B)

On April 12, 2007, a letter was sent to the field and posted on the CSA website notifying interested parties of the revision process and requesting their suggestions for changes. Thirty responses were received involving approximately twenty five separate regulations.

On June 19, 2007, the ESC met and reviewed the Titles 15 and 24 regulations, focusing on those that were the subject of recommendations for revision from the field. The ESC identified regulations and issues where additional examination was warranted. They also identified four workgroups and recommended their composition.

They also identified four workgroups and recommended their composition.

On September 18 and 19, 2007, the four workgroups, Management, Medical/Mental Health/Nutritional/Environmental Health, Minors in Detention, and Physical Plant met and examined each regulation with an emphasis on those that were identified by the ESC. Based on a thorough review of these regulations, the workgroups developed a series of recommended revisions.

On December 12, 2007, the ESC met and was briefed by the workgroup chairs of the recommended revisions. A booklet contains documents representing the process and the proposed revisions to Titles 15 and 24 CCR was provided as an attachment to the agenda item.

Recommendation/Action Needed:

The Executive Steering Committee and CSA staff recommends:

 

• Adopting the revisions recommended by the ESC to the Minimum Standards for Adult Facilities, Titles 15 and 24 for the purpose of beginning the public comment period;

 

• Directing staff to submit the revisions to the Department of Finance, Office of Administrative Law, and the Building Standards Commission for the purpose of commencing the public comment period; and

 

• Directing staff to commence with the public comment period by two holding hearings, at locations to be determined in Northern California and in Southern California.

172 Regulations, 60 definitions
46 regulations changed, 6 definitions changed
29 Non-substantial
(BOC to CSA, changes because of changes to related laws and regulations, grammar/spelling corrections)
17 Substantial
Requiring policy manuals are updated every 2 years instead of every year to correspond to our biennial inspection process.
Changes in the correspondence regulation

• to include the word “writings”,
• recognizing administrators ability to exclude certain materials based on legitimate penological interests, and
• Clarify that inmates can communicate with certain officials without their mail being read by staff.

Change the regulations regarding the detention of minors in areas where adult inmates are present, to be consistent with the Federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.

Clarify how intoxicated and substance abusing minors are detained and monitored in police facilities where adult inmates could be present.

Regulations were added to address the administration of involuntary medication if the facility elects to implement the provisions of recently enacted legislation (SB 568)

Changes regarding the administration of emergency psychotropic medication to require a physician perform a clinical evaluation (in person or by phone) of the inmate before providing the service and a requirement that the same physician sign the medical record for the order within 72 hours.

Add clarity to the audio monitoring requirement by specifying locations for the system to be present that will alert personnel who can respond immediately.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations was made by Ms. Linda Penner and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen. The motion carried.

ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE FOR TEMPORARY HOLDING ROOM CAPACITY – CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (AGENDA ITEM F)
Removed from the Agenda, requested by Contra Costa County

MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM G)
Corrections Consultant Helene Zentner this information only item.

Ms. Zentner provided this informational item as an update on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division. Two handouts were provided to the Board members: a packet of MIOCR Matters newsletters and a data summary sheet illustrating some of the information being presented.

Forty-four MIOCR grants began on January 1, 2007 – 22 of which support projects targeting adult mentally ill offenders and 22 grants support projects designed to help juvenile offenders with a mental illness. Start-up for some of these projects have taken longer than usual due to the time it takes counties to recruit, hire and train staff for the projects (especially due to the limited term of the grant), the lengthy process involved in subcontracting with community-based service providers, the challenges related to securing a suitable program site or office space, and the uncertainty regarding MIOCR funding in the 2007-08 State Budget. Despite these circumstances, 40 of the 44 projects are currently up and running and serving offenders. Three of the remaining four anticipate enrolling participants this month (January 2008) with the fourth likely to begin enrolling participants in February.

MIOCR Matters quarterly bulletins share information about the projects, project success stories and other issues of interest. These bulletins are available on the CSA web site, copies were provided as an attachment to the agenda item.

Staff has been visiting grantees to monitor compliance with contract requirements and to provide technical assistance on issues related to fiscal administration, data collection and program implementation. Visits have also included observing mental health courts, interviews with program participants and meeting with officials and staff from the various agencies involved in these collaborative projects. Ms. Zentner commented that without exception, they have been inspired by the dedication and passion of the MIOCR program staff.

Although it is not statutory required there be an evaluation of the MIOCR grants, the Executive Steering Committee for the RFP and the CSA Board agreed that the CSA collect data from grantees - this is done on a monthly basis. Data variables were identified and defined in collaboration with subject matter experts and the MIOCR grantees.

Data collected from grantees are set up in a pre-program enrollment/post-enrollment format. The collection tool has 3 sections: participant demographic information, historical data variables, based on the 12-month period prior to program enrollment and participant outcomes for those same variables collected historically. A data summary sheet was provided to Board members which highlighted some of the data collected. Note: the data represented the collection period of February through November 2007 and outcome data have been projected over a 12-month period so as to compare pre and post data equally.

A summary of the data presented was as follows:

The adult programs have implemented the evidence-based Assertive Community Treatment model with three-fourths of the programs also implementing a Mental Health Court. 486 individuals have been enrolled- 66% male/34% female, with 82% of the clients having a co-occurring disorder.

The booking data reflect a significant decrease - prior to program enrollment, a total of 887 bookings for new offenses were reported; post-program, only 126 bookings - an 86% reduction. With the exception of two (2) counties, it appears programs are having a positive effect on reducing the severity of new offenses by 5%.

The number of days in jail also decreased significantly - there were a total of 45,611 jail days pre-enrollment but only 2,320 jail days post-enrollment, a 95% decrease. Note: clients participating in programs with a Mental Health Court spent less time in jail post-enrollment than clients not participating in a Mental Health Court.

The number of individuals homeless for any amount of time decreased by only 65% although the number of days these individuals have been homeless post-enrollment has decreased significantly; 212 participants previously reported being homeless for an average of 72 days - these same individuals have now reported being homeless an average of less than 7 days, a 97% decrease.

Data show programs being successful in attaining government benefit assistance as the number of recipients receiving entitlements has increased by 40%. Note: clients participating in a Mental Health Court appear more likely to be enrolled in some form of benefit assistance.

Seventeen of the 22 juvenile programs have implemented an intensive family therapy model with over half of the projects initiating a Mental Health Court. 477 youth have been enrolled- 76% male/24% female. Note: the ethnic make-up of program youth is almost evenly divided between African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian.

Sustained petitions data show 558 sustained petitions reported for new offenses pre-program; post-enrollment, the number decreased to 64 - an 89% reduction. After a breakdown on the types of offenses, it appears programs have had a positive effect on reducing the severity of new offenses as felony petitions have decreased by 8%.

Juvenile Hall commitments have decreased from 247 pre-enrollment to 110 post-enrollment – a 55% decrease. In addition, the number of days in detention decreased drastically. Minors spent a total of 12,601 days in detention prior to enrollment; detention days served post-enrollment dropped to 1,668 days - a 71% decrease.

Minors committed to out-of-home placements fell considerably after enrollment in the local programs. 106 youth were placed in a group-home setting prior to involvement with MIOCR; post-enrollment, there were only 20 - a reduction of 81%.

MIOCR programs have had a high impact on the number of acute psychiatric hospitalizations. There were 47 hospitalizations pre-program and only 10 post-enrollment - a decrease of 79%.

Ms. Zentner stated that although data presented was aggregated, to be mindful of the fact these programs are about individuals who, through the MIOCR funding and dedicated project staff, have changed their lives for the better. From numerous interviews and case studies, MIOCR participants have expressed a great deal of gratitude for being given a second chance on life.

Ms. Biondi stated she would like to see this update in a dollar format as well.

Ms. Silbert asked if there was a statistic for the amount of youths who returning back home with this program is in effect. Ms. Zentner stated that most of the cases that this model is based on when youth are returning home have intense probation where probation officers review progress as necessary. Ms. Silbert asked when the program was done before all the statistics showed it was very successful, it ended, there was issued a separate body of money, is this what happened? Ms. Zentner stated that this was what happened for both the adult and the juvenile. Ms. Silbert asked if they chose that the program was a success can the next round of money have something to do with continuing the program instead of stopping them. Ms. Zentner stated that it is the intent of the RFP that if there is future appropriations in each state budget that these programs will continue for an additional four years aside from the original eighteen months. Ms. Biondi asked if there is separation of the different strategies that are being used. Some of these strategies have research that is almost forcing counties to use Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) because it is evidence based. This information might be useful for different counties. Ms. Zentner stated that the database being used does differentiate the models that are being used by each county for the youth involved. Ms. Eckhardt asked what happens when the youth are no longer on probation, are the youth still able to receive the resources being offered. Ms. Zentner responded by saying the program has special probation officers that are working directly with these programs and until they have a step down program the child and family will no longer receive the services from this grant and will go back to the regular general probationary relation. Ms. Penner stated that early termination in her county doesn’t work as well as having the youth spend more time in the program. Ms. Penner asked if there is anything this board can do as a body for this program to be better heard. Ms. Zentner stated that she would be happy to see any and all support for these programs and is hopeful for future funding when there is another round for these grantees. This round of funding for the adults was given priority consideration to those counties who participated in the first two MIOCR programs.

Ms. Silbert amended the recommendation to have the process included in the statement of Legislature about refunding the program and the process of refunding successful programs.

A motion to approve Ms. Silbert’s amendment recommendation was made by Ms. Linda Penner and was seconded by Mr. Ed Prieto. The motion was opposed by

Mr. Scott Kernan. The motion carried.

SENATE BILL 81 – JUVENILE JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS (AGENDA ITEM H)
Presented by Field Representative Kim Bushard
This is an information item being presented to update the status of County Juvenile Justice Plans which were due to CSA on January 1 st, 2008. The Juvenile Justice Development plans are linked to the Youthful Offender Block Grants. All counties received their funds last November. We have received plans from all but two counties. In addressing the composition of the plans the Legislature identified several options for counties to positively impact the Juveniles who will remain under their supervision. Among these options are risks and needs assessments, graduated sanctions, reentry programs, agency capacity building and development or expansion of regional networks. A cursory view of the Juvenile Justice development Programs submitted reveals that the county strategies for the use of Youthful Offender Block Grant funds are consistent with the legislature’s intent to enhance rehabilitative and supervision services for the target juvenile population. This generally fills gaps in the California Juvenile Justice system as identified in each county’s comprehensive multi agency juvenile justice plans developed as a requirement of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act.

Ms. Biondi asked were CSA staff to be made aware of a county not providing services required by Legislation; what would CSA do to these counties?

Ms. Bushard stated that CSA would dedicate resources to them and investigate the issue. In the legislation there is nothing stated that the counties need to report on this and lack of administrative staff on our end make program monitoring challenging. There is a statement in the legislation asking for a Juvenile Justice Master Plan from the State Commission on Juvenile Justice. This should show how the funds are being spent also whether the strategies in the legislation are being employed.

Ms. Biondi suggested a joint session with the State Commission on Juvenile Justice and the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (ACJJDP) to meet every six months.

Ms. Penner stated that she hopes CSA stands tall on their commitment of these funds and they continue to allocate their support to the counties.

A motion to approve Ms. Biondi’s suggestion was made by Mr. Bernard Warner and was seconded by Ms. Pamala Gilyard. The motion carried.

 Executive Director C. Scott Harris Jr. acknowledged the attendance of Board members, Mr. Gary Penrod and Mr. Travis Townsy.

SENATE BILL 81 – REQUESTS FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FUNDING (AGENDA ITEM I)
Presented by Field Representative Kim Bushard
The next item was an action item requesting Board approval on two matters. First, requesting approval of the criteria to be used in evaluating county requests for financial hardship funding under the provisions of Senate Bill 81. Second, requesting approval of the first two requests received under those provisions.

With enactment of SB 81, the Legislature established the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to provide counties with financial support to house and treat lower level offenders locally. The Legislature seemed to recognize that the Block Grant amounts may not be sufficient for all counties and included a provision to set aside 5% of the total Block Grant amount – or roughly $1.1 million – for counties who demonstrate a need above and beyond what their Block Grant provides.

In terms of eligibility criteria, SB 81 clearly identifies two things a county must demonstrate to receive these hardship funds. A county must first identify the unusual circumstance that exists in the county and then explain why their Block Grant is inadequate to meet the county financial needs to accommodate and supervise youthful offenders. This statutory language represents the only criteria identified or used to evaluate county requests for these funds.

CSA received 2 requests well in advance of January’s meeting. The week prior to the meeting CSA received another request which will be reviewed, discussed with the Division of Juvenile Justice and presented at the next Board meeting.

The requests included in the agenda were from Tulare and Monterey counties. Both of these counties have complied with the criteria mentioned. Specifically, Tulare County’s unusual circumstance is that they rank very high in terms of the non-707(b) releases they are getting from DJJ – statewide they are in the top 6 or 7 counties. Tulare’s Block Grant amount does not provide sufficient funds to deliver the specialized services this large number of offenders will need. The additional $135,000 requested by Tulare will be used to provide for those needs. Chief Janet Honadle from Tulare County Probation Department had written a letter, discussing the need that exists in her county. Cheryl Summers-Lane, Program Specialist was present to answer question in support of Chief Honadle’s request.

Monterey County ’s unusual circumstance is that the data provided by the Department of Justice, and used by the Department of Finance, to calculate their Block Grant amount does not appear to be accurate. This data showed a 57% decline in juvenile felony dispositions from 2005 to 2006, a time when Monterey County was experiencing significant juvenile crime. Monterey had requested an additional $185,617 to augment their Block Grant and ensure adequate funds are available to serve the youth who already have or will be coming to them from DJJ. The amount of their request reflects the average of the two counties they identified as providing the closest comparison in terms of population (Solano & Sonoma). Chief Manuel Real of Monterey County Probation Department was present to answer questions in support his request.

CSA is mandated to collaborate with DJJ in developing funding recommendations related to hardship requests. As part of this collaboration, DJJ staff provided information on the number of releases and potential releases to each of these counties since enactment of SB 81. In the case of both Tulare and Monterey, DJJ confirmed that there have been a number of releases and that the counties are – or had been – providing services to the youthful offenders in their custody.

If the requests for Tulare and Monterey County are approved, just over $800,000 will remain out of the $1.1 million available for any future requests. It is important to note that these funds are only available until June 30 th of this year. Any funds that have not been awarded by that date will revert to the General Fund.

Based on the information reviewed by CSA and DJJ staff, it is recommended that the Board approve the use of the two criteria outlined in SB 81 as the only criteria against which county requests will be measured. It is further recommended that the Board approve the requests submitted by Tulare and Monterey Counties.

Ms. Biondi asked if Counties without camps will be disproportionately impacted by the DJJ realignment. Ms. Biondi added a county without camps would have more 707 offenders to supervise. Ms. Biondi stated that she thought they did take a ten year period for how many non 707 offenders they were sending.

Cheryl Summers-Lane, Tulare County Probation, stated camps that are sent through the youth facility are on a specific program prior and through reentry with the existing unit. Those are not the kids that are being sent. The kids being sent have been due to a lack of resources, non 707(b) were kids that really needed the help that Tulare County was not able to provide. The kids that were being sent off could not be helped locally. Tulare County has 39 scheduled and have received ten so far of the non 707(b) offenders. For every one of those cases it takes a probation officer many hours to travel and interview the kids and go over their release plan. They discharged one DJJ returnee to his parents in Oregon. He had a pretty successful run in the facility. It took five court appearances for their local judges to make the arrangements and agree that this boy could be returned to his parents. That has happened in three of four cases. Many of the DJJ awards never returned home. Tulare County currently has four DJJ returns that are on probation. They are each seen a minimum of once a week. Ms. Summers-Lane stated that they are trying to establish the best program to benefit the kids. Mental Health in Tulare County like many counties is under staffed and under funded. They have one probation officer assigned and he is expecting 24 kids. Tulare County needs the one time emergency money so they can start setting up these programs for the kids.

Ms. Biondi stated that her concern was to prioritize the counties that were disproportionately impacted by the realignment. Cheryl Summers-Lane stated that they felt they were disproportionately impacted.

Ms. Silbert added that she feels that a huge state burden is being placed on counties based on statistics. Ms. Silbert stated only two requests have been received leaving a backlog of many counties who feel they need the funding. Ms. Silbert added that she would like a way to monitor the funds so that the money ends up used towards the refocusing and that she is very supportive of the Financial Hardship Funding.

Mr. Townsy added that the 707(b) funding is focused towards counties that are pressed with a hardship for funding.

Mr. Robert Takeshta asked for public comment.

Mr. Brian Cooley, Chief Probation Officer, Merced County, stated that he put in a request for funding. He stated that there is not a structure in place on how to request the funding. He said an issue that comes up is with the Juvenile population felony rate and what the judge does if his commitment leans heavily towards commitment with the Youth Authority. He added that those two factors do not cover the bill. Mr. Cooley stated that he has an appeal to the way the money is distributed based on the opinion of the judge.

A motion to approve CSA and DJJ Staff’s recommendations was made by Ms. Adele Arnold and was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM J)
Presented by Field Representative Doug Carlile
The Legislature returned this past Monday to begin the second year of their two-year session. They immediately began amending bills that were introduced last year. The reason for this flurry of amendments is because each house only has until January 31 st to pass any bills introduced in 2007. Then the Legislature only has until February 22 to introduce any new Legislation.

The Legislation of Interest report before you is quite a bit shorter than the last two because all of descriptions of the bills that were chaptered, vetoed, or were substantially amended on January 7 th so as to not be pertinent any longer have been removed. Many of the bills still listed will drop-off as the deadline for passage comes and goes.

There are three specific bills that I would like to inform you about. They are Senate Bills 628, 657, and 902.

SB 628 would establish through the Department of Finance a program of financial and technical assistance for the counties of Butte, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Shasta, upon their application, to provide district attorneys or county sheriffs with funds to coordinate multi-agency drug endangered child response teams. Funds for this program could come from CSA, the Office of Emergency Services, or the Victim's Compensation and Government Claims Board. (References a code section that abolished OCJP and provides juvenile justice programs go to CSA, law enforcement programs to the Office of Emergency Services and Victims’ Services to the Victim's Compensation and Government Claims Board.)

SB 657 entitled the Safe Neighborhoods Act: Protect Victims, Stop Gang and Street Crime would make several changes to current laws relating to criminal offenders. These proposed changes include, but are not limited to, new criminal justice programs and funding levels, increased criminal penalties for some crimes, various changes that would impact prison and parole policies, county jails and other local criminal justice agencies. This appears to very closely approximate the proposed initiative of the same title.

And finally, SB 902 is only included because there were a lot of communications and inquires regarding this bill last week. At that time, the bill’s content was regarding Juvenile Justice Programs. As you can see it was amended January 7 th and now deals with an entirely different subject. Specifically, it now addresses standards and procedures for accelerant detecting canines and their handlers.

Meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Respectfully submitted, 

Originally signed by
KRYSTEN MEYER
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
Scott Kernan, CDCR, Adult Operations
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Ed Prieto, Sheriff, Yolo County
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
Adele Arnold, Chief Probation Officer
William Powers, County Supervisor
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Kim Petersen, Public Member, Represents Interests of Crime Victims
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff
Mimi Silbert, Public Member
Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer
Cheryl Summers-Lane, Program Specialist, Tulare County
Manuel Real, Chief Probation Officer, Monterey County
Brian Cooley, Chief Probation Officer, Merced County

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Robert Takeshta, Deputy Director, CFC
Don Allen, Field Representative, FSO
Helene Zentner, Corrections Consultant, CPP
Kimberly Bushard, Field Representative, CPP
Doug Carlile, Field Representative, CPP
Patricia Sanchez, Information System Technician
Reizo Shibamoto, Secretary, CPP
Gary Wion, Deputy Director, FSO
Rosa Pargas, Office Technician
Maria Rodriguez, Secretary
Sue Roseberry, Secretary
Jaymie Nannini, Staff Services Analysis