Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes - October 21, 2004

BOARD OF CORRECTIONS MEETING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2004
WARREN E. THORNTON YOUTH CENTER
4000 BRANCH CENTER ROAD
SACRAMENTO, CA

Mr. Roderick Hickman, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the October 21, 2004, Board of Corrections meeting. He introduced Chief Probation Officer Verne Speirs for opening comments.

Chief Speirs welcomed everyone to the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center. He stated that the facility is a 60-bed expansion facility and was scheduled to open by the first of November. Shortly after completion, and with staff in place, they will begin populating the new facility with youth from the existing facility together with new commitments. They will then begin a major remodel project on their 23 year-old facility, which currently houses about 50 young people.

Chief Speirs acknowledged the following staff: Suzanne Collins, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, who oversees all the institutions in Sacramento County and has guided this project as it comes to completion; Steve De Ross, Assistant Chief over field operations, who started the project; Gary Steele, Chief Deputy over facilities management and construction; Chris Johnson, Chief Deputy of the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center and his assistant Steve Streeter, Assistant Chief Deputy. Chief Speirs stated that Chief Johnson and Assistant Chief Streeter will be in charge of the facility and its programs upon its opening.

Chief Speirs stated that they are blessed to have Fred Campbell and Jim Aboytes, two consultants on the project, Supervisor Don Notolli, and Mike Krempely, the project manager in attendance today. Chief Speirs stated that the essence of this 60-bed facility is going to be the beginning of managing the overcrowding in their facilities. The entire facility reflects a common vision - a vision shared by the Probation Department, the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Corrections, which is to work constructively and cooperatively with each other to add value to the client agreement, and to develop quality commitment facilities and programs. He stated their emphasis is quality programming and quality facilities. Chief Speirs thanked the Board of Corrections for their technical assistance and financial support to help make this facility a reality. He stated that $3.3 million of the $9.9 million in construction costs came from the Board's Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant funding.

Chief Speirs stated that the state-of-the-art facility, along with the soon to be renovated original youth center, will be an initial step to address severe overcrowding in their juvenile detention system. Chief Deputy Chris Johnson and Assistant Chief Steve Streeter developed new programming that places more accountability for success on the youth. It reflects the probation department's commitment to the principles of "restorative justice" and is a longstanding component of their mission statement. Among other things, this new programming requires wards to take leadership roles and mentor other wards as they progress in the program. Other programming being developed will require wards to participate in acknowledging the impact of crime on victims programs by writing letters to either primary or secondary victims of their offense. The new facility will give them the space to do the necessary program as they move forward. Chief Speirs stated that he certainly hoped that the Board, staff, and guests will take time after the meeting to go on a guided tour of the facility.

Chief Speirs thanked the Board for the opportunity to host the October 21 Board meeting. He stated that he is very honored to introduce Supervisor Don Notolli, a very good friend of the probation department, 10-year member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and an elected official who consistently advocated for the resources needed for the department to protect the community and provide appropriate services for offenders under their jurisdiction.

Supervisor Don Notolli stated that he was delighted to be at the Board of Corrections meeting. He stated that this was his first occasion to address the Board and he welcomed everyone to the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center. He also invited the Board for a tour of the facility. Mr. Notolli stated that the leadership exhibited through the Board of Corrections, and its various roles and responsibilities throughout the state, have set a very high guidepost to follow and have become a standard that Sacramento County and agencies throughout the State of California look to. He stated that in Sacramento County, because of population growth, not only are they challenged to provide programs and services to the general population, but also provide services to those minors with special needs, while ensuring the security and safety of the community.

Mr. Notolli stated that the construction project, even in tough budget times, has been a priority in Sacramento County and they appreciate the Board of Corrections for providing the necessary grant and technical assistance. He stated to Mr. Crout that he appreciates his leadership and his service to the Board, state, and community. He extended greetings to all in attendance, and stated he was delighted to have the Board at the facility. He thanked Chief Speirs and all those referenced by the Chief, for all their hard work to see this project through and for the services they provided, on a daily basis, for the safety and security to the families in our communities and for the care and services to those institutionalized in Sacramento County.

Chief Speirs then introduced Maynard Feist, Architect Project Manager, Lionakis Beumont Design Group, Inc. and Mr. Feist's associate, Mark Ryan, from Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Feist stated that he echoes many of Mr. Speir's acknowledgments. He stated that, "it is an overwhelmingly daunting task." He acknowledged another architectural firm, Design Partnership out of San Francisco that worked collaboratively with them as well as all the other individuals within both firms. Mr. Feist quoted a question that his wife posed: "you come home so tired; you come home so frustrated, why do you continue to do this?" In response, stated that it is days like this where people come together and are really proud of their facility and it is worth the effort. It was a shared vision built on trust that goes along with working together and understanding each other's goals and objectives. "This is the success. I believe the county, as well as the state, should be proud of this facility." He stated that they looked at this as an opportunity not just to build another institution, but to build an institution that fosters a safe and secure environment as well as a stimulating environment. We leveraged a lot of fine opportunities on this project such as the dayroom lighting and a stimulating environment. Program efforts that are implemented here are the fruits and labor and the county should be proud of this.

He stated that, "as an architect, we go through many state and county agencies and a lot of different governing bodies," and commended the Board of Corrections and their plan review and their participatory effort in a project of this nature. "They did a wonderful job. The Board is not an adversary, but a very team oriented organization." Mr. Feist stated, "you have no idea what we go through as individuals in our industry, but it has been a pleasure working with the Board of Corrections."

Mr. Feist stated that Mark Ryan, Design Partnership, Inc., was the design architect when the project was implemented and was very instrumental in presenting some of the program and design options and flavor to the project. He then introduced Mr. Ryan, from Phoenix, Arizona, for comments. Mr. Ryan stated that projects like this don't happen without a lot of effort and without a truly enlightened client and client group. When they started this project, they talked about wanting a secure facility, lots of natural light, but at the same time they thought, "here is an opportunity to do something that transcends far beyond that." They talked about, over many months and years, the few opportunities to capture the attention of these kids. If they can do it when they are here, if they can do it when they are in a place like this, a facility that is designed in a way that it fosters an implementation of programs as opposed to simply maintaining order, he think everybody benefits. They looked at this project as a huge opportunity to create something special. Mr. Ryan stated that the county certainly has done more than their fair share, along with the Board of Corrections to bring this facility on line.

Chairman Hickman thanked the presenters and also said that he appreciated their time and energy at this meeting to share in the successes of this facility. He stated he was pleased to hear about collaboration because this is something he has long advocated. He said that we have a responsibility to collaborate in order for us to do good public service in the state. He observed that you can't get it done alone and it is obvious by the examples provided today in the presentations that there has been a great collaboration on this project. He thanked Sacramento County Probation Department for hosting the Board of Corrections meeting and all their hospitality.

Chairman Hickman stated that he wanted to recognize Bill Crout, Executive Director (A), who is retiring. He stated that one thing that has been a real blessing to him in his appointment as the Agency Secretary is the wonderful work that he has been able to observe, and be a part of, from the Board of Corrections. The comments about the quality of work and the unbelievable energy that the Board creates has a lot to do with the leadership at the Board, and Bill's leadership and the way he stepped right in when Mr. Thom McConnell retired. And now, Mr. Crout will retire - and for the right reasons. Chairman Hickman wanted to acknowledge the work that Mr. Crout has done and how much he appreciated the leadership that he has provided in times of challenge. He stated that he believes that in times of challenge, people are always looking to leadership. He wished Mr. Crout continued success and to enjoy retirement. He asked Mr. Crout if he would like to say anything.

Mr. Crout stated that he was grateful for the opportunity to have stepped in behind Mr. McConnell because Mr. McConnell did an outstanding job in setting the tone for collaboration with the Board. Mr. Crout stated that he has been very privileged to be a part of such a wonderful group of people that make up the Board of Corrections staff. He stated that management was very selective in their hiring of staff and once staff is hired they step up to the plate - everyone works as a team. He stated that this has made his job easy. Mr. Crout stated that the reason he is retiring is that he has 36 years of public safety service and has spent a lot of time away from his family during those years, and it is now time to start paying back his family for all the years without him.

Chairman Hickman announced that Board members Zev Yaroslavsky, Tom Soto, and Mimi Silbert were unable to attend this meeting due to other conflicts in their schedules. He asked if there was motion to excuse the absences.

A motion to excuse Mr. Yaroslavsky, Mr. Soto, and Ms. Silbert was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Mr. Cal Remington. The motion carried.

Chairman Hickman called the meeting to order and requested that a roll call be taken. Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant, called the roll. Chairman Hickman declared the presence of a quorum.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 2004 MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Chair Hickman asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the July 22, 2004, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Mr. Donald Sheetz. The motion carried.

SCHEDULE FOR 2005 BOARD MEETINGS (AGENDA ITEM B)
Board Member Sheetz asked for an amendment to change the January 20, 2005 Board meeting to January 27, 2005 due to the President's Inauguration Day.

A motion to change the January 20, 2005 Board meeting to January 27, 2005, was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Mr. Donald Sheetz. The motion carried.

The following is the 2005 Board of Corrections meeting schedule.

Thursday, January 27, 2005……… Sacramento
Thursday, March 17, 2005……….. Kern County
Thursday, May 19, 2005…………. Sacramento
Thursday, July 21, 2005………….. Contra Costa County
Thursday, September 15, 2005…… Sacramento
Thursday, November 17, 2005…… Orange County

A motion to adopt the proposed 2005 Board of Corrections meeting dates and locations was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Ms. Jeanne Woodford. The motion carried.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER VACANCY - PROPOSED SELECTION PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM C)
Undersecretary Kevin Carruth complimented the Sacramento County Probation Department, their staff and consultants, and the Board of Corrections, on all their collaborative efforts to complete this facility. He stated that he is also appreciative of the fact that the facility is named after Warren E. Thornton. He had the opportunity to meet and work with Mr. Thornton about thirty years ago in San Diego. He said that he was a man of vision.

Mr. Carruth stated that this is a recruitment and selection process and that he must "give credit where credit is due." This process was developed in the county of Santa Clara and is used for Executive recruitment. He stated that the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) has replicated it and has used it in the Youth Authority. They plan to use it throughout the Agency. Mr. Carruth stated that there would be a closed session for Board members at the end of the Board meeting to discuss the specific details of the personnel recruitment process.

Mr. Carruth outlined the following process:

Pre-Recruitment Phase
This phase will include key decisions identifying individuals who will work on minimum qualification statements, rater groups, interview panels and final recommendations to the Board. This phase will begin with the Board in closed session following this public meeting.

Recruitment Phase
This phase will include the development of recruitment plans and timelines, the design of a job bulletin, the development of recruitment strategies, the selection of recruiters (if applicable), the recruitment campaign and the implementation of the recruitment. This will be handled by personnel staff and will not necessarily involve the Board.

Application Review Process Phase
The assigned personnel staff will review and screen all applications to ensure competitors meet the minimum qualifications for this position.

Screening/Rating Process Phase
The Board will select three to four individuals to act as "subject matter experts." They will review, screen and rate applications and select the most qualified candidates, preferably no more than eight to ten or fewer, if possible. The selected candidates will proceed to the next phase and those disqualified will be notified.

Preparation and Scheduling Process Phase
This phase will include the logistical development. Included in this phase is the identification of the interview panel members (three to four), scheduling interview dates and location, identification of six to seven topical areas for the interview panel to use and preparation of interview materials for the panel members.

Interview Process Phase
This is the final phase where the Board briefs the panel members on its expectations of the candidates and the knowledge, skills, abilities and personal characteristics that are needed for this position. The panel will interview the candidates and a decision will be made on the finalists. The Chairman of the Board and the Board members will then interview the finalists.

Mr. Carruth stated that the Board would be looking for someone they believe is totally qualified for the position. In the closed session, the Board will identify individuals who will be included as raters, panel members, and Board hiring representatives.

Mr. Carruth asked if the Board members had any questions. Board Member Kolender stated that it appears that this process has been expanded since the last appointment of an Executive Officer (Mr. McConnell). He asked if this process is different. Mr. Carruth stated that he was not around when the appointment of the last Executive Officer was made. It is his understanding that there were three or four people involved in the process. They interviewed candidates and then the Board interviewed the candidates, which is a pretty unwieldy process.

Chairman Hickman stated that he believes that the process described above is the most comprehensive way to select a candidate for this position. "We want to provide the Board with the best pool of candidates possible."

Board Member Allen stated that having used this selection process, he is a firm believer in the success rate you can have. He thought it was a fabulous way to select a candidate.

A motion for approval to implement the recruitment, interview and selection process was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Ms. Jeanne Woodford. The motion carried.

YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY (YACA) STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Mr. Carruth stated that this agenda item is part of the California Performance Review (CPR), the Independent Review Panel (IRP) led by Governor George Deukmejian released its recommendations for reorganizing the agencies under YACA. He stated that the IRP made a series of recommendations that he would now describe.

First, and foremost, of interest to the Board the IRP recommended that the Board of Corrections remain intact. Many other boards and commissions have been recommended for elimination. He stated that this speaks to the caliber of what the organization has accomplished over the years and its leadership. The IRP suggest giving the Board a new name, "The Corrections Standards Authority." Under the new structure the IRP recommends the following:

" Give the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) responsibility for setting standards and conducting inspections of state prisons and youth facilities.
" The Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training be eliminated and that those responsibilities be transferred to the CSA.
" Move the responsibility and the resources for setting standards for training of state correctional officers along with the authority.
" Move the responsibility for setting standards for entry-level correctional peace officers.
" Establish a field training officer program with appropriate selection criteria and training.
" Develop, approve, and monitor standards for a newly designated field training officer program.

Mr. Carruth stated that these are some of the recommendations included in the IRP. YACA has requested, as part of a larger effort, for Mr. Crout to lead a team of staff from across the Agency looking at how those various functions would be organized into one organization and what the structure of that organization might be.

Agency has pulled together a number of teams (20 total) and that some of those teams (i.e., policy, research, personnel and training, audit and compliance) will overlap with each other. Where these overlaps occur, it has not yet been decided where the responsibility will land. There are several points of overlap and each group has been instructed to independently work on these issues and then Agency will decide how it will all come together.

The strategic planning efforts date back to February when YACA began meeting with the consultant of Cal State Northridge, Allen Glassman, and started developing the Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals for the Agency. In February, the Agency Secretary distributed a "no tolerance" memo to staff addressing the "code of silence." In July, in conjunction with Cal State Northridge, YACA held a weeklong training session in Galt, California with the executive leadership from CDC, CYA, Board of Prison Terms, Board of Corrections, and CPOST; totaling approximately two hundred participants.

Mr. Carruth stated that the Mission developed is to help improve public safety through evidence-based crime prevention and recidivism reduction strategies. YACA has brought in a number of consultants and subject matter experts, to help develop some of these areas (i.e., strategic planning, organizational development design, customer service, performance measurement, parole re-entry, correctional research, information technology, health care, and human resources). Agency has contacted subject matter experts outside of the organization who are nationally recognized to come in and work with YACA to discuss structure, process, and redesign and doing business differently. The goal was not to reinvent what we already have.

He stated that Chairman Hickman would be presenting a proposed macro structure of what the Agency would look like to the Governor on November 1, 2004. The IRP and the CPR recommendations call for a change from a "weak Secretary model" to a "strong Secretary model," where the Secretary would be the appointing authority. Currently, the authority is at the department level. The Governor will then forward the structure recommendation to the Little Hoover Commission then to the Legislature: the Legislature will then approve or disapprove the entire package. There are three sets of major changes; 1) structural, 2) budget, and 3) statute.

Mr. Carruth stated that he believed that most of the budget changes will occur in the "May Budget Revise." By July 1, 2005, the potential to have new structure, new budget, and new statutory authority all in place for the next fiscal year is possible. He said that this is an immense undertaking.

YACA is the only agency in state government going through the effort to try and take the information that was provided through the IRP and CPR and develop its own structural design. YACA believes it was important to make the effort to take its future and destiny into its own hands.

Mr. Carruth asked the Board members if they had any questions or comments.

Board Member Woodford stated, that as the Director of the California Department of Corrections, she is very excited about having a new mission statement. She believes it has put a lot of energy back into the organization and that they are headed in a fantastic direction.

Chairman Hickman stated that one of the directives that Governor Schwarzenegger tasked him to address was "How would I change corrections in California in a way that would be different at the end of Governor Schwarzenegger's administration, than it is now?" Chairman Hickman stated, in his conversation with then Governor-elect Schwarzenegger, that he believed that something of this magnitude, the size of corrections, and the impact it would have, would take a minimum of five years to significantly change. He said that Governor Schwarzenegger stated, "if you get the job, you have three years." He did not know at the time that the Governor was going to put forward the CPR and IRP, which has essentially been a springboard for the Agency to develop, for the first time, a comprehensive strategic plan and mission, vision, values and goals that incorporate all of the elements of the correctional environment in California to have an overarching strategy from a statewide perspective. The one thing that Secretary Hickman has attempted to do is to bring all people involved in the correctional environment to the table in a way that something can be done from a comprehensive public policy standpoint. He stated that he believed they have begun to do that. He felt pretty confident in the process that the Undersecretary spoke about, and that it will be successful. He believed by this time next year, there will be something in place that will be significantly different. He stated that he couldn't guarantee that it will be exactly how we designed it, but it will certainly be significantly different than what it is today.

Chairman Hickman commended Mr. Carruth for the work he has done, and Bill Crout, Board of Corrections; Jeanne Woodford, CDC; and Walter Allen, CYA, as leaders of the organizations that have been tasked with this project in addition to their everyday workload. He, once again, thanked Mr. Carruth for doing a wonderful job.

Mr. Carruth stated that he has had lots of help on this project.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS CONSENT/INFORMATION ITEMS (AGENDA ITEM E)
Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this agenda item was the standard consent and information item reporting minor changes approved by staff on county construction grant projects. There were four minor timeline changes involving Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Solano counties, which are listed in the agenda (Attachment A). All are on track for successful completion. Mr. Holien stated he was available to answer any questions the Board might have. There were none.

ON-LINE SELECTION EXAMS - DEMONSTRATION (AGENDA ITEM F)

Deputy Director Shelley Montgomery stated that since 1987 the Standards and Training Corrections Program has provided written selection tests for local corrections personnel to help screen applicants. The benefits of the Board of Corrections being involved in providing written tests are threefold: 1) provide technical expertise that might not be available at the local level in test development; 2) through the drawing of representatives from various jurisdictions around the state, we are able to create a large sample size in which to do statistical analyses for the development of the test and; 3) a pooling of financial resources.

The exams that the local corrections agencies have at their disposal are homegrown, based exclusively on jobs as they are performed in California. They are able to withstand legal challenges and are relatively inexpensive to administer. Ms. Montgomery introduced John Weiner, Director of Test Development for Psychological Services, Inc., who is the principal researcher in the development of the updated exams that were completed in 2004.

Mr. Weiner stated that it was a pleasure to be at the Board of Corrections meeting. In 2004, PSI completed the development of three new entry-level examinations for local corrections positions. These are exams that are designed to assess whether new candidates have the necessary aptitudes to be successful performing as adult corrections officers, juvenile corrections officers, or probation officers. Three new examination forms were developed. He stated that his presentation would focus on the adult exam though the methods and results are very similar for all three occupations.

The tests are based on research that included a comprehensive statewide job analysis and criterion validity studies to show that the exams predict job performance. Mr. Weiner stated that the research identified major work activities and competencies for each of the three positions. Over 1,400 corrections officers from 44 agencies participated in the research making it a truly collaborative statewide effort.

Mr. Weiner stated that the research identified the following work activities and competencies for the adult corrections officer:

Supervising inmates Performing physically demanding work
Searching and maintaining security Work Activities
Investigating and detecting problems Integrity/trustworthiness
Report writing Objectivity and tolerance
Record keeping Conscientiousness
Handling emergencies Confidence
Interacting/communicating with inmates Handling work pressure
Interacting/communicating with internal staff Getting along with others
Interacting/communicating with people external to staff

To predict the likelihood that applicants have the necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to be successful in training and to perform on the job, the selection exam for adult corrections officers' measures:

Following written directions
Reading comprehension
Writing clarity
Writing detail
Accuracy with forms and coded information
Work attitudes

He stated that a great deal of effort was put forward to ensure that the new examination would be job related and predict job success so that the best candidates could be identified. PSI conducted a validation study by collecting measures of job performance on approximately 400 incumbent adult corrections officers who took the experimental test. In doing this, they identified exam elements that are significantly and positively predictive of job effectiveness, as well as negatively associated performance problems. He stated that they have much evidence to support their analysis. They also paid careful attention to ensuring that the exams were fair to all groups.

The new exams are available in the traditional paper and pencil form, but are now also on-line. Mr. Weiner stated that some of the features of the on-line exam are: automated delivery; complete automation of test content; user friendly point and click applications; available anytime and anyplace (24 hours/7 days a week) if the local agency has a web connected pc and someone to oversee the exam; and results of the exam are immediate.
Mr. Weiner demonstrated the on-line exam in a power point presentation. In conclusion, this new testing program is fully launched and available to agencies. There are several forms of documentation available to support the use of the exam such as the Candidate Orientation Guide, Users Manual and Validation Report. Agencies that wish to use these exams may contact Board staff.

Chairman Hickman thanked Mr. Weiner and asked if there were any questions or comments. Ms. Montgomery thanked the Ventura County Probation Department for being one of the pilot agencies to test the on-line exam. Board Member Prizmich thanked Mr. Weiner and his group for the web page exam. He believes that this will allow the agencies to speed along the recruitment process.

Chairman Hickman asked whether there was any feedback from other agencies. Mr. Weiner stated that with the new exam there appears to be a higher success rate for passing the background investigation. The feedback that Ms. Montgomery has heard from jurisdictions is that the candidates really like the new exams. The tests have credibility and make sense to the candidates, because they are being tested for the job they are applying for.

JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT (JJCPA) UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM G)
Deputy Director Karen Stoll stated that this 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 July 22, 2004. The program is now in its fourth year and continues to demonstrate high success.

Ms. Stoll stated that checks for the fifth year funding have been distributed to local Treasurers in counties participating in the COPS and JJCPA programs. Unlike COPS, JJCPA has an additional legislative requirement that a local annual action plan must be submitted to the Board of Corrections no later than May 1st. Staff review all the annual action plan updates as they are submitted and then authorize the release of funds. Between now and May 1st, if a county wanted to implement the project on a different fiscal year date, it could submit the plan and have it approved by the Board.

At its April 2004 meeting, the Board approved the one-time expenditure of federal Challenge funds of $1.79 million, to help supplement the shortfall for the fourth year funding. Ms. Stoll stated that 52 of the 56 JJCPA counties chose to participate in the federal Challenge funding opportunity. The majority of these counties elected to augment existing JJCPA programs rather than develop new programs. There were approximately six counties that decided to create new programs rather than augment programs that had experienced reductions.

The 56 counties must complete the online reporting of program outcomes and expenditure data for the 2003/04 Fiscal Year by October 15. The program does have Legislative mandates.

Upon review and approval of the individual program outcomes and expenditure data submitted by the JJCPA counties, BOC staff will commence with the analysis, research, and preparation of the statewide Legislative report and outcome data analysis for the program.

FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE GRANTS PROGRAM UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM H)
Ms. Stoll stated that the Board is responsible for administering the following federal grant programs:

Title II, Part B - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention & Intervention Program
Title II, Part E - Challenge Program
Title V - Community Delinquency Program
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG)

Title II, Part B - At the April meeting, the Board approved a grant to the Inter-Tribal Council for expenditures of the Native American set aside money. The $80,000 is a relatively small amount of money that is having a wide impact. Ms. Stoll stated that she was invited to attend the first Native American Youth Advisory Committee meeting for this project and make a presentation. The Attorney General's Office sponsored the meeting. The Council is in the process of designing and completing Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs) together with the local school districts, the county probation departments, and the various tribal community programs, in the Madera, Fresno, Mendocino, and Lake county areas and some activities also in Sacramento County.

Board staff continues to coordinate training and provide technical assistance requests with the federal government most recently approving requests for the California Youth Authority (CYA), Ventura and San Mateo counties, and the Jewish Family and Children's Service of Long Beach. Topics of the training include Effective Behavior Management with Juvenile Offenders in Ventura County to be delivered to 128 probation officers, and gender specific group facilitation skills training from the Girls Circle Association that will be offered in both Northern and Southern California. The Board is receiving additional requests from other probation departments to train staff in the Girls Circle approach. She stated that the training must be juvenile justice related. Technical assistance to CYA was also provided to conduct a needs assessment in response to issues at the N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility.

Title II, Rural County Grants - Ms. Stoll stated that at the July Board meeting, it was acknowledged that the nine rural counties "jail removal" grants did not meet the federal criteria for jail removal funding under Title II and had exceeded the three-year grant limitation for funding. The Board recommended, with federal OJJDP support, a phase out period for these counties over the next two years. Subsequent to Board action, staff convened a meeting on August 12, 2004, with the nine rural Chief Probation Officers, and their staff(s) to provide further insight and critical information regarding federal funding requirements, eligibility, data outcome reporting, and historical overview. She stated the CPO's felt it was a successful meeting and they came to a real understanding of what the state and the counties are dealing with. Ms. Stoll stated that the rural counties indicated interest in a rural set aside.

Alpine, Amador, and Colusa counties are developing new programs that will meet the Title II requirements for current and possible future funding. Tuolumne County has a blended program still funding a portion of the jail removal, but they are also doing some work in diversion. All three counties are attempting, by next year, to be completely out of the jail removal funding.

Ms. Stoll stated that when the federal juvenile programs were transferred to the Board, the Department of Finance went through the Penal Code to eliminate all references to OCJP. Sections 13800(d), 13813, 13820(a), 13823(a)(1) were not amended and included a requirement that the California Council on Criminal Justice (CCCJ), which formerly operated as part of the OCJP, but is now associated with the Office of Emergency Services (OES) maintain administrative oversight of federal juvenile justice programs. CCCJ's authority had not been exercised when the juvenile justice programs were under OCJP, and the CCCJ had only acted as the appeals body for grant decisions made by the State Advisory Group (SAG).

Board staff were asked to attend a meeting with legal staff from OES and the Governor's office to discuss the problem this language presents under the current structure. At that meeting, authorization to proceed with the Challenge grants was given. Until there is a legislative change, a review period by CCCJ needs to be built into future funding processes. Board staff has submitted a request to YACA to amend these sections of the Penal Code to remove administrative oversight of federal juvenile justice programs from the CCCJ and transfer that responsibility to the BOC.

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) - Ms. Stoll stated that an attachment listing all the jurisdictions eligible to receive JABG grants is included in the agenda packet. The listing also indicates whether they waived their allocation to another jurisdiction. Typically, many cities that are receiving a small amount of money waive their allocation to a larger contiguous jurisdiction. There are 246 jurisdictions in California that are eligible to receive JABG funding. Staff has been working with each of these grantees to develop the project proposals and outcome measurement reporting indicators.

Ms. Stoll stated that the latest information from Washington is that the federal programs look like they will survive the budget process, but have taken some cuts. The most substantial cut proposed was to the JABG program, which was cut to only $30 million.

Board Member Prizmich thanked Ms. Stoll for meeting with the nine rural counties to discuss the jail removal funds. He stated, "clearly it was something that had been extended too long, but these counties were extremely dependent on the funding and very upset." After the meeting with Ms. Stoll, he believes all the counties felt good about the outcome and finding an alternative in most cases. She turned a difficult situation around.

YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY (YACA) VIDEOCONFERENCE STUDY (AGENDA ITEM I)
Chairman Hickman introduced Richard Cox, a retired annuitant with the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. Mr. Cox thanked the Board for the opportunity to make a presentation on their endeavor to conduct a study and produce a comprehensive project plan to implement videoconferencing for the California Board of Prison Terms and the Youth Authority Board hearings statewide. Mr. Cox introduced Mr. Terry Curtis, consultant with Gartner Consulting, to provide an overview of the project to the Board.

Mr. Curtis stated he represents the Gartner Consulting group, a global research and consulting organization that focuses on high technology information systems. Mr. Curtis distributed a handout to Board members and those in the audience. He stated in the interest of time, he did not intend to read the document, but would explain its contents.

He stated that he would speak about the objectives of the project, the approaches to undertaking this study, and what they intend to do next. He stated that the primary objective is to define the problem and to figure out what it is that is leading both the Youth Authority and the CDC to consider the possibility of videoconferencing. In fact, both agencies are already videoconferencing some parole hearings. The first step is to define what the functional and technical requirements are, what actually happens in a parole hearing, and what can be accomplished through videoconferencing. He stated that they have begun to capture the stakeholder requirements by asking the following questions to those involved in parole hearings: "what is it that you do in the course of a parole hearing; what do you need to hear; what do you need to see; where do you need to be; what are the important factors for you; what are your satisfactions and dissatisfactions with the current process?"

Once all the data is documented an implementation plan should be developed and then identify the costs. You should compare the cost of videoconferencing to the costs of what is currently being utilized. You should examine the state-of-the-art technology available in the industry now and try to cross-match what technologies might be usable in the current process at, hopefully, with a cost improvement and a process improvement. And, finally, develop recommendations to implement videoconferencing in some or all parts of the parole hearings, and take the appropriate steps necessary to ensure that implementation goes successfully.

Mr. Curtis stated that on page three of the handout, the systematic approach in each of these types of assignments is displayed. This may turn into a feasibility study, or it may stop just at the development of recommendations, he was not sure. Page four displays the timeline. Pages five and six describe their contacts (i.e., management interviews, technical interviews, business process focus groups). Their goal is to get an overall view of what role videoconferencing might play. Page seven showed the site visits around the state with a few more visits planned. They are trying to get as broad a view as possible within these agencies (i.e., large vs. small institutions, high vs. low volume, sites per hearing). They are observing hearings to assess current infrastructure and interview key stakeholders.

Mr. Curtis stated that they are distributing a survey to every site in the State of California where parole hearings occur to gather information about the environment and what type of infrastructure is available to support videoconferencing. They will develop three to five alternative proposals for YACA (i.e., how many sites should be involved; how many hearings; what type of hearings; what types of technology should be implemented at each site).

Mr. Curtis stated that the recommendations would be generated in a final report and presented to a core team for feedback, and then presented at the Executive level. He asked if the Board had any questions. Chairman Hickman asked Mr. Curtis what cost comparison parameters they would be willing to work on - across the spectrum. Mr. Curtis responded that there are certainly a lot - there are transportation costs; hearing officers that travel a great distance at times to be at a hearing; transportation issues with regard to parolees or offenders; escorting costs - people that do not have corrections clearance that have to be escorted in and out of hearing rooms; which creates an enormous paper copy delivery process i.e., hard copies of parole records that must be delivered around the state.

Mr. Curtis stated that there are many costs involved in the current process. An analysis is being done to determine all the possible costs associated with the hearings currently being conducted in order to have a fair comparison with what might change if videoconferencing were implemented. Chairman Hickman asked whether victims are part of the stakeholder group? Mr. Curtis stated that he has personally been able to attend a number of hearings and the victims are currently participating in a great many hearings and the feedback that they receive is that they are doing so at considerable expense in both time and travel. They have consulted with Sharon English, Victims Coordinator, but not with any of the victims personally. They have received feedback from Ms. English and also from the hearing officers.

TRANSFER OF MEDICAL INFORMATION WORKGROUP (AGENDA ITEM J)
Field Representative Audrey Bakke stated that earlier this year the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) directed the Board of Corrections (BOC) staff to facilitate a workgroup that would evaluate options for sharing health care tests, evaluations, and related information between local jails and the California Department of Corrections (CDC) Reception Centers. The intent of the workgroup is to reduce duplication, control costs, and improve the continuity of care for inmates, especially as county inmates are transferred to CDC reception centers. These inmates may also be transferred back to jails for court and subsequently moved back to CDC facilities. It is evident that there is a great deal of movement of inmates and improved continuity of care has advantages of both the state and locals.

The first meeting of custody and health care managers and administrators was held September 16, 2004 and was co-chaired by YACA Undersecretary Kevin Carruth and BOC Executive Director (A) Bill Crout. The workgroup recommended that the initial focus be on working with the larger county systems in Southern California because they have the greatest impact and the most frequent transfers with the CDC. Los Angeles County representatives expressed an interest in participating and also agreed to host the next meeting on November 4, 2004.

The current workgroup builds on efforts of an earlier project completed between 1995 and 1997 by a workgroup that was established by the BOC, in response to CDC concerns that summary health care information was not being received with inmates who were admitted to the CDC Reception Centers from local jails. The ensuing project incorporated input from a broad range of state and local managers, representing custody, health care and transportation services, to implement a mutually agreeable transfer summary and associated procedures. Everyone learned a great deal about operations and the problems that each agency deals with. Ms. Bakke noted that the project participants became aware of how critical the transportation process was in making sure that the health information accompanies inmates during transfer. The current project emphasizes the continued need for the summary information, but also considers enhancing the ability to share information and reduce costs by sharing health care tests and evaluations. The workgroup recognizes the potential for state costs associated with this process; however, the goal also includes the intent for cost reduction, particularly in the Reception Centers where routine duplication of tests and evaluations may be avoided.

Ms. Bakke reported that the workgroup identified a number of areas for further exploration, but one area has particular interest - the electronic transfer of information. They will also need to consider the role of CDC court monitors when assessing operational changes. At their November meeting, the workgroup will begin to more clearly define their approach and continue to discuss these and other areas.

Staff will keep the Board informed of the workgroup's progress. Ms. Bakke noted that it has been gratifying to see the level of support from the state representatives, as well as the local departments.

Chairman Hickman commented that one of the things he has observed at the Agency level, regarding the transfer of inmates and information, is that there is a disconnect. With the collaboration on this project he anticipates being able to implement procedures that will go a long way toward improving communication. He expressed appreciation for the work efforts of staff and the workgroup and reaffirmed Agency's continued support.

PILOT PROJECT REQUEST - SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT (AGENDA ITEM K)
Ms. Bakke stated that the San Luis Obispo County is funding their Probation Department's efforts to mitigate suicide hazards in their Juvenile Hall. She stated that a portion of this project includes placing 30 existing pipe rail beds in 15 double occupancy rooms. Title 24 regulates the design of construction in detention facilities and requires that beds in juvenile halls be placed 36 inches apart. The project in San Luis Obispo County would change the bed design to mitigate the suicide hazards, which would result in the beds being spaced only 29 ½ inches apart, 6 ½ inches less than required by regulation. The San Luis Obispo County Probation Department is requesting approval of a pilot project to reduce the space between beds in these 15 rooms.

Title 24, Section 13-201 (c) (7) allows the Board to approve departures from building standards that may not comply with regulations, but meet or exceed the intent of regulations. Ms. Bakke stated that they are dealing with a facility that was built in the early 1980s and that the county has already done several things to improve conditions in this facility. For example, the county has replaced protruding doorknobs, installed additional view windows, removed and changed bathroom fixtures, and changed padlocks. One of the remaining and identified suicide hazards is the change out from the pipe rail beds to a new design. She stated that the county would meet all other relevant requirements.

Ms. Bakke introduced Gary Joralemon, Juvenile Hall Superintendent of San Luis Obispo County Probation Department for comments and to answer any questions that the Board might have. Mr. Joralemon, representing San Luis Obispo County, thanked the Board for their consideration of this request. He stated that they are confident this initiative will significantly increase the level of safety for inmates housed in their facility, especially those experiencing mental health issues.

Board Member Remington stated that he visited the new facility and he believes improving the safety and security is quite a challenge and he knows that the county has made some real effort to do that.

A motion to approve San Luis Obispo County Probation Department's Pilot Project request for Title 24, Section 460 A. 2.5 (Beds), in 15 double occupancy rooms, in the San Luis Obispo Juvenile Hall was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Mr. Michael Prizmich. The motion carried.

FEDERAL TITLE V FUNDING - APPROVAL OF TIMELINE AND AWARD PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM L)
Ms. Stoll stated that this agenda item is a request for the Board of Corrections (BOC) to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and timeline for federal Title V Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) funds.

Title V is one of several programs transferred to the BOC for administration. In November 2003, an audit of OCJP disclosed that California would have to pay monies to the federal government because insufficient matching funds were not documented. The BOC staff prepared a corrective action plan to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Comptroller. The plan asked that the California Title V grants be exempted for one of the violations related to the length of the grants, which is 36 months but OCJP had approved funding for 48 months. Ms. Stoll stated that the federal government representatives have been wonderful and cooperative. BOC staff is working with the 17 affected grantees and has been able to go back and identify additional matching funds over the 4-years of operation to help identify matching funds. Santa Rosa, alone, came up with $1.2 million and the Police Athletic League in Bakersfield also gave an additional match.

She stated that we are now at the point where new Title V funds need to be distributed and staff want to assure that the rules are strictly adhered to. Title V can only be distributed to units of local government. The funds cannot, as they have in the past, be granted to a community-based agency. They can be funded, but need to have either a city, county, or tribal government as the applicant, who then in turn can subcontract to the CBO. Ms. Stoll stated that there is approximately $574,000 remaining from the former grants. Unfortunately, they don't have a long life expectancy attached to them and are to be expended by September 2005. The new allocation is roughly $1.7 million for new prevention programs.

Ms. Stoll stated that she hesitates to combine the left over money with new money because these are three-year grants. They will be in a difficult situation in the second year because there isn't any identified amount for subsequent years. Staff will be discussing possible scenarios with the federal contact and the State Advisory Group (SAG). Staff recommends involving the JJCPA coordinating councils in the application review process for Title V.

Title V legislation requires that there be a Prevention Policy Board (PPB) for each grantee. Ms. Stoll stated that the 50% match is a deterrent to many applicants. It does not have to be a hard cash match, it can be an in-kind match. At this time, we cannot anticipate the number of applications that will be submitted.

Staff will prepare and distribute a draft RFP and will solicit input from the Chief Probation Officers, cities, and counties. The approval date for the Board to approve grantees is shown as April 21, 2005, but needs to be modified to May 19, based on the Board's earlier action on Agenda Item B, establishing Board meeting dates for 2005. Staff is recommending the Board authorize staff and the SAG to proceed with the grant preparation and solicitation process and timeline outlined, and; the Board empower the chair of the SAG on Juvenile Justice to develop a review and rating process with a list of recommended projects to be submitted at the May 19, 2005, Board meeting.

A motion to authorize staff and the SAG to proceed with the grant preparation and solicitation process and timeline outlined, and; the Board empower the chair of the SAG on Juvenile Justice to develop a review and rating process with list of recommended projects to be submitted at the May 19, 2005, Board meeting was made by Mr. Calvin Remington and seconded by Ms. Jeanne Woodford. The motion carried.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC) WORKGROUP UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Stoll stated that this agenda item provides the Board with an update of activities associated with the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) effort. At the last Board meeting, staff presented information that was developed in response to the federal reporting mandates on DMC. The Board appointed Board Member Calvin Remington to chair a DMC workgroup. The individuals included on the workgroup (see attached listing) are all knowledgeable about DMC and represent the various juvenile justice system components. The first meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2004. In preparation for the November meeting, a briefing binder was put together on DMC and meetings have been scheduled with the Attorney General's Office, Statistical Bureau, to better understand the existing data collection process.

In California, data is received from the Juvenile Justice Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS) on race and composition includes information on arrests, disposition, and incarceration. At a national meeting of State Juvenile Justice Specialists in late September, Board staff had an opportunity to review California's data and receive a one-on-one consultation with the federal experts on DMC on its possible significance and interpretation. There are 54 counties now responding and providing good data. Ms. Stoll stated that the federal experts believed that the data provided on the initial 44 counties showed that California is making good progress on DMC. We are showing the appropriate level of reduction for kids of ethnicity as they progress through the systems decision points. An interesting analysis issue is that the white population in California is no longer the majority between the ages of 12 and 18. Hispanic is the plurality in California.

Another anomaly they saw, with a couple of large counties, is that up to the confinement decision point appropriate decreases were seen, but after court there is a sudden jump in the rate. We are going to focus on these anomalies and look for explanations. Recommendations from the DMC workgroup will be presented to the Board in the future. It is anticipated that the workgroup effort will offer the BOC and SAG important information regarding the impact of DMC at the local level and help guide the process as it relates to state and local DMC activities. There is $200,000 set aside in the Title II funding for DMC efforts.

Ms. Stoll stated that she just received an invitation to participate in a meeting with the U.S. Department of Labor Employment (DOL) and Training Administration. DOL has the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth in the Workforce Investment Act program to administer. Their focus is to distribute funds on serving the neediest youth with the priorities being high school drop outs, runaways, homeless, youth in foster care, court ordered youth and children of incarcerated parents.

STATUS REPORT - ANNUAL REVIEW: SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS (AGENDA ITEM N)
Ms. Montgomery stated that this report covers the preliminary results of the annual Board of Corrections monitoring of STC participating agencies. STC looked at 157 agencies, which represents about 30,000 staff statewide. This was the first year STC looked at training records where the agency did not have any subvention funding. The results show: that in 54 agencies 100% of the staff fully adhered to the training standards; and in another 56 agencies 95%-99% of the staff fully met the minimum statewide standards for training; and there were seven agencies that trained their staff less than the 50% level.

Ms. Montgomery stated that there appeared to be no relationship between the size of the agency, geographical location or the type of agency and adherence to standards. The vast majority of staff did meet the statewide standards. Out of 30,000 staff, over 19,000 fully met statewide standards. Ms. Montgomery stated that not all of the data is in yet, but it appears that while agencies met standards, there were fewer training hours overall. There was not much training in excess of the minimum hours. Another trend they noticed is that there was a significant increase in in-house training as opposed to sending staff out to be trained by private providers or community colleges. There was also an increase in intensified format training. The intensified format training refers to a short training intervention that is approximately half an hour to two hours in length.

Ms. Montgomery stated that many agencies used creative approaches to meet the training standards. There was a lot of emphasis on in-house instructor development. The reliance on private training providers is down 75% to 90%, which is a significant decrease. It is unclear what ramifications this will have long term. Some possibilities might include: agencies will have less access to specialized expertise, although they may develop that in-house, and there may be less networking among agencies. The other major trend was that the priorities of the agencies were clearly on having their new employees trained in the core training academy and less emphasis on update and refresher training. The emphasis is clearly on getting new staff up to speed. STC will continue to monitor these trends.

Board Member Mann stated that he understands that it has been difficult to administer the training and he appreciates what has been presented. He asked whether the Board of Corrections is monitoring the intensive format training, if so, what are the results? He stated that his question and concern is about quality training. Ms. Montgomery explained that STC is conducting an evaluation study to look at the intensified training format. STC has a multi-layered evaluation component with field representatives monitoring on-site and administering special evaluations for these intensified training formats. Over the summer, a number of intensified format training sessions dipped so there has not been much to sample. STC needs more data to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Board Member Mann stated that he would like to invite the Board of Corrections staff to Los Angeles County. They are providing a tremendous amount of this type of training. Up to this point, he has not seen anyone from the Board of Corrections come out and perform an evaluation. He stated that he might be wrong that is why he is asking. If STC has been on-site, what has been found so far. Ms. Montgomery stated that they have been going out, but they are not in full stride yet. She is surprised they have not been out to Los Angeles, but she will make sure they do.

Board Member Woodford asked what the consequences are for agencies that are not meeting their training requirements. Ms. Montgomery responded that there are not consequences that the Board of Corrections would impose other than a finding that staff were not in compliance or meeting standards. In previous years, when STC allocated money, counties might not have been funded, but STC is now in a different environment.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM O)
Ms. Montgomery stated that in the agenda packet there are thirteen bills listed. She stated that she would highlight a few: AB 1931 was signed into law, which modified Section 830.1, subsection C of the Penal Code. It added Tuolumne and Butte counties along with fifteen other counties to employ custodial officers as peace officers in case of an emergency. AB 1948 was also signed into law - authorizes notification to sheriff and probation departments of a minor convicted of a felony who is placed in a group home in their county. AB 2897 was also signed into law - abbreviates the timeframe for HIV testing of inmates upon exposure. That is a decrease in the amount of waiting time. AB 2946 was vetoed regarding clergy access in correctional facilities. Finally, SB 1737 died in committee - collection of DNA samples.

Chairman Hickman wanted to, once again, thank Mr. Crout for the work he has done and supports him in his decision to retire. He wishes him the best.

Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Gloria Guerrero
Executive Assistant

BOARD MEMBERS
Roderick Hickman, Chair, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Jeanne Woodford, Department of Corrections
Walter Allen III, Director, 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 (absent)
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises (absent)
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)

BOARD STAFF
Bill Crout, Executive Director (A)
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Shelley Montgomery, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Deputy Director, CPPD

GUESTS
Laurel Alvarez, CPOST
Brian Anderson, Butte County Probation Department
Mike Bush, Board of Corrections
Bill Burke, Humboldt County Probation Department
Richard Cox, Department of Corrections, YACA
Terry Curtis, Gartner Group
Kevin Carruth, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Ron Finney, Sacramento County Probation Department
Dana Fredenda, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
John Kibre, Design Partnership
Jennifer McConville, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Rod Merydith, Placer County Sheriff's Department
Cherryl Munyon, TRG Consulting
W. Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting
Karen Dodrill, Sacramento County Probation Department
Dennis Runyen, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Mark Ryan, Architect
Vern Speirs, Sacramento County Probation
John Weiner, PSI
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff's Department

Maynard Feist (S)

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF CORRECTIONS MEETING
THURSDAY, May 19, 2005
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA

Roderick Hickman, Chairman of the Board of Corrections, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Chairman Hickman thanked Karen Stoll and her staff for the great job that they do on a continuing basis.

Chairman Hickman announced that Board Member William Kolender could not attend the meeting due to a conflict in his schedule. Mr. Kolender has a family situation that he had to attend to.

Chairman Hickman recognized Barbara Tynes for the great job that she does capturing the dialogue of the Board members during the meetings. He then asked her to call the role.

Chairman Hickman stated that Mr. Calvin Remington was in route to the meeting but was delayed due to traffic (Mr. Remington arrived at the meeting at 9:40 a.m.). For that reason, Chairman Hickman adjusted the agenda to have information items presented first.

Chairman Hickman said that Karen Stoll had worked with the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency on reorganization legislation, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and that she had been a very intricate team player. He then asked her to stand while he presented her with a group photo of the YACA Administrators and two wardens that was taken at Folsom Prison on the day the reorganization legislation was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. He told the audience that he also had a photo of Ms. Stoll and the Governor to present to her. Ms. Stoll thanked the Chair and indicated that she also wanted to recognize Board staff for their assistance and support of the reorganization and asked those present to stand and be recognized. Ms. Stoll and Mr. Allen also acknowledged that without Chairman Hickman's leadership the reorganization could not have occurred.

REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE GOVERNOR'S REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR CORRECTIONS (AGENDA ITEM B)
Karen Stoll, Acting Executive Director, presented an update to the Board on the status of the reorganization of the agencies under the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) and the impact on the current Board of Corrections. The final signed version of the legislation (SB 737) made modifications to the Governor's reorganization plan, which includes consolidating the youthful offender programs and services under a separate deputy secretary apart from the adult system; increasing oversight of key policy personnel at the state agency level; and establishing a new procedure for reviewing candidates for the warden position.

The Board of Corrections will be renamed the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) and it will increase from 15 to 19 members. The additional members will include a public victims member, a manager of administration of a state correctional facility for adults, at least one manager or administrator of a state correctional facility for juveniles, and increases from two to four rank and file representatives. The Board's responsibilities related to local corrections remains unchanged, but commencing July 1, 2005, CSA assumes former C-POST responsibilities and will develop, approve and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices; develop, approve, and monitor standards for "advanced rank and file" and supervisory state correctional peace officer training programs; design and deliver training programs, conduct validation studies, and provide program support.

The Board's responsibilities related to local adult and juvenile detention facility standards and inspections remain unchanged. CSA will be responsible for establishing minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities by January 1, 2007, and review those standards biennially and make any appropriate revisions. The standards shall include, but not be limited to, the following: health and sanitary conditions, fire and life safety, security, rehabilitation programs, recreation, treatment of persons confined in state and local correctional facilities, and personnel training.
The Board's responsibilities related to local corrections remains unchanged, but commencing July 1, 2005, CSA assumes former C-POST responsibilities and will approve and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices; develop, approve, and monitor standards for "advanced rank and file" and supervisory state correctional peace officer training programs; design and deliver training programs, conduct validation studies, and provide program support.
The Board's responsibilities related to local adult and juvenile standards and inspections remains unchanged. CSA will be responsible for establishing minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities by January 1, 2007, and review those standards biennially and make any appropriate revisions. The standards shall include, but not be limited to, the following: health and sanitary conditions, fire and life safety, security, rehabilitation programs, recreation, treatment of persons confined in state and local correctional facilities, and personnel training.

In addition to those activities mentioned in SB 737, the Board will be assuming responsibility for the combining of the Adult and Juvenile Interstate Compact Programs currently operated in the Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority (CYA); and have assumed responsibility for the CYA local assistance programs - Proud Parenting (18 programs), monitoring and grant administration for 64 youth centers and shelters funded from Propositions 86 and 12 and AB 2796.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 2005 BOARD OF CORRECTIONS MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Chairman Hickman asked for a motion to adopt the minutes of the March 17, 2005 Board meeting, and asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the March 17, 2005 Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

REPORT ON LOCAL CORRECTIONS PARTICIPATION IN THE STC PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 (AGENDA ITEM C)
Ron Jenkins, Field Representative, reported to the Board that one hundred percent of the agencies that participated in the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program in fiscal year 2004-2005 have elected to continue in the Program for fiscal year 2005-2006. The enrollment consists of 166 local corrections agencies and 14 Community Corrections Facilities. This universal participation of local corrections agencies in STC not only positions the Board of Corrections (BOC) to accomplish its standard-setting responsibilities, but also significantly strengthens the standards.
Each year the BOC invites local corrections agencies to participate in the STC Program through an application process for the upcoming fiscal year. This Annual Training Plan (ATP) is the mechanism by which local agencies (1) express intent to meet BOC's staff selection and training standards, (2) express intent to use the STC Program as the mechanism for meeting those standards, (3) declare the number of staff in each job category subject to the standards, (4) provide a forecast for the number of core courses that will be needed during the fiscal year, and (5) obtain access to BOC's written selection examination for hiring qualified staff.
The STC Program brings valuable benefits to all local corrections agencies statewide. A few of the more significant benefits local agencies receive are (1) access to entry-level written selection examinations, (2) STC course certification system, (3) centralized development and on-going maintenance of Core curricula, (4) coordinated training documentation and delivery system, and (5) strength of numbers. The STC Program also provides extensive technical assistance services to local corrections agencies in the management of their selection and training systems.
The ATP will be used to identify the number of staff in each job category, the number of selection examination presentations, and the number of core training course interventions that will be needed statewide during the year. This will help STC focus its efforts appropriately on the development of selection and training resources in each region of the state.
A listing of local county and city corrections agencies that have volunteered to participate in the program is attached. (Attachment B)

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS - CONSENT/INFORMATION ITEMS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Doug Holien, Field Representative, stated that this is the standard information item reporting minor changes approved by staff on county construction grant projects. As background, from 1996 until now, the Board has administered state and federal grant funds appropriated by the Legislature for 34 adult jail construction projects and 73 local juvenile facility construction projects which were awarded grants by the Board. This totals 107 individual county projects and involves $37 million in grants for adult jails and $454 million in grants for local juvenile facilities. At present, 93 of the 107 projects have been completed. Only 14 remain in progress with all slated to be completed between now and FY 2006-2007."

Mr. Holien said that, as shown on the attachment to the agenda item (Attachment C), there were three minor timeline changes for Mendocino, Napa, and Orange counties' projects due to additional architectural time needed, delivery delays, and weather delays. In addition to these three projects, Santa Clara County has requested a timeline extension in order to complete its juvenile hall replacement project. The Santa Clara County project is one of only two remaining state funded projects, with the other 12 projects being federally funded. The Board has fiscal authority to pay state grant funds to Santa Clara County until June 30, 2006. The county's current schedule calls for construction completion in May 2006, but they will need additional time after that to release retention to the contractor and to perform fiscal close out activities. As such, Board management staff has made a request through the Department of Finance to extend the reversion date for state funding from June 30, 2006 until June 30, 2007, in order for Santa Clara County to have sufficient time to complete the project and for the Board to fully pay the county. This is expected to be approved in the upcoming state budget, at which time staff can extend the grant agreement accordingly.

Of the remaining 12 federally funded projects, all are currently on track for construction to be completed by the federal grant deadline of September 29, 2006. The feds allow us 90 days following that to complete all fiscal close outs by the end of December 2006. Only four of the projects have schedules that run right up to the federal deadline, with the others slated for completion well before that time.

In the event that any of the remaining federally funded projects experience unavoidable delays that would cause the construction schedule to go beyond September 2006, staff would need to request a timeline extension which federal officials would need to approve in order to extend state/county grant agreement schedules to finish construction. Staff will keep the Board informed if a federal grant extension is requested and any projects that would be affected.

STEERING COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CDC/CYA STAFF SAFETY AUDIT PROTOCOLS (AGENDA ITEM E)
Jerry Read, Acting Deputy Director, presented an agenda item requesting that the Board approve Chairman Hickman's request to establish a panel to review staff safety issues at the state's 32 prisons and 8 juvenile facilities following the receipt of two critical reports on staff safety at the California Institution for Men. Mr. Read requested Board approval to establish a broad based panel to develop criteria upon which staff safety audits would be conducted, approval of the composition of the audit team, and approval of a proposed timeline for conducting the staff safety audits.

Chairman Hickman asked if research had been conducted to determine if other states were performing staff safety audits and what that research revealed. Mr. Read reported that several national correctional organizations and individual states were contacted and there is no evidence that anyone is conducting staff safety audits. Many agencies conduct security audits and one objective of a security audit is to enhance staff safety, but none reported performing an audit specific to staff safety. Information concerning security audits was complied from a number of sources as reference material for the panel in developing criteria for the proposed staff safety audits.

Mr. Sheetz said that he supported the audits, but noticed that the proposed panel did not include a member of the public. Mr. Sheetz acknowledged that the panel appeared to have the necessary expertise, but as a public member of the Board, he believes that public members can provide a unique perspective on processes such as these. Ms. Silbert agreed that some Board projects benefit from public participation, but said this panel required specific expertise and she doubted that public participation would add value to the process.

A motion was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

PILOT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT - GLENN COUNTY PILOT PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM F)
Jerry Read, Acting Deputy Director, reported that the Board of Corrections approved a pilot project for the Glenn County Probation Department to allow a teacher's aide to provide instruction in a computer lab adjacent to the facility classroom for up to two minors at any given time in a school day. A pilot project was required because Section 460A.1.12 Title 24, California Code of Regulations requires that classrooms be designed for a maximum capacity of 20 minors, contain 160 square feet of floor space for the teacher's desk and work area, and a minimum of 28 square feet of floor space per minor. The computer room contains sufficient floor area for two students, though does not meet the requirement for 160 square feet of teacher's space. In addition, the Probation Department was to provide progress reports to the Board after implementation of the pilot project. This is the final status report. Glenn County officials have expressed a desire to apply for Alternate Means of Compliance status at the July 2005 Board meeting.

TITLE V COMMUNITY PREVENTION GRANTS PROGRAM - GRANT AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM G)
Lynda Frost, Field Representative, presented an agenda item for approval by the Board regarding the grant award recommendations made by the Title V Review Panel for the federal funds allocated to California by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Attachments D& E)

On May 13 the panel will conclude its evaluation of grant proposals and its recommendations will be shared with the Board at the May 19, 2005 meeting. Attachment D outlines the rating criteria for the Title V proposals. Attachment E provides an overview of the proposals, including the amount of funds requested by each applicant and the implementing agency for the project.

The federal Title V program supports local prevention/early intervention efforts designed to keep at-risk youth from entering, or first-time non-serious offenders from re-entering, the juvenile justice system. Funds must be distributed through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process. California's allocation for federal fiscal year 2004 and undistributed funds from a prior allocation bring the total amount available in the current RFP process to $1,970,258.

At its October 21, 2004 meeting, the Board authorized staff to proceed with the Title V RFP. Staff developed a draft RFP, including rating criteria, and distributed it to the field in early December for comments. The final RFP was issued on December 22, 2004, and proposals were due March 21, 2005.

On January 12, 2005, Board staff conducted an Informational Workshop in Sacramento to review the RFP requirements, including the draft rating criteria, with prospective applicants. At its January 27, 2005 meeting, the Board approved the RFP rating criteria. (Attachment A)

The Board received 30 grant proposals. Staff conducted a technical compliance review to determine if the proposals met the requirements of the RFP and worked with applicants to correct identified deficiencies. All but one proposal passed this technical review (ineligible applicant). The 29 remaining proposals, which address an array of prevention/early intervention efforts falling into 8 of the 17 program purpose areas for Title V, requested a total of nearly $9 million.

Due to delays in appointing the State Advisory Group and in order to complete the RFP process before the May 19 Board meeting, staff approached the Chair in mid-April to receive approval in appointing an alternate grant proposal rating committee. Five subject matter experts representing different geographic areas and units of local government were chosen. They are: Sheila Anderson, President/CEO, Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento; Camerino Sanchez, Chief of Police, City of Santa Barbara and SAG Member; Terry Warnock, Chief Deputy-Probation Services Ventura County Probation Department; Jerry Powers, Chief Probation Officer, Stanislaus County Probation Department; and Terry Lee, Chief Probation Officer, Trinity County Probation Department.

Staff provided training to each panel member on the Board's competitive grant process, Title V rating criteria, and scoring system. The scoring system, which was originally developed by the Board's research team, has been used successfully with several other grant programs administered by the Board. Panel members will conclude their evaluation and scoring of the proposals by May 12, 2005. Staff will then conduct a conference call with panel members on May 13, 2005 to discuss the scoring results and ranking of proposals and to finalize recommendations for the Board's consideration. These recommendations will be presented at the May 19, 2005 meeting.

Staff will conduct a New Grantee Briefing Session on May 25, 2005, with the entities that are awarded grants by the Board. Staff will also develop and process the grant agreements, which will take effect on July 1, 2005. (Note: Title V grants are awarded for one year, with the possibility of funds for two more years if Congress appropriates funds and the project has demonstrated effectiveness.)

A motion was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Michael Prizmich. The motion carried.

MODIFICATION OF ACTION ON JAIL REMOVAL GRANTS (AGENDA ITEM H)
Lynda Frost, Field Representative, presented an item for Board approval that would modify action taken at the July 22, 2004 meeting on the Rural County "jail removal" grants in order to allow seven counties that have developed and/or implemented eligible Title II projects to receive their full award amounts in FY 2005/06. Chief Probation Officers Michael Kriletich from Amador County and Don Meyer from Calaveras County presented information to the Board on their respective Title II projects.

Beginning in FY 1987/88, 12 rural counties began receiving Title II grant funds from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) for the purpose of removing juveniles from adult lock-ups. These "jail removal" grants were established because the selected counties had no juvenile halls and were holding juveniles, on a routine basis, in the county jail. Over the next 16 years, most of the counties that received this funding used it to pay for out-of-county juvenile bed days. Shortly after these grants began, California statutes were strengthened to prohibit housing of minors in adult jails; however, OCJP continued awarding grants to nine counties (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, and Tuolumne). Although Title II funds are intended to support projects for a maximum of three years, the continuous funding provided by OCJP left an impression with the nine counties that it was an ongoing entitlement. Over the last several years, the total annual amount for these grants has averaged $527,765.

To bring California into compliance with the Title II funding requirements, Board staff initiated development of a recommended plan for phasing out the "jail removal" programs. As a part of this process, staff considered input from the nine counties, all of which anticipated receiving funds for FY 2004/05 and indicated that any reduction in the amount would pose a significant hardship. The motion recommended by staff and adopted by the Board on July 22, 2004 provided full funding for the second year of the three-year grant period and reduced funding by 50 percent for the final year, which ends June 30, 2006. The plan also directed staff to work with the affected counties to bring California into compliance with Title II funding requirements.

On August 12, 2004, Board staff sponsored a day-long meeting with the rural Chief Probation Officers and their respective staff to share critical information regarding Title II eligibility and funding requirements, including the collection and reporting of outcome data, and to enhance understanding of the competitive process for future grant opportunities. Board staff encouraged the counties to examine whether they could develop delinquency prevention programs that fit into one of the federally designated program purpose areas for Title II funding.

Seven counties (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Mariposa, Mono and Tuolumne) were willing and in a position to develop Title II projects that met federal requirements. Some of these projects began in FY 2004/05; others are slated to begin in FY 2005/06. The remaining counties (Modoc and Plumas) indicated that they could not change to a project that meets federal requirements.

A motion was made by Mr. Michael Prizmich to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

DETENTION PROFILE SURVEYS (AGENDA ITEM I)
Doug Holien, Field Representative, thanked the sheriffs and chief probation officers for their support of the surveys. Without their support and data reporting by their staff, policymakers would not have access to many factors impacting jails and juvenile facilities. Mr. Holien presented findings and data on the following surveys:

(1) The 2004 Jail Profile Survey Annual Report. The Jail Profile Survey (JPS) has been used to collect and report data from local jail facilities since 1995. One of the primary objectives of the JPS is to track the population level and inmate characteristics in California's local jail facilities in

order to provide policymakers with relevant, aggregate information. Mr. Holien presented the key findings and indicated the report will be posted on the Board's website after the meeting.

(2) The 2004 Juvenile Detention Profile Survey Annual Report. The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) has been used to collect and report data from local juvenile detention facilities since 1999. One of the primary objectives of the JDPS is to track the population level and detainee characteristics in California's local juvenile detention facilities in order to provide policymakers with relevant, aggregate information. Mr. Holien presented the key findings and indicated the report will be posted on the Board's website after the meeting.

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING (AGENDA ITEM J)
The next meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2005, at the John A. Davis Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Tynes
Administrative Assistant

BOARD MEMBERS
Roderick Hickman, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Walter Allen, Director, Department of the Youth Authority
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County Sheriff's Department
Calvin C. Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County Probation Department
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Donald Sheetz, President, Sheetz Asset Management
Ernest Van Sant, Deputy Director, represented Department of Corrections

BOARD STAFF
Karen L. Stoll, Executive Officer (A)
Jerry Read, Deputy Director (A)
Lynda Frost, Field Representative
Doug Holien, Field Representative
Barbara Tynes, Administrative Assistant

GUESTS
Doug Austin, Colusa County Sheriff's Office
Susan Bellonzi, California Jail Program
Michele Brantz, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Jaime Clayton, San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office
Suzie Cohen, Suzie Cohen and Associates
Tina Davis, Solano County Sheriff's Office
Thomas Ferrara, Solano County Sheriff's Office
Dana Fredendall, Riverside Sheriff's Office
Valerie Hill, Riverside Sheriff's Office
Ron Johnson, Alameda County Probation Department
Michael Kriletich, Amador County Probation
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff's Department
Jean M. Mariani, San Francisco County Sheriff's Department
Sean McDermott, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office
Don L. Meyer, Calaveras County Probation Department
Cheryl Munyon, TRG Consulting
W. Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting
Doug Papagni, Madera DOC
Gary Steele, Sacramento Probation Department
Brenda Suarez, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department
Mark Veaten, CCPOA
Ivan R. Walker, CYA/CCPOA Liaison Officer