Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2004

Thursday, July 22, 2004
Board of Corrections
660 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA

Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.
A motion to adopt the minutes of the January 22, 2004, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.  The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the April 15, 2004, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.  The motion carried.

Federal and State Construction Grants - Consent/information item (Agenda Item C-1

Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that this information item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes.  This includes project information reports that were put over from the April 15, 2004 meeting. 

Mr. Crout stated that this is an action item that provides staff’s recommendation to reallocate $96,333 from federal construction grant funds that have reverted from other projects, in order to supplement Sacramento County’s 90-bed juvenile hall expansion project #035-99, and to supplement the project up to its eligible grant amount if funds revert from other federally or state funded construction projects in the future. 

Since 1997, the Board has awarded, and staff has administered, 107 federal and state funded construction grant projects in 48 counties totaling over $490 million.  Currently, all but four of the 107 projects are either under construction or completed, and all projects are slated to be finished no later than the federal grant deadline of September 29, 2006.

A total of $96,333 in reverted federal grant funds is currently available for reallocation by the Board:

1. California Youth Authority (CYA) Southern Reception Center-Clinic 50-Bed Expansion:  CYA completed this project with $4,419,893 in federal funds and reverted the balance of $33,107, which is now available for reallocation.
2. Tehama County Jail 12-Bed Expansion Project #034-01:  The county received a $268,816 grant of federal funds on May 16, 2002; later accepted a lower construction bid of $205,590, and reverted the balance of $63,226, which is now available for reallocation.
   
   All county jail facility projects were funded at the amount requested and there are no remaining county jail facility projects on the Board’s rank-ordered funding lists that have not rejected past offers of funding from reverted grants.  Consequently, staff recommended that the Board approve supplementing Sacramento County’s 90-bed construction project by an additional $96,333 and authorize staff to implement the grant up to the full eligible amount of $9,045,000 if additional federal or state grant funds revert in the future from any funding year and are eligible for reallocation. 

Acting Chair Carruth asked if there was any discussion by the Board.  There was none. 

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to supplement Sacramento County’s 90-bed juvenile hall construction expansion grant #035-99 by an additional $96,333 in federal funds (from the current grant amount of $5,306,899 to a revised grant amount of $5,403,232) and authorize staff to supplement the grant up to the fully eligible amount of $9,045,000 if additional federal or state grant funds revert in the future from any funding year and are eligible for reallocation was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.  The motion carried.

Mr. Crout stated that this item reports on Contra Costa County’s progress in completing its 240-bed juvenile hall construction project funded in part with the Board’s construction grant.  At its September 19, 2002 meeting, the Board voted to require Contra Costa County to complete written progress reports for review and appear at subsequent meetings to address progress on its 240-bed juvenile hall construction project funded in part with the Board’s $22,239,425 construction grant.  This action was taken as a result of the county’s difficulty in completing their project.  The current time extension for construction completion was necessitated by action taken by the County Board of Supervisors in November 2003, when the county terminated the construction agreement with Arntz Builders for a variety of material defaults.  The county completed a plan with a surety company to complete the project.  The surety tendered Flintco Incorporated as the replacement contractor.  At the April 15, 2004, meeting, the Board approved the county’s fourth request for a time extension, moving the construction completion date to March 4, 2005. 

The county anticipates meeting the construction completion date of March 4, 2005.  The June 2004 progress report shows that the project is back under construction, on track at over 85% completion, with no problems of construction quality or contractor performance.

Mr. Crout stated that since the project is back on track and on schedule with a new contractor, staff recommended that this matter be removed from the information item agenda at subsequent Board meetings.  Staff would continue to receive county progress reports, monitor progress on site, and conduct closeout activities pursuant to standard procedures.  If further project problems occur, staff would bring the matter back to the Board for review. 

Mr. Crout introduced Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista for comments.  Chief Bautista thanked the Board for the extensions that were given to Contra Costa County.  He stated that as you walk through the facility today you would see the quality of labor one would have expected at the initial process.  He is pleased that the problems have been remedied and once again, thanked the Board for those extensions.

Mr. Crout stated that because of the county’s success with this project, staff recommended that the project be removed from further Board review, unless additional project problems occur that would impact Board standards or schedule.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to remove the project from further Board review, unless additional project problems occur that would impact Board standards or schedule was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. John Scott.  The motion carried.

Mr. Crout stated that this action item is a request for an Alternate Means of Compliance from Fresno County Probation Department for its co-located juvenile/adult detention facility.  At its January 16, 2003 meeting, the Board of Corrections approved the Fresno County Probation Department’s request to operate a 30-bed co-located juvenile detention facility for adjudicated minors within one pod of the Fresno County North Jail Annex.  The Fresno County Probation Department has experienced significant crowding in the juvenile hall during the past three years.  As a result of collaborative work by the county, a Suitability Plan was developed in December 2001 to improve the conditions of confinement for the minors housed within that particular facility.

At the May 2002 BOC meeting, Fresno County was awarded a $24.1 million grant for the construction of 240 beds in a new 480-bed juvenile justice complex.  This new juvenile justice complex is projected for completion in March 2006. 

In the meantime, the crowding problem continued to exist at Fresno County in their juvenile hall.  After addressing all possible means to reduce the population at the juvenile hall including alternatives to incarceration, electronic home monitoring and others, they were still left with a major overcrowding problem at the juvenile hall.  The Fresno County sheriff offered to allow the probation department the use of one of the new housing pods located on the top floor of the North Jail Annex, which had been recently been constructed in Fresno County.  This housing unit pod was designed to hold 48 adult inmates in two dormitories, however, the Fresno County Probation Department elected to house 30 adjudicated minors in that facility.

The Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 207.1(h) allows for the co-location of a juvenile facility within an adult facility providing certain conditions are met.  First, there must be no contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults; secondly, the facility is managed and staffed by the probation department; and thirdly, that shared spaces – such as the recreation yard is time-shared to ensure there is no contact between adults and juveniles.  The North Jail Annex was designed and constructed to comply with current Title 24, CCR, for adult detention regulations.  Therefore, a pilot project was necessary because the current physical plan minimum standards for juvenile facilities differ from adult facilities.

The Title 24 regulations affected by this pilot project are: Physical Activity and Recreation Areas, Academic Classrooms and Showers.  The Board of Corrections staff has reviewed and inspected that facility on several occasions and according to the Fresno County Probation Department, there has been no adverse incidents relating to this pilot project.  In the opinion of BOC staff, this pilot project meets or exceeds the intent of the related regulations.

Mr. Crout stated that Ollie Dimery-Ratliff, juvenile hall superintendent, was in attendance and available to answer any questions the Board might have.  Board member Mann asked how it’s working out with the probation and sheriff departments working together.  Mr. Ratliff stated that it’s working out well.  He then stated that it is great to see the coordination between the sheriff and the probation department.

Staff recommended approval of Fresno County Probation Department’s request for an Alternate Means of Compliance for its 30-bed co-located juvenile detention facility for adjudicated minors within the Fresno County North Jail Annex.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to approve Fresno County Probation Department’s request for an Alternate Means of Compliance pursuant to Section 13-201(c)8, Title 24, CCR for the following regulations in the 30-bed co-located juvenile detention facility for adjudicated minors within the Fresno County North Jail Annex:  Title 24, Section 460Z.1.12-Physical Activity and Recreation Space; Title 24, Section 460A.1.12-Academic Classrooms; and Title 24, Section 460A.2.4-Showers was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann.  The motion carried.

Dr. Kohls stated that he would be presenting the annual report for the Jail Profile Survey (JPS) and the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) for 2003.  The Jail Profile Survey gathers data from all California Type II, III and IV jails.  It has now been operational for eight full years.  This is one of the programs that Mr. McConnell created and it has yielded a lot of wonderful data. 

The JDPS gathers data regarding all juveniles detained by county probation departments.  It has been operational for five full years.  The two surveys gather information on a wide range of variables with a total of more than one hundred per survey.  Dr. Kohls stated that he would share some of the highlights of their findings in the JPS and JDPS surveys.  Complete summaries of the data gathered by the two surveys, and the analyses of the results can be viewed at the Board of Corrections website.

1. Jail
   
   Dr. Kohls made reference that the State Population 1975 to 2003 (times 1 million) chart (attachment) is one of the more amazing charts demonstrating linear trend lines that he has seen in social research.  That trend line is supposed to continue, as it is, at least into the middle of this century.  He stated that he believes this is the most important engine that drives the number of people that are in jail or who are detained. 

   Unlike the population growth in the general population, the average daily population (ADP) in jails shows peaks and valleys, but there was a very steep climb from 1975 to 2003.  While the state population was growing about the same rate during that period of time, the ADP in jails was more than tripling.  The populations reached an all time peak in 1998, declined for a few years, but for the last couple of the years the numbers appear to be climbing once again.  He stated that if you look at shorter-term trends for ADP in jails you could see that for the last 13 years it is pretty much the same.  Obviously, the incarceration rate in California would pretty much match the ADP.  So you see a similar curve, although it is a little bit more extreme and it is based on the fact that it deals with the at-risk population, not the total general population.
   
   

   The California Crime Index shows that the numbers have been rising steadily since 1999, and Dr. Kohls believes that will continue.  If it does for a few more years the trend line (chart) will be absolutely flat.  The California Crime Index chart (attachment) and the General Population chart (attachment) are the two charts to pay attention to in terms of planning for the future.  Dr. Kohls stated that he believes there is going to be a steady, but relatively small increase in jail populations for at least the next 20 years.  If that is true, he thinks there would be approximately 100,000 inmates in jails by the year 2020.

   Dr. Kohls stated that he would now present the data for the 2003 Jail Profile Survey.  Jail population and jail capacity are the two things we are always trying to figure out.  There are many variables to consider.  The trend line for ADP in jails has been pretty flat for the last 13 years, and certainly since 1996 when the JPS began, however, it appears to be on the rise in the last couple of years. 

   Bookings also increased in 2003 by over 3,500 per month.  The chart (attachment) reflects an average of 102,282 bookings per month, and for the first quarter for 2004 the number is 107,000 per month, which is one of the highest levels they have seen in quite some time.  The current number of Board Rated Capacity (BRC) beds (beds that meet the Board of Corrections standards) is 73,732, or approximately 1,600 beds below the ADP.  He stated that the ADP is a good statistic for looking at trends, because it is very viable and is not too subject to peaks and valleys.  However, in 2003, on the day of peak demand for bed space, 79,966 inmates were in jails.  On those days, the jail population exceeded jail capacity by more than 6,000 beds. 

   Dr. Kohls stated that jail administrators have communicated to him that they would also like to have a small percentage of open cells at any one time for administrative purposes i.e., moving inmates around that need to be moved.  If we had a small percentage, say 3.5%, we would need to satisfy peak demands in 2003 by having 83,000 beds.  On the average, we don’t have serious crowding at the present, but during times of peak demand, we are quite a few beds short.  In 2003, each quarter had a 4,500 to 5,000-bed differential between the peak day and the ADP.
   

   The Average Length of Stay rose from 15.7 days in 1986 to its highest level of 24.4 days in 1998.  Since then it has declined somewhat to 22.4 days in 2003.  In 2002, 6,477 inmates were given pre-trial releases due solely to lack of space.  Also 6,226 inmates were given early releases from their sentences (did not serve their full sentence) solely due to lack of space.  That number has gone up about 1,300 per month in 2003, and when we look at the 2004 data it might have gone up another 900 per month.  It appears that this problem is getting worse.  If all those inmates stayed in jail, we would need quite a few more beds.

   Dr. Kohls stated that the percentage of males is declining steadily.  In 1996, when we began the JPS 90% of the inmates in jail were male, and now it is 83%.  This is a big change with substantial implications on how we operate and design our jails.  The percentage of inmates with felony charges is rising steadily.  It was 69% in 1996, now it is running at 77%.  It probably won’t be long before there are very few misdemeanants in jails in California.  At the same time, the non-sentenced population is rising steadily, 65.2% of the inmates in jails are non-sentenced.  Traditionally, the statistic was about 50/50. 
   

   The number of sentenced inmates in jails is at its lowest point since 1986.  The number of sentenced inmates is declining steadily and the number of non-sentenced is increasing.  At any one time about 12% of the inmates in jail are criminal illegal aliens, and if those inmates were not in our jails it would give us a big break in terms of capacity.  Inmate assaults on staff are increasing steadily due to the “hardening” of the population. 
   
   

   He stated that one of the issues they have been studying since the beginning of the JPS is the “three strikes issue.”  They measure how many inmates are in jail with two strikes and three strikes.  Originally, the fear was that our jails would be inundated with inmates with two and three strikes because their length of stay was often so much longer than the non-strike inmate.  We now find that the number of inmates with two strikes is not increasing, while the number of inmates with three strikes is actually declining at a steady rate.  This data has been unexpected, but is a positive outcome. 
2. Juvenile Detention 
   
   Dr. Kohls stated that the juvenile hall population has declined by 5% since 1999, camp population has declined 2%; however, the total in other forms of detention (primarily home detention) has increased by 9%.  The overall total of 13,549 juveniles detained in 2003 is 218 fewer than the number detained in 1999.  Basically, one of the problems with trend analysis, with this type of data, is that when we have a short-term view for both jails and juvenile detention we are in a holding pattern.  For the last ten years or so we have been in a holding pattern.  Pressures during that time have increased in terms of increased population and other issues.  He stated that is why we are expecting things to turn around shortly.
   
   

   Half the populations are in juvenile halls, a third are in camps, about 18% on home detention (with electronic monitoring), and a small percentage on alternative detention.  This illustrates the nature of the trend from 1999, up one year, but then down steadily for juvenile halls.  Camp population is a little flatter than that, but not much is going on in a trend either way. 
   
   

   Since 1999, the BRC for juvenile halls has increased by about 800 beds and for camps it has increased by about 300 beds.  The simultaneous increase in beds and decrease in ADP were due to the fact that major building programs and juvenile crime reduction programs were initiated at about the same time.  The construction funds were not misspent, however.  We expect the demand for juvenile detention space will soon catch up with capacity.  For example, if you look at the ADP of 6,453 and the BRC of 7,229 for juvenile halls, it still does not match the peak demand day of 7,513.  On peak days there is still some crowding. 
   
   

   Bookings are down slightly.  The number has gradually dropped over the last three years.  This is consistent with the trend toward lower juvenile crime rates.  The national and state trend is still continuing.  However, we are still in a situation where there is crowding.  Jurisdictions experiencing juvenile hall crowding for 15 or more days per month, in at least one facility in 2003, account for 55% of the state’s general population.  In the counties where the majority of the state population resides, there is crowding in one or more facility at least half the time during the month.
   
   

   The felony proportion within the juvenile hall population is not as high as with adults, but it is still fairly high - 65% in juvenile halls and 67% in camps in 2003.  The percentage of pre-disposition juveniles in juvenile halls has gradually increased.  Since 1999, the percentage has risen from 49% to 54% (similar to the jail trend for non-sentenced inmates).  One of the things, Dr. Kohls states that he has noticed with this data is that the juvenile data looks like it is a generation behind the adult data in respect to the trends.  He thought that it might have been the other way around. 
   
   

   Dr. Kohls stated that the overall conclusions are:
   
   

   The ADP results for the JPS and JDPS surveys are in a holding pattern for the last ten years due, in large part, to a lack of resources.

   Effective programs have also served to lower the juvenile populations, but many of those programs are being cut back or eliminated.

   The best long-term planning assumption is that adult and juvenile populations will continue to rise at a steady, although probably small, rate. 

   In the meantime, the trend for adults and juveniles will be toward:

   • a higher percentage with felony charges
   • a higher percentage of predisposition
   • a higher percentage of females
   • jail and detention facility capacity deficits in an increasing trend
   • an eventual return of crowding

   Dr. Kohls believes that is where we are heading, with no significant new construction on the agenda and some facilities being closed because of lack of resources.  There has been tremendous progress in the recent past in terms of replacing outdated facilities.  He stated we have done a great job of planning for the future, but he believes we are now in a holding pattern, and it is time to begin planning again for the year 2020.  He stated he was happy to answer any questions the Board might have.

   Acting Chair Carruth stated that state corrections was experiencing a growth of about 55 inmates a week, nowhere near the 200-400 experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, but nevertheless its net growth is just under 3,000 a year.  He said that they were not expecting that to happen, but were expecting the population to go down.  He states that Dr. Kohls indicated that the numbers in the jails are also going up.  He asked if Dr. Kohls has any sense of what that is about?  Dr. Kohls responded that the crime rate did a turnaround in 2000.  The FBI Crime Report, the Crime Index, number of arrests actually increased in that year.  Along with this increase is an increase in population of about one and a half percent a year.  Dr. Kohls felt that is what is driving the numbers back up. 

   Acting Chair Carruth asked what the difference was between a pretrial release and an OR.  Dr. Kohls responded that a pretrial release is defined, for the purposes of these numbers, as an inmate who would have been assigned to housing in a jail, by virtue of their offense, but was released instead solely due to lack of space.  Acting Chair Carruth asked whether the releases of both categories factored into the need numbers.  It was stated earlier that the aggregate need was just under 83,000 if you factor in the 3.5% buffer.  “Does that number include the early releases?”  Dr. Kohls responded no.  The early releases and the pretrial releases would be in addition of this. 

   Board member Silbert asked whether a study has been done on recidivism rates compared to those released late.  Dr. Kohls stated that he is sorry to report that is one of the variables they were not charged with collecting.

   Board member Kolender stated that there has been an increase in the types of crimes and the violence associated with them.  There has been a significant increase in recidivism because of a lack of available diverse programs for those incarcerated.  He stated that he sees too much of nothing happening.  “We stock pile them and don’t do anything to try and reward them for obtaining good things i.e., how about becoming literate or becoming drug-free etc.”  Dr. Kohls stated that he agrees.  One of the issues that comes up when you present these types of data is there is kind of a macro overall view.  We really do not know what is happening to individual people, why they fail, and why they are coming back.  We will have a little more data on that shortly, because we are doing the analysis and writing a final report for the Mentally Ill Offender grants.  We will have more information on whether that will have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing recidivism and perhaps the kinds of mentally ill people that do return, but we do not have the data that you specifically mention.

   Board member Kolender stated that, “where I come from we don’t call them mentally ill we call them homeless.”  He stated that the largest provider of mental health beds, psychologists, and psychiatrists, is his downtown jail in the entire county, the third largest county in the country.  Dr. Kohls stated he knows that is true, and he believes statewide the California correctional system is the largest mental health institution in the world. 

   Board member Remington stated that the state population is going to drive some of this increase and it is going to be a pretty steady increase.  He asked whether there were any bulges coming in to crime prone years early i.e., 12, 13 years or later to the adult system.  “Are there any bulges there?”  Dr. Kohls responded that, yes there are some bulges.  What he found especially with regard to juveniles, in the 15-19 age group, is it is supposed to grow slightly faster than the general population.  He stated that he doesn’t think we will get any relief there.  He did not look specifically at the adult population. 

   Board member Remington stated that we have not seen the same turnaround with the juvenile system as we did with the adult system in the year 2000.  Dr. Kohls stated that is right.  He believes that relates to Mr. Kolender’s statement that we have seen more resources in the juvenile system in the last decade and that clearly it is making a difference.  Perhaps, the next close look needs to be aimed at the adult population.

   Dr. Kohls stated that he would like to put in a plug for the Challenge grants.  “We found some wonderful results for the juvenile programs.  I’m sure they received the publicity they deserved.  Those programs do work and it would be a shame if they were diminished or cut out.”

   Board member Mann thanked Dr. Kohls for the tremendous job he has done.  It is always great to see this effort.  He stated to Dr. Kohls that this data did not capture the early releases.  How about the inmates that are put on work release and the home monitoring system, does this data capture those figures?  Dr. Kohls stated no.  Board member Mann stated that the need is really greater than what we see in the data.  Dr. Kohls stated that he agrees.  The numbers would be higher if everybody who should be in jail according to current laws and current policy was in jail.

   Mr. McConnell stated that Dr. Kohls often uses a warrant process, which is a total report on the number of outstanding felony warrants, and the number of outstanding misdemeanor warrants. If only 5% of those were exercised and those people were taken into custody it makes close to a 30% difference in the population.  If we were able to clear those warrants it would be an extremely different picture.  Dr. Kohls stated that there are 287,000 unserved felony warrants in California. 

Deputy Director Karen Stoll stated that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was passed and enacted nearly 30 years ago by Congress.  Part of the requirements in 1974, included some core components that States had to comply with in order to receive the funds.  The first core requirement in the initial Act had to do with the de-institutionalization of status offenders.  California responded to the federal statutes by passing the Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 207, in 1976, which was followed by an amendment by Congress requiring the removal of juveniles from jails and lockups after five years from the day of enactment and gave the States until 1985 to implement.  Congress then reauthorized the Act in 1984 and gave an additional three years (until 1988) to come into compliance.  In 1987, California passed a law prohibiting juveniles from being held in county jails, sheriff’s facilities, and other adult facilities. 

In 1988, Congress added another core requirement, the Native American set-aside funds for Title II.  In 1992, Congress added the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) requirement as a core protection and also instituted the requirement that if a state did not comply with core requirements they would lose 25% of their allocation for every core requirement they failed to adhere to.  When Congress limited the DMC core requirement to confinement, they were only looking at institutional confinement (disproportionate relationship between minority youth and white youth in confinement).  This was expanded in the 2002 reauthorization to Disproportionate Minority Contact – looking at the ethnic representation from arrests through confinement.

The requirement requires that we identify, study, report on, and direct resources towards reduction of juvenile DMC at each point in the juvenile justice system if issues exist.  The issues, approach, and funding for this effort have not been reviewed comprehensively in California, and there is a need to convene a workgroup to assist in determining the best strategies and application of resources for California. 

In 1999, the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) issued approximately $7 million in grants to the Attorney General’s Office for the development of the Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS).  This was a system that took some time to implement.  The federal funds paid for the development of the data system but also live scan devices for local jurisdictions. 

Ms. Stoll stated that 2004 is the first year that they have received any data.  In the Spring of 2003, OCJP, under increasing pressure from the federal government (DOJ), convened a workgroup and requested technical assistance from the DOJ to assist them in developing a plan to address the DMC issue.  They developed a draft plan, but unfortunately, there were several delays and obstacles in receiving the required information, and prior to the abolition of OCJP, no data had been received to submit in the required reports to the federal DOJ.  When the BOC assumed responsibility for the federal grant programs, we began to resolve the data issue with the DOJ.  Two constructive meetings occurred in January 2004.  These meetings were instrumental in obtaining the required 2002 JCPSS data for 44 (three additional counties submitting partial data) of California’s 58 counties for DMC identification phase purposes.  That number has increased to 52.  There are five counties not reporting.  Bill Davidson, Chief Probation Officer from Merced and liaison for the Chiefs, with the Attorney General’s Office is sending letters out to the five counties to get full compliance. While the state has not been aggressively addressing this area, there have been four counties that have targeted DMC-reduction efforts:  Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Diego, and Santa Clara.

Ms. Stoll stated that this agenda item is a request that the Board of Corrections authorize the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division to establish a workgroup to begin a process to determine the best continuing strategies, in California, to address juvenile Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), if it exists.  Approval of this request will authorize the CPP Division, with advice and council from the DMC workgroup, to develop recommendations for consideration by the BOC regarding funding strategies and programs to meet OJJDP requirements related to state and local DMC issues.  Staff would like the workgroup to look at interventions that work.  The federal government has put resources into five states and developed model programs and approaches for studying the DMC issue.  From that, we hope to be able to present some recommendations on how we should focus federal resources in the future.

Staff is recommending that:

1. The Board direct staff to commence the proposed DMC issues review process immediately;
2. The Chairman appoint a BOC member to chair the DMC workgroup;
3. The Board empower the chair to work with CPP staff to identify and appoint appropriate local subject matter experts as members of the DMC workgroup and to formulate a timeline for the process;
4. Authorize the DMC workgroup to begin meeting immediately; and
5. Instruct staff to update the Board, at its October 2004 meeting, on the status of DMC.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to 1) direct staff to commence the proposed DMC review process immediately; 2) Chairman appoint a BOC member to chair the DMC workgroup; 3) empower the chair to work with CPP staff to identify and appoint appropriate local subject experts as members of the DMC workgroup and to formulate a timeline for the process; 4) authorize the DMC workgroup to begin meeting immediately and; 5) instruct staff to update the Board, at its October 2004 meeting, on the status of the DMC was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. Donald Sheetz.  The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth recommended that Board member Remington be appointed as the chair of the workgroup.  Board member Remington stated that he would be happy to serve as the chair.

Ms. Stoll stated that beginning in approximately 1987/88, California passed a law prohibiting juveniles from being held in county jails, sheriffs’ facilities, and other adult facilities.  This legislation was spurred by the suicide of 15-year old Cathy Robbins.  She was jailed for being in the town square after curfew hours.  Cathy hung herself from the top rail of the bunk bed in her cell in the Glenn County Jail.  She had been in the jail for a week and the juvenile court judge had refused to release her.  She was one of six juvenile suicides that took place in adult jails in California between 1979 and 1984. 

There were 12 rural county probation departments granted federal Title II funds from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) for the purpose of removing juveniles from adult lock-ups.  These rural county Title II funding efforts were originally established because the selected counties had no juvenile halls and were holding juveniles, on a routine basis, in the county jail.  The jails quickly came into compliance with the legislation and ceased housing and holding juveniles in these facilities.  However, a number of rural counties have continued to receive Title II grant funds (16 years) for removal of juveniles from jails.  Ms. Stoll stated that there are chiefs in attendance today that wish to address the Board on this issue. 

The funding allocation for the Title II program is for prevention and diversion and it has been used for a variety of activities by the nine remaining counties i.e., electronic monitoring, which could be argued is a diversion program, purchasing bed days in other counties juvenile halls and camps, cars, and transportation, etc.  Board staff indicates that this process is another difficult situation with the federal government with grants that exceed the time limit and don’t meet the funding requirements.

Staff have discussed the situation with the OJJDP monitor and requested relief in not cutting these counties off immediately because we have just completed the first year of a three-year plan.  We are into the second year and these counties have counted on the funds being available to them in their 2004/05 fiscal year budgets. 

Ms. Stoll stated, at the same time, we are trying to remedy inherited OCJP problem areas and build our relationship with OJJDP when we discover new issues.  We have audit findings from DOJ, audit findings from state auditors who are still auditing and will not be finished until September or October 2004.  Little Hoover Commission findings of inappropriate use of the funds by OCJP staff is requesting approval from the Board to phase out the remaining projects over a two-year period; authorize continued full funding for FY 2004/05 at the same dollar levels that the nine counties are currently receiving; for FY 2005/06 the funding amount be reduced by 50%; and instruct staff to convene a planning session to assist the nine counties through this transition period and to explore other options for handling and transporting pre-adjudicated juveniles.

Ms. Stoll asked if the Board members had any questions.  Board member Prizmich asked whether the proposal today has been approved by the DOJ.  Ms. Stoll stated yes.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that there were Chief Probation Officers in attendance today wishing to speak to the Board.  He asked them to step forward.

Shirlee Juhl, Chief Probation Officer (CPO) of Tuolumne County, introduced the following CPOs in attendance:  Mike Kriletich, Amador County; Steve Bordin, Colusa County; Gail Neal, Mariposa County; Leo Fernandez, Modoc County; Beverlee Bryant, Mono County; Linda Shelton, Glenn County; and Norma Suzuki, Executive Director of the Chief Probation Officers of California. 

Chief Juhl stated that the CPOs were here to address the Board because this is a significant issue for all of them.  The nine counties represent 6% of the counties in the State of California.  These funds also impact those counties with whom we contract for bed space to house our young people.  The actual number of counties in the State of California who could be affected by this issue is closer to 25% or 43% of the counties in the State of California.  There are no imminent plans for construction of juvenile facilities considering the fiscal plight of the state and the counties.  For some of us it is not feasible to ever consider construction in individual counties.  The proposed action today creates obvious fiscal and operational concerns for all of us.  We are very successful in developing alternatives to incarceration for our youth.  We believe we’ve maximized the alternatives to detention and don’t believe we can stretch much further without endangering public safety, but we are certainly open for discussion.

Chief Juhl stated that most of us have been receiving jail removal funding since 1987 when SB 1637 was enacted.  In the past 17 years, all nine counties with the exception of Plumas (the CPO recently retired) have had changes at the chief probation officer level at least once and sometimes twice.  While all of us have some knowledge of the purpose of jail removal funding, none of us were serving in our current positions when the initial talks with OJJDP and OCJP were taking place.  We can certainly empathize with BOC in the daunting task of assuming responsibility of this grant administration from OCJP.  We appreciate the fact the BOC staff believes there is a need to be sensitive to the fact that the nine counties are small, have limited resources and have come to depend on the fiscal assistance of the jail removal funds.  We could also see how it would seem reasonable to phase out this funding in the future. 

In facing this recommended phase out, we find ourselves with many unanswered questions regarding federal regulations, understanding the funding source, as well as finding consensus for the best approach to this problem that doesn’t go away for us even if the funding does.  This is such an important issue that we respectively request that the Board put over formal action in this matter to the next scheduled meeting.  In the interim, we would appreciate the Board allowing us the opportunity to sit down with BOC staff, at their convenience, and seek answers to our questions.  We would also hope that through these meetings that consensus and compromise could be reached as to a recommended action, which could be considered by your Board at a future meeting.  Chief Juhl asked whether the Board members had any questions.

Board member Kolender asked whether the BOC has communicated this information to the counties.  Chief Juhl stated that we have not had any formal meetings.  We have had emails and phone conversations.  Board member Kolender asked whether she has requested any meetings.  Chief Juhl stated no.  This is our first request.  She stated that the original notification to the counties arrived in mid-May, so we have not really had much of an opportunity to get together with anyone.

Board member Silbert asked Chief Juhl what the counties’ main question is.  Chief Juhl stated that one of their key questions would have to do with the federal regulations, who develops the state plan submitted to the federal government; does OJJDP dictate to the states what our priorities are going to be, or does the state submit areas that we believe are issues that need to be addressed and then the federal government funds it.  These are general questions the CPOs have not had the opportunity to ask.  These are the types of things we would be looking at and is there anything at all that we could do that would allow us to continue to access this funding if we were able to do something different than what we are doing now.  Again, the problem will not go away when the funding does.  We still have the charge to take care of these young people that need to be detained.

Board member Silbert asked whether there was any way to expand alternatives to continue to use the money.  Chief Juhl responded that what they would want to do first is have a definition of the intended use of the funds.  There was a period of time when they thought the funds were supposed to be used for transportation and bed space, then the emphasis became prevention and creative programs, then OCJP came back and said absolutely not, it is only detention and bed space.  We have had several different directions.

Board member Prizmich stated that it is not uncommon that as new staff comes in at the state and federal levels, the emphasis and points of views change.  There very well could have been over time that the use of this money was approved and now it’s disapproved.  He stated the one thing he is concerned about is that these nine counties are in need of the funding and if they make a switch to what the federal government now determines is appropriate use of the money, do they continue to receive this money.  Is that the question the CPOs have?  Ms. Stoll stated that it is a three-year plan.  Part of the problem has been that they have never competed for these funds.  OCJP, prior to the programs coming to the BOC, had a competition for the majority of the other Title II funds.  They received 300 applications and funded 27.  The nine rural counties have never had to compete in the last 17 years and the other issue with grants being funded for a maximum of three years has been ignored.

Board member Prizmich stated, right or wrong, the counties have been lulled into this.  Ms. Stoll responded yes they have.  He stated his concern is that if we don’t jump on this situation now, with the federal government in agreement with the staff’s phase out approach, and if we delay making a decision and allow more time whether we would have problems with some other bureaucrat down the road.  Ms. Stoll stated that staff does want to work with the CPOs on converting their programs to eligible areas, but the counties are already into this fiscal year and the proposed approach allows the counties time to phase out or convert to eligible programs. 

Acting Chair Carruth asked whether we have a specific audit exception on this from the federal government.  Ms. Stoll stated that we do not have an audit exception; we have disclosed the issue to them and they are aware that this is another of the many issues we inherited.  The California State Plans that have been submitted to the federal government are not specific in listing projects.  The plans consist of two lines that state we are going to address the issues of jail removal. 

Board member Remington stated that one of the issues has to do with process and certainly these grants were extended longer than it was intended.  He indicated that the counties have relied on this funding and if OCJP had not been abolished, he wasn’t sure what would have happened at this point, but we need to make some changes.  He stated that he is certainly aware of the need to meet our core requirements from the federal government, and thinks the request to delay action is reasonable.  In the long run, process is important in relation to our partners throughout the state.  When it becomes time to make a decision, I’m certainly going to support the CPOs request. 

Ms. Stoll inquired of Ms. Juhl whether there would be a timing issue if the decision was delayed. The grants should have been under contract by July 1.  Chief Juhl stated she has checked with the nine CPOs and the counties have funded their care of court wards, which is what they used to pay for detention and transportation.  She stated that the counties wouldn’t be able to do a first claim to BOC until October, so putting this off until October would not put them in any fiscal danger. 

Acting Chair Carruth stated that he would anticipate that even if we put this over that we would end up in the same place.  The fiscal situation would not change for those affected counties.  It may be appropriate to put it over for some process concerns and to have further conversation.  He asked Ms. Stoll what the consequences would be with the federal government if we put this over.  Ms. Stoll stated that they are expected to monitor the Board at the beginning of December.  She stated that the federal government has been very, very accommodating and we have a good relationship. They know we are trying to correct these problems as they emerge and have worked very collaboratively.

Mr. McConnell stated that because we have multiple partners we’re dealing with at the Board.  We have a partnership with the federal government.  Staff have discovered, thus far, thirteen serious grant agreement violations by the agency that had this responsibility prior to us.  Staff have been clearing those up as quickly as we possibly can.  We believe we have established a very good relationship with the federal government.  They have allowed us significant latitude regarding direct violations of the expenditures of those monies, the interpretation of the laws under which we are supposed to operate.  As Acting Chair Carruth stated, there are very difficult issues with regard to justifying the approach that has been taken with these monies for the last 16-17 years.  When we face the criteria that we are responsible for in identifying the appropriate use of funds, and you agree to do that before you take the money, we find ourselves in a position of knowing clearly that we have been inappropriately operating with those funds.  We went to the federal government and asked if we could continue doing this for a time in order to transition, and they have agreed to allow us to do that.  That is a process and a partnership that I would like to maintain and continue to develop.

At the same time, we are working under a very short timeframe with this.  We took over this responsibility in January and are expected to have competitions and projects in place by July.  That has clearly been a difficult timeline to meet.  We, as your staff, set out to try and find the best possible way to accomplish this with the least possible damage and impact to those we also partner with, which is our local jurisdictions.  Mr. McConnell stated we really want to work with the CPOs and get started right away in coming to grips, right or wrong.  The management of the funds has been in an inappropriate direction and we need to move in a new direction in order to sustain our relationship with the federal government.  What we would like to do as quickly as possible is meet with the CPOs and find alternatives as best we can.

Mr. McConnell stated that there appears to be a number of things that we can do, not the least of which, is look at ways in which you have other funds you are using for diversion that you may be able to use i.e., other grant funding.  That is why staff is requesting approval to bring the chiefs together as a committee and work together.  We do need to keep a cognizant view of both partners that we are working with, federal and local government. 

Board member Remington stated that the reality is clear, but he also believes that when groups get together over similar problems and try to solve those problems there may be some other solutions that come out of that i.e., creativity tends to take place.  He stated that his fear is if we finalize this today it will close the door on perhaps some creative thinking that may resolve both our problems with the federal government and the small counties’ issue with funding those programs.

Board member Mann asked whether it is part of the recommendation that the Board direct staff to work with the counties and, in fact, answer any questions and work through this as part of that process.  Ms. Stoll responded yes that is part of the recommendation. 

Acting Chair Carruth asked if there were any other questions.

Chief Shelton, Glenn County, and Vice President of the State Chief Probation Officers’ Association stated that she wanted to reiterate a couple of things.  She stated that the counties do not have all the information yet about our budgets.  We are waiting on what is called the TANF issue.  For her county alone, the impact would mean losing one third of her staff, one third of her officers.  Her county would also be impacted by the jail removal funds from contracts from the funded counties.  She requested that we put this matter over until they have the additional information needed to make better decisions regarding the financial budget situation’s impact on our counties. 

Board member Prizmich asked Ms. Juhl if she understands that the funding is in tact for this year.  Ms. Juhl stated yes.  Her concern was the recommendation for the 50% reduction next year.  We do understand that the recommendation to be fully funded is a “God-send” to most of us, because we had already crafted our budgets with that money in it, not knowing that this was coming, and then being notified that there was a possibility that this funding was not going to continue as we had anticipated.

Board member Prizmich stated that the results achieved by the Board of Corrections is because of the relationship they have with federal agency that oversees this process.  The Board should be thanked for their efforts.  Chief Juhl stated that they definitely appreciate the fact that it was not terminated in the middle of May because that certainly would have created problems that could have been insurmountable for most of us.  We do appreciate the Board’s efforts with the federal government. 

Board member Prizmich asked whether the counties’ fear is in adopting the 50% reduction in the motion today any other change would never occur again.  Chief Juhl stated that our biggest concern by a final decision being made today is that when the workgroups meet and possibly develop a compromise satisfactory to everyone are we locked into the plan that has been submitted to the federal government that 50% is all we are going to receive next year and then nothing after that.  We really have a lot of questions that have not been answered and we are facing the possibility of losing the opportunity to ask them before the decision is made.  That is our concern.  We could like to be able to ask those questions before a decision is made.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if the Board members had any further questions.  There were none.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to 1) direct staff to work with the nine affected counties to phase out the remaining projects over the two years remaining of this three-year cycle; 2) Board authorize continued full funding for FY 2004/05 at the same dollar levels as the nine counties are receiving, and that for 2005/06 that funding amount be reduced by 50%; and 3) instruct staff to convene a planning session to assist the nine counties through this transition period and to explore other options for handling and transporting of pre-adjudicated juveniles was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.  The motion carried.

Mr. McConnell stated that the motion allows us to honor our commitment to the federal government but if we come up with creative opportunities to make amendments and convince the Board of a better approach, and we agree, then we will come back.  It is never over, however, what we do now by doing this is honor our commitment to the federal government by putting solutions in place for the upcoming year so that they can then say that California is coming into compliance.  If you find a better way to come into compliance, I know the staff will work with you diligently to see that it gets addressed to the Board and also addressed to the federal government.  Whether it will be successful or not is something we can’t assure you of at this point.  What we are certain of is that the federal government has committed to the two-year phase out plan.  We feel this was very generous on their part, but it is never over until it is over.

In attendance today is a former director of OJJDP, Verne Speirs.  He could tell you that having negotiated a deal with the federal government to continue funding for two more years is a fairly dramatic thing for them to do. 

Mr. Crout stated that this agenda item was intended to provide Board members with an update on activities associated with the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) program.  This program supported the implementation and evaluation of 30 locally developed demonstration projects in 26 counties. 

In 1998, the Legislature initiated a major effort aimed at reducing crime, jail crowding, and criminal justice costs associated with mentally ill offenders.  Chapter 501, Statutes of 1998 created Penal Code (PC) Article 4, Section 6045 et seq, which in turn, established the MIOCRG program.  The Legislature initially appropriated $27 million for the MIOCRG Program.  Of this amount, $2 million was used to develop planning grants that were used as a basis to respond to an RFP to determine in rank order those projects that were most deserving of the $27 million.  In 1999, following an extensive review of 40 RFPs requesting a total of nearly $114 million, the BOC awarded approximately $22.9 million in available funds to seven counties.  The 1999/00 State Budget Act allocated an additional $27 million to the MIOCRG program and enabled eight more counties to receive demonstration grants.  This allocation, coupled with unexpected planning grant funds, resulted in demonstration grants totaling over $50.6 million for the initial 15 grantees, which are referred to as the MIOCRG I projects.

The first funding streams were referred to as the “MIOCRG I” projects and the second funding streams were referred to as the “MIOCRG II” projects.  The contracts for the fifteen MIOCRG I projects all expired on or before March 31, 2004.  Those programs provided enhanced in-custody and/or post-custody services to participating clients for approximately four years.

The contracts for all MIOCRG II projects expired on June 30, 2004.  Those programs provided a number of services and a number of demonstration grant programs.  Some worked beautifully and some did not work so well.  Staff continue to provide technical assistance as the projects complete their closeout requirements, including review of submission of the Final Project Summary/Evaluation Report, which contains the research and evaluation findings; submittal of the final financial invoice; and completion of the final audit report.

Mr. Crout stated that the most important piece of the MIOCRG program was the emphasis on evaluation.  It is to identify those evidenced-based programs that work and also, as importantly, identify those evidenced-based programs that do not work and publish those findings.  He stated that he has been privileged to be associated with this project from the beginning and I have spoken to a number of people on a nationwide basis and they are all watching California.  This is the most money that has ever been placed toward mentally ill offenders anywhere.  As a comparison, he believed that the federal government is considering about $20 or $30 million nationwide in addressing this problem and California addressed it with considerable more money.  “Everyone is waiting for our final report.”

He stated that as Dr. Kohls explained earlier, our research staff are working very diligently on looki+ng at all the data that is being submitted from the participating counties.  Part of it is making sure that we have clean data.  By clean data, we mean making sure that the counties answer the questions in a consistent fashion, so that when we look at common data elements – elements that affect all 30 projects evenly – that those numbers are appropriate and defendable and constitute good research practices. 

He stated that we have some final invoices being submitted from the counties and, of course, we will pay those invoices as soon as we receive our final reports.  It is anticipated that we will have our final report for the Legislature by December 31, 2004.

Mr. Crout stated to Mr. McConnell that he has been in public service for 35 years, and has had many bosses over that period of time but “you have been the best.  You have had a tremendous amount of vision, are a good leader, set the bar up high, and you have been a good role model for your staff.”  Mr. Crout congratulated Mr. McConnell upon his retirement.

Ms. Stoll stated that this information item provides the Board with an update of activities associated with administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) since the BOC meeting on January 22, 2004.  We are now entering our fourth year of program funding under the JJCPA.  The program funding is split on a 50/50 basis between Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) and JJCPA programs ($100 million each), and year’s funds must be expended or encumbered by June 30, 2005.

While the programs has taken some cuts in the total amount of funding that is available to local government, from $121 million the first year to $100 million this year, we have seen some good quality programs.  Staff have prepared two legislative reports to the Governor and Legislature that have shown positive results.  JJCPA averages about 193 to 196 programs/year and the statistics shared earlier are a direct result of these programs and their efforts in the prevention/intervention areas.

In May 2004, the fourth year annual action plans were submitted.  The counties had the difficult task of program reductions due to the $16 million reduction in available funds from the prior year.  The Board’s action at the April BOC meeting in providing one-time federal Challenge funds of $1.7 million helped reinstate some of the programs the counties had reduced/eliminated.  Fifty-two counties submitted applications for the Challenge money.  They had the opportunity to either create a new program or use the money to supplement what they had lost.  Seven new programs were developed, four counties decided not to apply, King, Madera, Sonoma and Tuolumne.  Their portion of the funds was reallocated among the large counties. 

BOC staff continues to provide technical assistance to counties to:  a) implement approved projects; b) review and approve modification requests; c) address evaluation and reporting responsibilities; and d) efforts in the next quarter will be directed at assisting with the program impact and outcome report due to the Governor and Legislature for programs operated during the 2003/04 fiscal year.

We have also been asked by the Probation Business Managers Association to conduct a 4-hour training on program outcome and expenditure reporting and on the federal programs BOC administers.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that he had one question.  Did all of the counties represented here today that are losing funding, apply for this money.  Ms. Stoll stated that two of the nine did not.  Acting Chair Carruth asked why.  She answered that the counties stated they did not have time to prepare their requests.

Deputy Director Shelley Montgomery stated that this is positive report on the number of local county and city corrections agencies that have agreed to participate in the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program for this fiscal year, despite no subvention money.  We had 100% participation, literally every agency that was in the program last year, signed up again to meet selection and training standards on a statewide basis, plus an additional agency signed up.  This expresses their intent to meet the staff’s selection and training standards and their intent to use the STC program as a mechanism for meeting those standards.  They will be able to avail themselves of the STC course certification system; a centralized development and ongoing maintenance of core curriculum; coordinated training and delivery system; and most importantly, by participating again, they are demonstrating strength in numbers, so that there is consensus around the state and a real commitment on the part of local corrections to have professional staff operate their programs in their facilities.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that retaining all these agencies in programs with no money are impressive results.

Ms. Stoll stated that we are finally seeing blue sky in some of these efforts.  We have developed a very good working partnership with the federal government and anticipate that it will continue in the future.  Unfortunately, the future for these programs in Washington is not all positive.  Congress is not pleased nationally with the expenditure of the federal funding and the lack of outcome data.  Specifically, they are targeting the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) Program.  California, typically, receives approximately 10% of the national funding available after earmarked funding has been removed for discretionary grants.  This current year California’s allocation is at the $14 million level ($4 million less than the prior year).  It is being proposed that it be cut to $4.7 million because of no available outcome data.  In California, we have some advantage that the cut in funding will be delayed for a year, but it will hit in Fiscal Year 2005/06.  We have not been notified what the final state funding level is for the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program, but there is a concerted effort by the states to restore this program back to the same levels as 2003.

The Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Programs (OJJDP) quickly tried to get a system together in February 2004 to begin gathering some impact and outcome data.  We have been working since March with the 85 grantees in California to identify outcomes covering the period of November 2003 through March 2004.  Staff has actively assisted the 85 JABG grantees in submitting the required outcome data to OJJDP by the June 30, 2004 deadline.  This data will then be compiled by OJJDP, with the other states’ data, into a comprehensive report to Congress.

Attachment B (in the agenda packet) is a master list of the activities BOC staff have been, and are, engaged with since the transfer of the program.  We have cleared out all the 146 audits that were transferred and pending review (grantee audits), reapplied for 12 different years of programs and have received approval from OJJDP and are working on data for Disproportionate Minority Contact issues; and the appointment of a State Advisory Group (SAG).  After the Board’s approval in April of the agenda item recommending creation of a new SAG, staff prepared a Governor’s Office Action Request.  It was approved on June 15, 2004, by the Governor’s Office.  We are currently in the process of developing that group and obtaining approval by the Governor.  It has been recommended by the Board that Board member Mimi Silbert Chair and Board member Donald Sheetz Co-chair the SAG. 

Field Representative Jerry Read stated that at the January 16, 2003 meeting, the Board of Corrections (BOC) directed staff to begin the regulations review process for the Minimum Standards for Adult Detention Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR), pursuant to Penal Code 6030.  Chairman Presley appointed Board member William Kolender as Chair and Board member Gary Mann as Co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for this process.  This report provides the Board with the recommended revisions from the 12-member ESC and incorporates the efforts of the 35 individuals who participated on the three workgroups.

On February 26, 2003, Board members Kolender and Mann met with staff to develop a list of recommended members and the proposed timeline.  At its April 17, 2003 meeting, the BOC approved the ESC membership and timeline for the 2003/04 Adult Titles 15 and 24, CCR, revision process.  Also in February, a memo was sent to the field requesting input on any regulations they thought needed revision.  In June 2003, the ESC met and reviewed Titles 15 and 24, CCR, regulations focusing on those that were the subject of recommendations for revision from the field as well as staff.  The ESC determined the need for three workgroups, recommended their composition and provided direction on areas of examination.  They directed the workgroups to meet and provide them with recommendations on any revisions to the regulations.

On September 24 and 25, and October 22, and 23, 2003, the three workgroups (Management, Medical/Mental Health/Nutritional/Environmental Health, 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.

In November 2003, the ESC met and was briefed by the chairs of the workgroups on the recommended revisions.  The ESC approved most recommendations, modified others, and decided to gather additional information on one recommendation made by the Management workgroup (Section 1020, Correctional Officer Core Course).  Due to the delay in gathering information to develop a recommendation concerning Section 1020, at their January 22, 2004 meeting, the BOC authorized an amended timeline of activities for the 2003/2004 Adult Titles 15 and 24, CCR.

Mr. Read stated that staff originally sought BOC approval of these recommendations at its April 15, 2004 meeting; however, a quorum was unavailable.  Staff is requesting approval of the recommendations in order to proceed with the 45-day public comment period.  If approved, staff will provide the recommendations to the public for comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  Results of the public comment period will be presented at the October 2004 BOC meeting.  The proposed dates for the public hearings are September 21 in San Diego, and September 22 in Sacramento.  Board members William Kolender and Gary Mann have agreed to panel the public hearings if appointed. 

A motion to approve the ESC’s recommendation to 1) adopt 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; 2) direct staff to commence with the public comment period; and 3) adopt the proposed tentative public hearing dates and appoint the panel chair was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.  The motion carried.

Ms. Montgomery stated that there are several bills the BOC has been following.  The most pertinent is AB 2058, which is sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California, California State Sheriffs Association, Police Chiefs Association and the California Peace Officers Association.  AB 2058 proposed reinstating language in the Penal Code that would allow the BOC to allocate money from the Corrections Training Fund should those monies be reinstated.

Acting Chair Carruth reported that Secretary Roderick Hickman held a weeklong workshop in Galt, California that involved a number of Board of Corrections staff and several hundred representatives from state youth and adult corrections.  The meeting also included representation from the private sector and non-profit organizations that work with adult and youth offenders.  Acting Chair Carruth asked that Thom develop a plan to analyze recommendations of the Independent Review that expands and increases both the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Corrections.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that he represented Mr. Hickman today due to Mr. Hickman’s wife having surgery.  He anticipates that Mr. Hickman will be in attendance at the next Board meeting.

Kevin Carruth, Acting Chair, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
John Dovey, represented Department of Corrections Yvette Marc-Aurele, Deputy Director, represented Department of the Youth Authority
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County Sheriff’s Department
Calvin C. Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County Probation Department
John L. Scott, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)

Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Shelley Montgomery, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Deputy Director, CPPD
Jerry Read, Field Representative, FSOD