MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2008

600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 445-5073
Meeting held at: San Mateo Youth Services Center, 222 Paul Scannell Drive, San Mateo, CA 94402

Mr. C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director of Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), introduced the Chief Probation Officer of San Mateo, County

Mr. Buddress welcomed everyone to the Youth Services Center. Mr. Buddress stated that the facility had a cost of $151 Million dollars which included the girls camp and the receiving home.

Mr. Buddress introduced Mr. Greg Munks, Sheriff, San Mateo County. Mr. Munks welcomed everyone.

Mr. Buddress introduced Ms. Regina Wilson Henry, Director, San Mateo County Juvenile Hall. Ms. Henry offered a tour at the end of the meeting to any interested party.

Mr. Gary Penrod volunteered to Chair, welcomed everyone, reminded the Board that the microphones are open and called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Penrod also stated the Public Comment Policy allowing public comment after each Item that requires an Action.

Mr. Harris announced the resignation of Ms. Kim Petersen.

Ms. Krysten Meyer, Executive Assistant, Corrections Standards Authority took roll call.

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

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Meyer announced the absences of Board members and reasons as to their absence.
Mr. Tilton, Mr. Bacigalupo, Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Gilyard had prior commitments.
Mr. Penrod asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by Mr. Kernan and seconded by Mr. Penrod.
The motion carried.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2007 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Ms. Arnold requested a correction to the November 8, 2007 minutes opening paragraph, changing the name of the Chief Probation Officer of Napa County from Julie Hudgins to Mary Butler.

A motion to approve the November minutes was made. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARARY 10, 2008 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM B)

A motion to approve the January minutes was made. The motion carried.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 2008, SPECIAL SESSION TELECONFERENCE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY (AGENDA ITEM C)

A motion to approve the February minutes was made. The motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT, MR. DORSEY NUNN, CO-DIRECTOR FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN (AGENDA ITEM D)
Mr. Harris introduced Mr. Dorsey Nunn, Co-Director of Legal Services for Prisoners With Children. Mr. Dorsey Nunn asked how prisoners secure their rights to vote. Mr. Nunn stated that the information provided on prisoners rights to vote vary from jail to jail so he requested that a system or policy be set in place to make prisoners aware of their rights. He asked that some type of video or some sort of education be provided to incarcerated people in order to make them aware of what their voting rights are. Mr. Nunn stated that formerly incarcerated people would like the right to vote to have an impact on who will become the District Attorney, Sheriff, and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Nunn stated that they brought out their own cards for distribution amongst the facilities for distribution to help educate incarcerated people of their rights. Mr. Nunn asked that probation departments provide the information to formerly incarcerated people.

Ms. Silbert asked Mr. Nunn if there is a state law and how individual counties differ in that law and how do they decide they have the authority to differ. Mr. Nunn replied that state law is that unless you are a prisoner, on parole or under the legal voting age you have the right to vote.

Mr. Harris asked if staff knows about CSA’s regulations and can provide some information. Mr. Penrod stated that we would need some time to prepare.

Ms. Penner stated that this organization came to the Board previously and that many of their cards and brochures are in all of her waiting rooms in Fresno and that she assumes that many other Chiefs throughout the state did the same in posting those.

Mr. Nunn stated that massive numbers of individuals are in the jails and are misinformed of their rights. Ms. Biondi asked Mr. Nunn for some of his cards.

Mr. Penrod informed Mr. Nunn that staff would go back and look in to CSA’s regulations. Mr. Penrod told him that he made a very good point and that’s something that the Board can take a look at.

Ms. Silbert asked that instead of just putting it to research if the right already exists maybe they could agree that the Sheriff’s could incorporate it in whatever orientation there already is in place.

Mr. Penrod stated that if it’s not mandatory their may be several counties that will not participate. Mr. Penrod stated that they should have the information by the next Board meeting.

Mr. Prieto added that there has to be a little bit of trust here. Mr. Nunn replied that he has absolutely no trust based on the system that he has known.

Ms. Silbert stated that if the law isn’t that clear that she would suggests that as the staff investigates the law they talk to Mr. Nunn since he has spent years having people investigate the law as well which will speed things up for the next meeting.

Mr. Penrod stated the next Board meeting will be held May 8, 2008 in Sacramento.

EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE, LOCAL YOUTHFUL OFFENDER REHABILITATIVE FACILITES - UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM E)
Field Representative Charlene Aboytes presented this Action Item which requests approval of the timeline for the SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction funding process and the release of the draft SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility RFP.

In August 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the 2007 Budget Act that included funding to implement the Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction Grants authorized by Senate Bill 81. This legislation includes $100 million in lease-revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, design, renovation or construction of local youthful offender rehabilitative facilities. At its December 2007 special session, the CSA Board authorized staff to create an Executive Steering Committee to develop the process to distribute the $100 million in a competitive request for proposals process. Board members Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer, Fresno County, was appointed as the Chair and Adele Arnold, Chief Probation Officer, Siskiyou County and Carol Biondi, Public Member, were appointed as Co-chairs of the Executive Steering Committee. The remaining committee members were appointed at the January 2008 meeting and the February 2008 special session of the CSA Board. The Executive Steering Committee met in Sacramento in public session on February 19 th to develop the components of the RFP and the proposal rating factors to ultimately rank order counties based upon their proposals. The minutes of this meeting are reflected in Attachment A. Pages 8 through 10 show the proposed proposal rating factors. These factors include: county’s approach to the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders; project need; relationship between construction plan and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders; detention alternatives; scope of work and project impact; administrative work plan; overall quality of written proposal; percent cash match (exceeding minimum requirement); cost effectiveness/budget review; and regional projects (small, medium and large).

The Executive Steering Committee also proposed to divide $100 million dollars into three separate categories of funding; relying on the Department of Finance’s July 1, 2007 general population data, dividing the $100 million dollars as follows:

Large counties (700,001 population and above): $35 million.
Medium counties (200,001 to 700,000 population): $35 million.
Small counties (up to 200,000 population): $30 million.

The Executive Steering Committee chose not to impose a cost cap within each category to allow counties as much flexibility as possible in the types of proposals they can submit. Also included in your agenda item is Attachment B, the draft timeline of key events for this process. This timeline shows CSA staff sending the draft request for proposals to the Executive Steering Committee, Governor’s Office, Attorney General’s Office, CDCR Legal and the State Public Works Board for a two week review and comment period. Allowing several days to make changes, and with your approval, CSA staff would release the draft RFP to the field. As has been past practice, a public feedback session will be offered so that counties and others can make suggestions or ask for clarification on points outlined in the draft RFP. This will help to ensure a thorough and comprehensive RFP. After the feedback session, staff is proposing to schedule an Executive Steering Committee meeting so that they can consider the comments from the field. The final RFP is scheduled to be presented to the CSA Board for its approval at the May 8, 2008 meeting before distribution to the field. Based on this timeline, the final RFP would be released mid-May with a bidder’s conference held in Sacramento in early June. Proposals would be due 3 ½ months later in late August. The timeline shows that staff will complete a technical requirements review of all proposals prior to the Executive Steering Committee’s three week period to review and make preliminary ratings of the proposals. Counties will be allowed to make presentations regarding their proposals before the Executive Steering Committee makes their final ratings to rank the proposals for funding recommendations. The timeline shows that the Executive Steering Committee funding recommendations would be heard at the November 13, 2008 CSA Board meeting. Staff recommends that the Board approve the timeline for the SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction funding process and the draft SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility RFP.

Ms. Silbert added that she has never read a more thorough ESC report in all her years on the board.

Mr. Warner asked if there was a discussion on how the money is divided.

Charlene Aboytes indicated that the ESC recognized that the needs of the small counties are great. That was why the set-asides were divided up as $35 million for large counties, $35 million for medium counties and $30 million for small counties.

Ms. Biondi added that it looked like large counties disproportionately benefited in prior CSA grant processes.

Mr. Warner asked if there is any preference based on regional approaches considering that a number of smaller counties do not have facilities. Ms. Aboytes stated that the RFP outlines the ability for smaller counties to regionalize.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations was made by Ms. Silbert and seconded by Ms. Biondi.
The motion carried.

 COUNTY PETITIONS FOR MATCH REDUCTION, AB 900 JAIL COSTRUCTION PROPOSALS (AGENDA ITEM F)

Field Representative Leslie Heller, presented this Action item which is in response to the Construction or Expansion of County Jails Request for Proposals, authorized by this Board on December 13, 2007.

Specifically, the AB 900 legislation allows for counties fewer than 200,000 in general population to petition the CSA Board for a reduction in match. No further legislative language exists regarding the parameters around the petition process.

With this legislative language as a foundation, the Executive Steering Committee did recommend, and this Board did approve with the release of the RFP, that small counties may petition the Board either prior to, or at the time of, submitting a jail construction proposal. Further, these small counties may request a reduction in in-kind match only, which is potentially 20% of their stated total eligible project cost. Each small county is still responsible for the 5% minimum cash match. State dollars may cover construction costs only.

Today, the first and final petitions are before you for your action. A total of 4 petitions have been submitted with county proposals, staff has reviewed them, and each of you should have a copy of those before you in goldenrod color. Those petitions are from: Calaveras, Madera, Shasta and Sutter counties.

Each of the proposals meets the criteria of the RFP: not more than $30 million is requested, staying within the project cap for small counties, state dollars are being requested for construction only, and a minimum of 5% cash match is being provided.

What each of the counties’ match reduction requests have in common is the desire for the county to maximize the state dollars they are able to request. Without the match reduction, each of these counties would be requesting fewer state dollars. Representatives from each of the counties are present should the Board have any county-specific questions to ask of them.

Staff recommends the Board approve the match reduction requests from Calaveras, Madera, Shasta and Sutter counties.

Ms. Silbert asked if it is known how many of the AB900 requests consist of reentry facilities. Ms. Heller replied that AB900 is for jail construction only. There is additional money in AB900 for the prison system which is separate funding altogether. The crossover and what is confusing to many of the counties as well is that in the jail portion there’s a stated preference that if a county assists the state in siting a reentry facility then there’s preference to those counties in receiving jail construction funding.

Mr. Kernan asked how many counties requesting match reduction are interested in the reentry process. Ms. Heller and Mr. Takeshta replied that Calaveras and Madera counties have stated their intent to assist with reentry facilities, while Shasta and Sutter counties have indicated they do not intend to assist. Mr. Penrod stated that he was surprised that only four counties asked for the match reduction.

Mr. Kernan asked if all four counties are being voted on at the same time or separately. Mr. Kernan said the intent of the funds was to be used towards reentry but there are two counties that don’t want to participate in the reentry. Ms. Silbert stated that she would also like separate votes on the counties. Ms. Penner asked if when counties were able to apply for this reduction, did we provide them with any criteria that there was any preference for those considering or not considering reentry or should they just be based on the request alone. Ms. Leslie Heller stated that Ms. Penner is correct in that no additional criteria were provided to the counties. Ms. Silbert stated that she didn’t understand why we didn’t submit additional criteria if it was the intent of the legislation. Mr. Penrod replied there are points in the proposal for counties that want to participate.

Ms. Heller stated that the Match Reduction changes the counties’ match requirement but does not change the points. Ms. Heller stated that what this has done for each of the counties is that by reducing their match requirement they can ask for a greater amount of state dollars, but the state dollars can still only be applied towards construction costs. So what each county is getting more state dollars in construction costs which they would otherwise have to fund at the county level in the match if they get chosen. With a reduction in match it’s not giving any of these four counties any further preference in this process; only that their match is reduced. The Executive Steering Committee discussed whether or not these counties are still subject to the evaluation of their cash match, and they are.

Mr. Robert Takeshta stated it was part of the RFP and they would have to make that request in conjunction with the time of submittal. They could have done that at the previous board meeting. This is their last opportunity today so that’s why we’re here with these four counties. We are surprised there were only four counties when there were actually ten proposals for small counties, so all ten could have applied.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations of the four Match Reduction Requests was made by Ms. Biondi and seconded by Mr. Prieto. The motion carried.

AB 900 JAIL CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS, AN OVERVIEW OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM G)
Field Representative Leslie Heller presented this information only item. The Board authorized the release of the Construction or Expansion of County Jails Request for Proposals, at its special session on December 13, 2007, with the purpose of this RFP being to solicit county proposals for jail construction projects to be funded in state lease-revenue bond proceeds authorized through Assembly Bill 900 – Phase I, in the amount of $750,000,000. Following the timeline of key events included in that RFP, proposals were due from counties by March 18, 2008.

Since the submission of proposals to the CSA office, staff has taken the opportunity to pull some basic information from each proposal in order to provide a brief overview of the proposal contents. This information is basic in nature, as each proposal has not yet been reviewed in depth by staff, which is something staff will be working on as part of the technical compliance review process.

The next step in the RFP process is that the proposals will go to the jail construction Executive Steering Committee, chaired by Sheriffs Penrod and Prieto, and the full committee will rate each proposal, resulting in a rank-ordered list of all of the proposals.

At the next CSA Board meeting in May, the Committee’s recommended rank-ordered list will be before the Board for its action, resulting in a notice of Intent to Award being provided to the counties that will then be slated to receive funding.

We received 24 proposals for the $750,000,000. The Board may recall that there are essentially pots of money set aside for small counties in the amount of 100,000,000 dollars, and for medium and large counties combined $650,000,000. In the small county category CSA received ten proposals totaling a state dollar request of $245+ million dollars. In the medium and large category we received fourteen proposals totaling over $948,000,000, this came to a grand total of $1.1 billion almost $1.2 billion dollars. On average counties are proposing a 46% match on the projects; there’s a 25% match requirement minimum with the exception of small counties that can petition the board for a reduction in match. What is important to note is that in the 46% match average, those four counties that are petitioning for a reduction in match are counted. The total net gain in jail beds for all 24 proposals is 10,523 beds. The Board may recall that AB900 has funding preferences stated. The first is to assist the state with siting reentry facilities. Three proposals indicated that they have accomplished the initial planning. An additional 16 proposals indicated that they accomplished the initial planning plus identified a reentry facility site for a total of 19 proposals requesting in the funding preference. Using the information provided from the division of reentry on approximate bed numbers for each county, those 19 proposals represent approximately 6,950 potential reentry beds. The second funding preference speaks to assisting the state in mental health and substance abuse services for the parolee and ex-offender populations. Three proposals indicated an agreement to assist the state with this effort; an additional 13 proposals indicated they would agree to assist the state and also have identified a potential location for services for the parole population, totaling 16 proposals requesting this preference. CSA staff is planning on posting this information to CSA’s website along with a brief summary of the projects for which counties are requesting funding.

Mr. Penrod asked what the average was of the 24 proposals is per bed cost. Ms. Heller informed Mr. Penrod that the information is not yet available.

Mr. Powers asked if there were any counties that did not move in any direction towards either of two preference types. Ms. Heller replied that it’s not a requirement for the county to agree to assist the state with those two different preference types, so there were counties that submitted proposals that did not request any funding preference at all. Those counties still go in to the mix of being rated but they go in to that mix essentially with the deficit of those potential points they could have earned. They still get rated like everyone else. There are three proposals that did not make a preference for either category. There were some counties that did one category and not the other.

Ms. Biondi asked if they are all or nothing proposals. If you get down to it and just by shifting a little here or there could you respond positively to all? Mr. Warner restated Ms. Biondi’s question of how the funding is dispersed, if it’s all or nothing or if a county requested $10,000,000 could they be awarded $8,000,000. Ms. Heller stated that historically it has been all or nothing unless there’s a usable amount of money left in the pot and there’s a county that’s on the cusp, they would be asked if they could use the money for their project without changing their project. Essentially the county would have the choice to go forward with the same project scope with a lesser amount of state funds being applied towards it.

Mr. Penrod asked for any questions or public comments.

Ms. Veronica Ferguson, Assistant County Administrator, Solano County, stated that up until recently Solano county was one of the counties that had adequate financing. Due to the change in the market CSA recently had to reevaluate and unfortunately when we reevaluated we missed the deadline. We would like to submit for the record clearly asking for an extension. More important are the numbers which seem to say that there won’t be a Phase II. Solano County is asking that you consider the possibility for Phase II requests.

Mr. Penrod stated that it has been the policy of CSA that the cut off date is final; however, exceptions can be made if the request is substantial. Mr. Townsy asked why there was a sudden change in the opinion of the city. Ms. Ferguson replied that the city has always been very supportive of reentry. The difficulty with them is that they don’t want another state prison in their community. We currently have several prisons in Vacaville so the city’s problem has not been on reentry. They are open to talk to us to about if it’s possible for us to construct a grant application that allows for reentry. Mr. Prieto stated, so at this point you don’t have any confirmation from the city they are just stating they are willing to discuss it, so you really haven’t moved forward from the point where you were five months ago. Ms. Ferguson added we were concerned about the points in this grant application for that and without that our staff wouldn’t be competitive. At this point we would like the opportunity to see if we can put something together.

Doug Papagni, Director of Corrections, Madera County, stated a couple of observations, that the cost of beds is about $115,426 per bed under this proposal with these request. That’s taking the total number of State dollar requests by the total number of beds. Mr. Papagni stated that if we wait these prices will never be seen again.

Mr. Penrod asked for any further comments

JAIL PROFILE SURVEY AND JUVENILE DETENTION, PROFILE SURVEY ANNUAL REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM H)
Correctional Consultant, John Kohls, presented this information only item. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) has completed the seventh annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) and the thirteenth annual report for the Jail Profile Survey.

The Jail Profile Survey (JPS) has been used by the CSA to collect data from counties for over thirteen years. The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS), modeled after the JPS, has been used to collect data from local juvenile detention facilities for seven years. Both surveys collect data relative to the population and characteristics of individuals held in local adult and juvenile detention facilities in California. The CSA has been able to track how these populations and characteristics have shifted over time, and these surveys remain a vital tool for state and local decision makers where detention facilities, operations, construction, and alternatives to detention are concerned.

The annual reports for both surveys will highlight significant findings from overall detention statistics including: capacity, charges, gender, mental health variables, and booking information. The annual reports offer opportunities for the CSA and local detention facilities to monitor statewide trends that local corrections and juvenile probation communities have been following over time, as well as an opportunity to analyze trends that have developed since the beginning of this project.

Mr. John Kohls stated that on a peak population day in 2007 the inmate population was 88,628 statewide. 75,728 beds meet the standards of CSA. In 1975 the average population was 22,320 if the ADP had increased proportional to the increase in general population last year we would have had 40,896 as the ADP which would have been a 75% increase but what actually happened was 83,184, a 257% increase. By the time data was gathered it was about a year old so we needed to establish a method to provide more updated information. So we developed in the 1990’s the Jail Profile Survey which became operational in 1996 and the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey became operational in 1999. Those two surveys went through a second generation revision in 2002 and reevaluated again in the anticipation of a third generation. The surveys gather data monthly. They gather data from all California jurisdictions about all adult detention facilities. The information serves as a basis for periodic reports. The rise in the general population in California doesn’t explain the ADP Chart. By 1996 59% of the people released were non-sentenced. By 2007 68% of people released were non-sentenced. There are fewer sentenced people in the jails today then there was twelve years ago. The percentage of females is gradually increasing and it appears to be happening statewide. We have a deficit of 35,422 beds.

Mr. Warner asked if Mr. Kohls had any information on inmate length of stay. Mr. Kohls stated the length of stay has increased over the past 12 years from about 21 days to 23 days. Mr. Kohls stated that they haven’t been able to gather consistent data on length of stay.

Mr. Kohls added that he would like to gather data from 2007 and meet with a panel of people to present the data and get feed back on the data to make sure that the data is consistent.

Ms. Penner asked if the presentation in on the website. Mr. Kohls replied that it will be available on the website.

LASSEN COUNTY JUVENILE HALL DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY (AGENDA ITEM I)
Field Representative Rebecca Craig presented this Action Item which is requesting a determination of suitability for the confinement of minors at the Lassen County Juvenile Hall, as required in WIC Section 209 (d). The request for a determination of suitability came as a result our inspection of the juvenile hall on June 26, 2007. The facility was found in non-compliance with the number of supervision staff as required by CCR Title 15, Section 1321 Staffing.

This regulation requires, among other things, a sufficient number of supervisory level staff to ensure adequate supervision of all staff members. The facility relied on one supervisor in addition to the superintendent. As a result, there was no formal supervision oversight on weekends and 16 hours of the day.

The CSA inspection letter was sent to the county on July 27, 2007 and the Department provided a Corrective Action Plan on September 5, 2007. The plan included additional supervision staff as required for the safe operation of the facility. Attachment A provides a chronology of events including E-mails, phone conversations and an on onsite meeting at the Lassen County Juvenile Hall on November 1, 2007.

It should also be noted by the members of the Board that Chief Martin immediately took action to add staff and appoint temporary supervision staff upon our discussion of the issues at the exit conference conducted on June 26, 2007. This was however, a temporary fix and the positions and services were provided using overtime, etc.

The addition of supervisory staff required action by the County Department of Personnel and the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. Chief Martin’s request for staff was placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda on November 20 and CSA reviewed and approved the proposed staffing on November 19, 2007. On November 20, 2007 the agenda item was removed due to circumstances outside Chief Martin’s control. CSA was immediately advised by Ms. Witry Deputy County Counsel and Chief Martin that they had been promised by county administration and Board that action would be taken prior to the CSA Deadline on December 29, 2007.

Over the next six weeks, Board meetings were either cancelled or shortened due to the holidays and action was never taken on the Probation Department’s request. The Chief continually updated CSA with the difficulties in obtaining Board Approval.

On January 7, 2008 CSA Chief Martin was advised that the deadline had passed and CSA staff had no choice except to send notice for presentation to the CSA Board regarding suitability for confinement. The formal written notice was mailed on January 14, 2008. On January 22, 2008 the Lassen County Board of Supervisors met and approved both the new job description and the positions.

On February 7, 2008, CSA received a formal letter from John Ketelsen, CAO, of Lassen County, advising that the positions and budget had been approved and supervision staff would be provided at the Lassen County Juvenile Hall. This was accompanied by a copy minute order by the Lassen County Board of Supervisors.

This action item is being brought before the Board because the Lassen County Board of Supervisors did not take action to resolve the issue of compliance until 23 days following the deadline imposed by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 209 (d). It is staff’s recommendation that the Lassen County Juvenile Hall be found Suitable for the confinement of minor’s. This issue has been resolved. Chief Martin and Ms. Witry, Deputy County Counsel for Lassen County were present to answer questions. “Supervisory staff” means a staff person whose primary duties may include, but are not limited to, scheduling and evaluating subordinate staff, providing on-the-job training, making recommendations for promotion, hiring and discharge of subordinate staff, recommending disciplinary actions, and overseeing subordinate staff work. Supervisory staff shall not be included in the minor to supervision staff ratio, although some of their duties could include the periodic supervision of minors. “Living unit” shall be a self-contained unit containing locked sleeping rooms, single and double occupancy sleeping rooms, or dormitories, day room space, water closets, wash basins, drinking fountains and showers commensurate to the number of minors housed. A living unit shall not be divided by any permanent or temporary barrier that hinders direct access, supervision or immediate intervention or other action if needed.

Ms. Biondi asked if we can shorten the time frame so that children as young as nine and ten years of age are not in facilities that do not meet minimum standards. These are good and probably appropriate for rehabilitative services.

Mr. Gary Wion stated that a county has to respond within 60 days.

Ms. Biondi stated that bringing it to the board is what seems to get the action. Ms. Biondi asked if there was a way it could be brought to the board before the maximum amount of time has expired. Ms. Biondi added that in the meantime it is months and in some cases years that children are in conditions that don’t meet minimum standards.

A motion was made by Mr. Townsy and was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL UPDATE ON CROWDING (AGENDA ITEM J)
Field Representative, Toni Gardner, presented this information item. During the March 8, 2007 meeting, the Board requested that the Sacramento County Probation Department develop an updated suitability plan that included a description of all measures the county will take to maintain the juvenile hall population below the limits specified in the previous suitability plan. Due to the complexities of this issue the CSA Board voted to carry this agenda item over to the May 2007 Board meeting for further discussion and action. At the May 10, 2007 CSA meeting, the Board determined the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall was a suitable place for the confinement of minors and required the county conform to the agreed upon elements contained within the April 24, 2007 suitability plan, submit monthly population data for each living unit within the juvenile hall and have Sacramento County Probation staff present progress reports on the status of the crowding at the juvenile hall to the CSA Board at each bimonthly Board meeting. At its September 2007 meeting, the CSA Board requested that Sacramento County Probation Department present progress reports every 6 months, the next to be at the March 2008 meeting. Since the September 2007 CSA meeting, Sacramento County has maintained the population at the juvenile hall below the limits specified in the April 24, 2006 suitability plan. On February 22, 2008 CSA staff made a visit to the facility to further assess compliance with the suitability plan and totality of conditions at the facility.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2007 3-YEAR PLAN UPDATE AND FEDERAL APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM K)
Correctional Consultant Connie Lucero presented this Action Item. CSA is responsible for the statewide administration of the Title II Formula Grant program, including the development of the California’s 3-yr Comprehensive plan and annual application. In 2006, CSA Board approved the submission of Plan and application for Title II Formula Grant funds. We are required to provide annual updates to the original 2006 plan. This year’s application is due March 28, 2008. You were sent a draft of our application for funding for 2008 for review. State allocations have not been finalized by OJJDP but it is anticipated California will receive approximately $7.5 million in Title II funds. This is based on last year’s allocation. Staff worked with the Planning Sub-Committee from our State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to update this plan. The application is comprised of a Program narrative, a Budget Detail Worksheet, and updates on Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). It also provides an update on the compliance monitoring activities undertaken by CSA staff that inspects local adult and juvenile detention facilities. Funded projects support 5 program purpose areas outlined in the application: Gang Prevention & Intervention, Gender Specific Services, Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Aftercare Services.

Ms. Silbert added that staff has been extraordinary because just recently they were deficient in every area and staff has gone ahead and done all this despite that.

Ms. Biondi added that the staff did a fabulous job on the report.

Mr. Penrod asked for further comments.

A motion was made by Ms. Silbert and was seconded by Ms. Biondi. The motion carried.

ANNUAL TITLE V FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM L)
Correctional Consultant Shalinee Hunter presented this Action Item. You have before you an action agenda item recommended by staff for the approval of the Title V Community Prevention Grant application to be submitted to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

The Title V Community Prevention Grants program supports state and local efforts designed to both reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors to prevent youth at risk of becoming delinquent and from entering the juvenile justice system and to intervene with first-time non serious offenders

CSA is responsible for the statewide administration of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program including the application which is comprised of a program narrative, budget detail and timeline corresponding with the grant cycle.

As described in the attached application the budget detail and timeline indicate expenditures of our anticipated award amount of $78,000 (based on last years award) and that we are completing the third year of a three year grant cycle and subsequently will be commencing a new cycle.

The program narrative consists of five areas of interest including: number of sub grants, compliance plan for the core requirements and federal performance measures, geographic information monitoring plan and Coordination efforts within the state.

I would like to draw your attention to the application’s format. Because of the unique timing, whereby we are ending one grant cycle and beginning a new cycle, the application responds to each of the questions accordingly. Included is a description of the current seven Title V grantees as it pertains to the questions as well as a discussion of the approach and anticipated number of future grantees. This will be further discussed in the DMC Update agenda item.

The CSA staff recommends the CSA approve the submission of the Title V application to the OJJDP.

A motion was made by Ms. Silbert and was seconded by Mr. Prieto. The motion carried.

JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM M)
Correctional Consultant Connie Lucero presented this Action Item. CSA is responsible for the statewide administration of the JABG program, including the development of the annual application. The 2008 federal application was released to the states February 11, 2008 and had a due date of March 14, 2008. A draft application has been submitted to OJJDP to meet the deadline. You were sent a copy of that application for review. The final application will be submitted following CSA Board approval and any final corrections to the plan, if applicable. Staff worked with the Planning Sub-Committee from our State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention on this 2008 application. State allocations have not been finalized by OJJDP but it is anticipated California will receive approximately $4 million in JABG funds. This is based on last year’s allocation. As required by OJJDP, the JABG application describes, an analysis of juvenile justice system needs based on crime trends and gaps in service, it provides an overview of efforts to coordinate the JABG program with other federal and state programs focusing on juvenile justice. The structure and composition of the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention it talks about the role of the courts and collaborative justice programs in addressing criminal behavior, and it outlines the State’s system of graduated sanctions.

Mr. Yarber added that yes it is possible for states to apply and yes we may take that under advisement. The Governor’s gang initiative is slated to utilize those funds.

A motion was made by Ms. Arnold and was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM N)
Correctional Consultant Shalinee Hunter presented this Action Item. The information item before you provides an update on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Initiative and a description of the 2008 strategic approach to reducing the youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system developed by the DMC Subcommittee.

As you know, the DMC Statewide Initiative follows a multi-faceted approach of direct service through our Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project grants, education/awareness through our implementation of educational mandates for grantees and stakeholders; and support through both resources and advocacy.

The first phase, designed to address the infrastructure needs within the probation department resulted in all five counties conducting significant DMC training and education with their Department staff. In some cases this equated to all probation staff receiving DMC training and education, in other cases, exclusive groups of probation staff were identified to receive DMC training and education based upon their particular role in the department. Additionally, each of the five counties were able to undertake DMC data collection and analysis efforts, to further identify opportunities for DMC reduction and to equip them with information to share in the 2 nd phase, collaboration.

All five counties participated in the re-application process that required a plan for undertaking the 2 nd phase of activities. The 2 nd phase commenced January 1, 2008 and should culminate in a DMC reduction plan developed by the Probation Department in concert with their identified stakeholders such as CBO’s, Courts, DA, and law enforcement entities.

Although federal law does not require an evaluation of the DMC initiative, the CSA is committed to assessing the overall progress of the Enhanced DMC TAP. As you may recall, CSA recently completed the competitive RFP process including the merit review that resulted in the recently launched Process Evaluation, to be completed by Mark Morris and Associates. $200,000 in available federal funds support this evaluation, tentatively scheduled for completion in late 2009, which will identify those operational strengths and limitations of the first two phases of the Enhanced DMC TAP grant. Kim Bushard, Field Representative and lead staff for the evaluation has been working collaboratively with Mark Morris and Associates, myself and the five county DMC-TAP grantees to ensure progress is made toward these activities.

In addition to the ongoing DMC activities of to the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project, the DMC Subcommittee made up of subject matter experts, identified a two-pronged focus for 2008. This focus, in keeping with the multi-faced approach and DMC guiding principles, will target law enforcement and school districts, disciplines often considered a pipeline for our youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system.

The first additional DMC activity will focus on school districts using the Title V Community Prevention Grant Program as a resource for support; the tentative approach, currently in its infancy stage, will support the assessment of disciplinary structures that may negatively impact overrepresentation and to develop or modify current structures that may better address delinquency and enhance prevention efforts in the educational forum. This would be accomplished through a competitive RFP process with a tentative release date of early September.

The second additional DMC activity is to expand the current education and awareness activities with resources so as to specifically target law enforcement and school personnel. As you may recall, CSA had set-aside $300,000 in available federal funds for DMC planning grants, however, after re-assessing the current needs, the DMC Subcommittee recommended these funds be redirected toward regional DMC trainings whereby the engagement of law enforcement and school personnel are a priority but not exclusive to other stakeholders. This format is in its initial stage of development however, lends itself to our ongoing DMC priority.

California continues to make DMC a priority, with the ultimate goal being a fair and equitable justice system. CSA’s current DMC activities in conjunction with the DMC Subcommittee’s additional priorities for 2008 provide statewide leadership toward DMC reduction and maintain the State’s compliance with the federal DMC mandate.

SB 81 - UPDATE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS (AGENDA ITEM O)
Field Representative Kim Bushard presented this Action Item. This agenda item requests Board approval of 56 county Juvenile Justice Development Plans.

CSA staff has reviewed Plans from all 58 counties. In reviewing these Plans, staff focused on the three elements the law required counties to include in their Plans. Those three elements are:

• A description of the programs, placements, services or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation.
• A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation.
• A description of how these new programs coordinate with the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act or JJCPA.

In addition, we also looked to the section of law that requires Youthful Offender Block Grant funds to be used to “enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders subject to [SB 81].” With these statutory provisions as our guide, we provided technical assistance to many counties – primarily in order to ensure that the description of the programs, placements, services or strategies to be funded by the block grant were complete enough to give the reader a clear understanding of how these new funds would be spent and what enhancements would result.

Counties have been very responsive in providing additional information for their Plans and, as a result, we now have 56 Plans that we recommend the Board approve. As mentioned, CSA staff have reviewed all of these Plans and found them to be consistent with the requirements in law. That said, it should be noted that the law provides significant latitude to counties in how these fund will be spent and our review revealed that counties used this latitude to create programs that are unique to their individual needs and circumstances. Many counties are hiring additional Probation Officers and entering into contracts for mental health and substance abuse counseling or services. Likewise, many counties are planning to use part of the funds for activities or materials related to risk and needs assessments. Other counties had more unique needs for part of their funds, including the purchase of laptop computers for field probation officers, vehicles for the transportation of youthful offenders as well as for probation officers who need to reach the offenders on their caseloads, personal safety equipment, including weapons, to allow probation officers to safely transport and supervise intensive caseloads, and a needs assessment constituting the first phase of pursuing construction of a juvenile hall. Rather than having one focus, most counties appear to have a need to enhance programs and services in many different areas in order to create an overall program that will appropriately serve the target population. You can get an idea of how these funds are being used by looking at the Summary document provided to you this morning on pink paper. And I need to take a moment here to recognize this as a work product of the State Commission on Juvenile Justice and thank Suzie Cohen for all her work in getting this done so quickly.

While the Plans vary significantly, all keep to the intent of SB 81 by enhancing local capacity to supervise and rehabilitate youthful offenders who fall under the provisions of this new law. That being the case, we are now recommending the Board approve the Juvenile Justice Development Plans for the counties listed under “approval recommended” on Attachment A. It is our intent to seek approval on the remaining two Plans at the May Board meeting. Of these two Plans, one has been received but not yet reviewed and on the other we are awaiting county revisions.

Mr. Warner stated that just as follow up you pointed out the time frame of September through January did not allow a lot of time for proposals and requirements on an annual basis to provide updates to the commission. I’m wondering if this has been discussed with CSA staff. Ms. Heller replied that CSA staff hasn’t discussed whether there should be a rule but that they have discussed that the statute doesn’t provide that information.

Mr. Warner stated that he would like to make a motion that staff works with Juvenile Justice Commission in coordinating a report with an evaluation of the requirements

A motion was made by Ms. Biondi and was seconded by Ms. Silbert. The motion carried.

 

SB 81 - UPDATE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FUNDING (AGENDA ITEM P)
Field Representative Kim Bushard presented this Action Item which provides an update on the work that has been done related to the provision in SB 81 that set aside $1.1 million for counties that encountered unforeseen circumstances in the implementation of this new law. At your January 10, 2008 meeting action was taken to adopt the staff recommendation and forward two funding requests for Monterey and Tulare counties to the Department of Finance for approval. SB 81 states that “An amount equal to five percent shall be reserved by the Controller, for distribution by the Department of Finance, upon recommendation of the Corrections Standards Authority”. From this language, CSA staff anticipated Finance would distribute funds to Monterey and Tulare counties based on the Board’s recommendation from January. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I do want to note that the last sentence of this statute reads, “The Corrections Standards Authority shall submit its recommendation to the Department of Finance for approval.”

As you may recall, your discussion at the January meeting emphasized the broad flexibility afforded counties by the statute, and the Board’s inclination to trust that if counties came forward with a request it was because there was indeed a need. Consistent with those ideals, the criteria that CSA staff has applied to date simply adhered to the statute. Specifically, counties are required to outline, first, the unusual circumstances that exist and, second, why the Youthful Offender Block Grant is insufficient to meet the county financial needs to accommodate and supervise youthful offenders pursuant to SB 81. Because the law is so vague, it forced CSA to use a “reasonable person” approach and we have applied that test to the unusual circumstances presented by each county.

Since the last Board meeting, CSA has received seven new requests for these funds. We have also, just this past Monday, been contacted by one additional county that expressed intent to apply for these funds. Staff had hoped to bring forward additional funding requests today, and recommend they be forwarded to Finance for approval; however, we are not in a position to do so. It should be noted that with the two requests you already acted on, fully funding the seven requests currently in hand, these funds would be nearly exhausted. Only a little over $14,000 would remain.

In our conversations with Finance, we have been unable to determine what they are looking for and, therefore, what would be approvable in their eyes. Moreover, we are mindful that these funds will revert on June 30, 2008 if not allocated to counties.

Since this process seems to have come to a halt, we are requesting that the Board provide direction on this matter.

Mr. Powers added that he has spoken with county staff and they have felt the same frustration and that they want to commend CSA staff.

Ms. Penner stated that she is very concerned with the lack of response from the Department of Finance and fears if the Board doesn’t move this item forward at this time that due to the very short timeline the money will revert back to the county general fund absent any aggressive conversations. The Legislation clearly provided for this and many counties are relying on it. Ms. Penner would like to continue with the process and have the Board make a statement to the Department of Finance.

Ms. Silbert asked if the Board will be applying a deadline for the Department of Finance to respond to the Boards request.

Mr. Warner added that the Board should take action now requiring a response from the Department of Finance.

Brian Cooley, Chief Probation Officer, Merced County, added that he would like to reinstate the concern for the urge of action. Mr. Cooley would like to press the Board to take immediate action so that the funds do not expire.

Ms. Biondi asked what options the Board has. Mr. Harris informed Ms. Biondi that staff has prepared some options for the Board.

Ms. Donna Thierbach, Chief Deputy Administrations, Riverside County Probation, added that Riverside County has revised their request and are now requesting 100,000.

Cheryl Summers-Lane, Tulare County Probation, added that Tulare County submitted their first letter to request funding for unforeseen circumstances in September.

Mr. Townsy asked if the Department of Finance has a board or the same type of set up as CSA.

Ms. Silbert asked if the Board has the authority to set up a meeting and demand finance to attend.

Mr. Warner added that he thinks the Board should make a motion that Secretary Tilton assists our CSA Board with a follow up on whatever decision is made today. Mr. Tilton thinks the actions the Board can take to define the allocations to whatever counties recommend the most cash, if the Secretary can bring that to the Director of the Department of Finance and report back to the Board.

Manuel Real, Chief Probation Officer, Monterey County, stated that he would be quick and wanted to ask the Board to please move forward with this issue now. Mr. Real added that Monterey counties allocation was for 135,000 and that amount was significantly under what they needed. Mr. Real asked for the Boards assistance and help in any way to get additional emergency funding.

Mr. Warner asked Kim Bushard what is the recommendation, given the balance of 812,000.

Ms. Bushard added that CSA Staff was hoping to ask the Board for additional thoughts and that they are interested in hearing from the Board about what process can be taken.

Mr. Warner added that Staff notes that there is an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and he is wondering if the ESC could help with establishing criteria and making recommendations for a conference call to the Board. Ms. Bushard replied that Staff has been doing everything they can.

Mr. Warner added that maybe Secretary Tilton can request that the Department of Finance participates in that effort to articulate their interest.

Ms. Penner added that she thinks that a very buyable plan and that she thinks having the Department of Finance at that table would help to move forward with an agreement. Ms. Penner directed this question to Mr. Harris, The viability of Secretary Tilton being able to move that forward to an ESC, is that a difficult task?

Mr. Harris stated that in his opinion it is worth the effort.

Ms. Penner added that she thinks it would be good for the Board to come back at the May meeting with recommendations. Ms. Penner asked if the money had to be spent by the counties prior to June 30, 2008 or allocated before June 30, 2008. Ms. Bushard added that it just needed to be allocated before June 30, 2008.

Mr. Warner asked to restate the motion. The motion was made for request the Secretary to meet with the Department of Finance to encourage them to meet with the ESC responsible for all the Juvenile Jail construction money to develop criteria for a proposal to be submitted to the CSA Board.

Mr. Warner added that Tulare and Monterey counties are done deals and that staff won’t be revisiting them and that now they are just working on prioritizing the remaining counties.

Ms. Penner asked if that was just from the Boards perspective. Mr. Warner replied that he was just talking from the Boards perspective.

Ms. Silbert asked if it’s possible if the meeting happens and that if it doesn’t go well could that Board get a call or some sort of notification before the May meeting so they would have some sort of idea how to move forward so that when that happens they can make a decision to move forward.

Mr. Harris added that CSA staff could probably send out an email or fax to update the Board.

Ms. Bushard added that we would be approving based on when we received the request.

Mr. Warner added that the problem with that counties have not been notified about how we will be making the decision.

Mr. Warner repeated the motion, The Motion is that the Board requests Secretary Tilton as the chair of the Board to meet with the Department of Finance to discuss the urgency on deciding on the available funds and that they encourage the Department of Finance to meet with the Executive Steering Committee which currently determines funding on the juvenile jail construction bonds and that the committee develop criteria which allows staff to make recommendations to the Board for funding. I would then add that the Board communicate with counties that there be an April 15 th cut-off date for those requesting this funding so that the committee has a chance to evaluate fairly.

Mr. Yarber added that he wasn’t sure if there would be enough time in terms of getting an Executive Steering Committee meeting once the stakeholders come back with something, then allowing the counties to respond to whatever criteria results from that and then still having time to evaluate and get back to the Board with recommendations.

Mr. Warner added that he wasn’t suggesting that they develop criteria.

Mr. Takeshta added that he is still concerned with the timing that’s involved because with an ESC we have to give notice to the public 10 days prior. So it’s going to have to go to a public meeting and an evaluation process. This isn’t something normal and plus we are working on the preliminary requests for proposals to be brought before the Board on the 8 th of May.

Ms. Silbert stated, so are you suggesting that staff could do it with staff and without any ESC. Mr. Takeshta replied, yes, participate and direct staff to get CPP involved and develop recommendations for funding based on that substance from the meeting.

A motion was made by Mr. Warner and Seconded by Mr. Prieto. The motion carried.

JOB COMPONENTS ANALYSIS PROJECT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM Q)
Senior Correctional Consultant Amy Kohls presented this Information Item. This information update pertains to the Job Components Analysis Project which is CSA’s effort to develop and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officers. At the time of the last briefing in November, we had finished all of the fieldwork for the job analysis for the Correctional Officer, Youth Correctional Officer, and Youth Correctional Counselor (CO, YCO, and YCC) classifications and were in the process of conducting an extensive analysis of the data gathered.

The data analysis revealed several findings:

We were able to identify which knowledge, skill, abilities, or other characteristics (or KSAO’s) were required for successful job performance and when each was required (either before hire, during the academy, or on the job). We identified which job tasks are core to each classification (basic definition of each job). We were also able to determine which tasks are common to all three classifications.

We began this job analyses with the hypothesis that there is overlap between the CO, YCO, and YCC job classifications. The results support that hypothesis in that 48 percent or 138 tasks out of the 285 that were evaluated were identified as core tasks for all three classifications. The overlaps occurred in the areas of searching, restraints and use of force, escorting and transportation, security of the facility or institution, supervision of wards or inmates, emergencies, and oral communication. These three jobs share job components. What this means is that in the hiring and training of the CO's, YCO's, and YCC's, some selection tools or tests and training criteria could be the same across the jobs. Others can be modified to take into account job differences.

The ability to share selection and training standards between the CO, YCO, and YCC classifications provides greater speed and flexibility in hiring and training a competent workforce. We can capitalize on the identified overlaps between the classifications, which translates into greater efficiencies with regard to cost, time, and effort.

A report detailing the job analysis process and all of these results was submitted in December, and is currently under review by CDCR executive management. When it is approved, it will be available on our website.

Our next step is to begin work on the development of the training standards for the CO, YCO, and YCC positions. Now that we have a clear idea of what the jobs entail, we can begin determining the type of training required in order for an incumbent to successfully perform his or her job as a CO, YCO, or YCC.

We met with the Office of Training and Professional Development in February to discuss the next steps in the standards development process and we’ve begun planning our methodology and our first subject matter expert groups involving curriculum designers and folks from the academy. We expect the development of the training standards to take approximately 18 months. To help us meet that goal, we are currently working with CDCR management on identifying potential funding options. Work is also continuing on the written exam used in the selection process for CO’s, YCO’s, and YCC’s. For test security purposes, in January, we retired the test that was used in 2007 and replaced it with a new test with all new items from our item bank. That test was implemented in January. Test items are currently being developed as a new test will be implemented on a yearly basis.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM R)
The Legislative report was addressed at the meeting by Don Allen. Due to the time, Mr. Allen asked if he could submit the Legislative report. Mr. Allen’s request was granted. A copy was provided to each Board member and copies were available for the public prior to the start of the meeting. They were asked to call if they had any questions. We have had no calls.

Meeting adjourned at 12:40 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
Ed Prieto, Sheriff, Yolo County
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
Adele Arnold, Chief Probation Officer
William Powers, County Supervisor
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff
Mimi Silbert, Public Member
Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer
Gary Penrod, San Bernardino County Sheriff
Travis Townsy, Rank & File Representative
Max Scott, Community-Based Youth Service Organization
Karrie Eckhardt, Rank & File Representative, State Parole Officer

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Robert Takeshta, Deputy Director, CFC
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director, STC
Gary Wion, Deputy Director, FSO
Don Allen, Field Representative, FSO
Kimberly Bushard, Field Representative, CPP
Rebecca Craig, Field Representative, FSO
Chris Martin, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Leslie Heller, Field Representative, CFC
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, CFC
Amy Kohls, Correctional Consultant, STC
John Kohls, Correctional Consultant
Shalinee Hunter, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Connie Lucero, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Toni Gardner, Field Representative, FSO
Patricia Sanchez, Information System Technician
Reizo Shibamoto, Secretary
Krysten Meyer, Executive Assistant
Maria Rodriguez, Secretary

 Guests
Cheryl Summers-Lane, Program Specialist, Tulare County
Manuel Real, Chief Probation Officer, Monterey County
Brian Cooley, Chief Probation Officer, Merced County
William Di Yorio, Riverside County Sheriff
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff
Greg Trindle, San Mateo Sheriff
Carla Kennedy, Administrative Captain, Alameda County
Lisa Rosales, Commanding Officer, Alameda County
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA Representative, Tulare County
JP Jones, Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office
Doug Rieffel, Monterey County Probation
John Dietler, Retired CDC
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Suzie Cohen, Suzie Cohen and Associates
Doug Papagni, Madera County Department of Corrections
Michelle Cole, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Tracy Matich, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Dennis Downum, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Dennis Huberty, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Ed Ballard, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Kathy Goto, Orange County Probation
Marty Iceta, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department
Brian Lee, Sacramento County Probation
Michael Bays, Sacramento County Probation
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation
Jerry Scribner, Ellison-Wilson Advocacy
Todd Silva, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office
Delores Nnam, Santa Clara County Probation
Letha Martin, Lassen County Probation
Traci Witry, Lassen County, County Counsel
Bill Akiyama, HDR Architecture
Cheryl Summers-Lane, Tulare County Probation
Corey R Cummings, Tindall Corporation
Donna Thierbach, Riverside Probation
John Quinlan, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Sheila Mitchell, Santa Clara County Probation
W. Harry Munton, TRE Consulting
Ladonna Harris, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office
Lewis McElfresh, Sutter County Sheriff’s Office
Don Van Buskirk, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office
Tom Boserko, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office
Ann Sasaki-Madigan, San Diego County Probation
Renee Best, TRG Consulting
Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting