Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes January 11, 2007

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2007
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

Meeting held at: 660 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. James E. Tilton, Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 9:38 a.m.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER

Chairman Tilton asked the new board member to raise her right hand and state the Oath of Office. He conducted the swearing in of: Ms. Karrie Eckhardt

Chairman Tilton directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:
James E. Tilton
David Runnels
Bernard Warner
David Bacigalupo
Gary Penrod
William Powers
Calvin Remington
John Ingrassia
Mimi Silbert
Kim Petersen
Carol Biondi
Pamala Gilyard
Karrie Eckhardt
Max Scott

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Campos announced the absences of board members and reasons as to their absence.
Mr. Hernandez & Mr. Adams had some medical concerns.
Chairman Tilton asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by
Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. David Runnels and
Mr. William Powers. The motion carried.

PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE
Chairman Tilton announced that board member Mr. Calvin Remington was retiring as of February 2007 and wanted to acknowledged and present him with a certificate from CSA for serving as a member of this board this last year. Chairman Tilton thanked him for his willingness to engage over and above his duty and for his professionalism. Ms. Silbert also thanked Mr. Remington for being the most involved, positive, committed person, whom was always willing to work to make things better. Mr. Remington stated that is has been and honor to serve and thanked the CSA.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Chairman Tilton asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the November 15, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by Mr. William Powers and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert and Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM B)

Chairman Tilton asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the December 20, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority Teleconference meeting was made by Ms. Kim Petersen and seconded by Mr. Gary Penrod and Mr. David Runnels. The motion carried.

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY AND STATE ADVISORY GROUP UPDATES (AGENDA ITEM C)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director introduced Mr. Alberto S. Roldan, Deputy Appointments Secretary, Office of Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger to give the Board an update on the Governor’s appointments for the CSA board members and State Advisory Group (SAG).
Mr. Roldan informed the Board that a candidate for Rank and File Representative, State Adult Correctional Facility position has been forwarded to the Governor for approval. Interviews have been completed to replace Mr. Remington’s position and will go to the Governor for approval. This person’s name is being kept confidential until the Governor has had an opportunity to make a decision.

In regards to the SAG, this has obviously been a bigger challenge. Some candidates have either been signed or in the process of. We are just about in compliance with both the federal standards and the Governor’s office action request signed by the SAG last year with the exception of the Youth Advisory candidate. There have been some struggles in identifying an appropriate youth juvenile justice candidate who is under the age of 24, has gone through the juvenile justice system, and is an appropriate person for contributing productively to this particular board. Unfortunately either the person just turned 25 or is not a United States citizen. A candidate has been identified but we’re waiting for their return from the holidays.

Mr. Roldan advised the Board that he is in contact with Mr. Taylor and Ms. Robin Schabaz, who coordinate the federal grant program and oversee the SAG from the federal government stand point and they are happy with our efforts. We should easily be in compliance by the second week of February. Mr. Penrod asked if Mr. Mike Prizmich’s position has been filled. Mr. Roldan stated that a candidate has been interviewed and submitted to the Governor for approval and that candidate was screened by the Sheriff’s organization. Mr. Tilton thanked Mr. Roldan for his time and effort on this process.

Mr. Harris informed the Board that one of today’s presenters had to leave early for some prior engagement so he requested that Agenda Item M be moved up on the agenda.

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY GOAL (AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Joyce Hayhoe, Assistant Secretary from the Office of Legislative Affairs and
Ms. Judi Lemos from the Office of Legal Affairs at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) discussed this agenda item.

Ms. Hayhoe presented a handout which designates the strategic growth plan and public safety that the Governor announced yesterday, it’s a two-page handout that has been proposed. In terms of prison capacity and the infrastructures for prison capacity the Governor’s strategic growth plan is proposing for $2.4 billion dollars in Lease Revenue to build additional beds within our existing prisons. We’re expecting to construct over 16,238 additional housing units within our existing prison sites that will either be in or outside of the secured facilities but they will be secured within our prisons.

In addition to this funding includes, within in the $2.4 billion dollars, money so that we can construct a new southern California training facility. Right now all of our training facilities are located in Northern California and that represents in many cases problems for our applicants who must be away from their families for 16 weeks during the training.

The next part of the growth plan includes $300 million dollars for capacity-related infrastructure. This will come out of general fund appropriation and will include the expansion of our existing water and wastewater treatment plans, along with infrastructure needed to meet power demands. This will address some of the deficiencies of our current system, due to the extreme over crowding.

The next proposal we are receiving $1.6 billion dollars of Lease Revenue authority or Lease Purchase authority to site and construct and operate re-entry facilities through out California. We hope with this money to be able to site and construct between 5 through 7000 secured re-entry facilities in selected counties throughout the State. These would be facilities designed for full programming, it would also provide housing in a secured facility for the end of a persons’ sentence and that person would be the person that would be going back to that county, wherever that facility would be constructed. We are in the process of having many discussions with many counties with regards to these facilities and the type and mixture of the offender that they would like housed there. This is a very interactive process between the department and the counties designed to improve public safety.

The proposal also includes $116.5 million dollars in additional Lease Revenue authority to finish the condemned unit at San Quentin. This is a condemned unit that was already approved by the Legislature and partially funded due to cost over runs. We are asking for another $116 million in authority to get that proposal finish.

In terms of infrastructure that is being driven by litigation, federal court receiver is overseeing the medical system within the state corrections system. We are setting aside $1 billion dollars in Lease Revenue authority that will be available to the federal receiver and the other federal court monitors to build additional medical, mental health, and dental services that will be needed through out our system.

The Administration is proposing $4 billion dollars in Lease Revenue authority for adult jails and $400 million in Lease Revenue authority for local juvenile capacity. It’s hoped that with this money we would be able to build over 40,000 new jail beds at the local level and address the needs and special needs for locals in terms of juvenile justice space.

A 17-member sentencing commission will be appointed by the Governor and will include representatives from the Attorney General, Legislatures, District Attorneys, Public Defenders, Sheriffs, Chief of Police, probation, parole, labor, crime victims, research, and CDCR Secretary. The commission will reside within CDCR, will have permanent full time staff, and they will be responsible for providing recommendations to the Legislature for the Governor on what is needed in reference to sentencing and parole reform. The first year that the commission is established we’re asking that the commission be established through urgency Legislation because there is a lot of work to do in terms of addressing the overcrowding within corrections. As soon the commission is put in place, they will be addressing the need for parole reform within the state of California and what the Governor’s office, the Administration has asked is for them to target what we could do in terms of directly discharging a certain portion of our population that would include a nonserious to nonviolent offenders with the current target proposed is 24,000 low level offenders throughout the State in the second year of implementation. The budget also includes a proposal whereby low level and nonviolent offenders who are successful in completing 12-months of clean time on parole will be discharged automatically. California is only one of two states in the nation that has a determinately sentence system along with mandatory parole for everybody.

We will be eliminating in the budget the diagnostic, 90-day diagnostic services that the State provides right now for counties due to overcrowding. Currently only a third of them come back to serve prison.

The Administration is purposing $50 million to counties through block grants to provide funding for the 18-25 year olds at-risk population. The funding and program is going to be pattern after the successful JJCPA model (AB1913) and the funding will be assigned to provide comprehensive assessment, supervision and services to our 18-25 year olds population with the goal towards diverting them from a future incarceration in local county jails or state prison.

In terms of our local juvenile justice system it’s proposed that low-level offenders that are currently being housed at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), these are offenders that stay only to the age of 21 as opposed to the violent ones who stay till the age of 25. We’re proposing that as of July 1, 2007, those low-level offenders will no longer be eligible for DJJ commitment but will stay locally with the counties along with $94,000 in funding based on counties previously commitment patterns to DJJ. In addition to this, counties would be able to enter into discussions with the DJJ and the State to take over the current population that’s housed at DJJ and move it back to the county along with funding. So that wouldn’t be a mandate, it would be something that could be worked out within the county and DJJ.

The funding that is available for jail construction, $4 billion is being proposed that whereby a selected low-level offenders; where the judge can convict you of a misdemeanor or felony, and that if you are sentenced for felony you can serve up to 3 years in state prison, that as of July 1, 2008 that sentence would be served locally within the county jail with funding to build additional capacity. It’s important to know that this isn’t a decrease in the sentence, a felony is not being changed to a misdemeanor, it would still be a felony sentence by instead of state prison it would be served locally.

Ms. Biondi asked if the information given on the website, would it be, and when would it be. Ms. Hayhoe informed Ms. Biondi that some of it would be on the website but today’s presentation had more information but would be happy to send her any additional information. Mr. Penrod had concerns in regards to the low-level offenders serving their 3-year term in local facilities with limited bed space rather than state prison could create a major problem.

Mr. Tilton shared that one of the issues is that yes, we have funds for beds but certainly he doesn’t think that 20,000 beds will be created in communities by July 2008, so there is a disconnect. Mr. Tilton stated that there is a high probability that we’re going to run out of beds this summer. He has engaged in working diligently with both public safety, CSAC, cities on how to manage this as a state perspective. This is a good package but there are some things that need to be worked out in the details. The operations procedures can be worked out. If in 2008 we have beds then we shouldn’t be vacating those beds and getting people released on the streets. We’re going to have to work through these things, I’m hearing from people that as we should sit down now and address in the next few month. Through efforts pursued by these discussions if hope that we can work out ways to move forward.

In this budget we need to find ways to take the short-term inmates, instead of sending them to prison, find ways to treat those people in local communities. We have to work together. The one open question besides the timing issue in the budget is the operational cost, we have enough beds and the administration is committed to work through that for long-term operational issue but one thing we do have now, in the short-term is funds. There are some operational disconnects that we’ll have to work through but we are confident now that we are finally talking things through a state perspective, state-work perspective not just a CDCR.

The concern is worst case is if the Legislature doesn’t pass this package that gives us a long-term vision for how we’re going to work through this population crunch. Currently there are three lawsuits, and hearings this week where they are talking about capping the population of CDCR of 175,000 inmates to 115,000. Mr. Tilton’s long-term goal is to get down to 141,000-150,000 inmates so that they can program. The biggest fear is that there’s no plan coming out of the legislature that will give us time to fix this but under the capped state system in those low hundreds which means 60,000 people will be released.

The real performance would be in getting the overcrowding down so we can put programs in the prison. So we can start treating these people who are coming into the system, getting out in three to five years recognizing they’re community members and we better invest in those individuals to allow them to be more successful. And that’s the reform we need to keep talking about.

Mr. Tilton understands these issues and is working with others in trying to find a way as we move through the process. The value of us working together is we’ll treat this as a state system; we’ll get reforms to provide good public safety. If you can invest in resources for folks that are coming out of the state system and try and make them more successful, why can’t we do that for them before they get here. We open us this box as a state system and invest in these individuals who can be more successful and not have a one-size fits all.

Mr. Tilton then discussed the CDCR reorganization issue and how CSA fits in and its role. He currently working on reassessing how CDCR is set up to manage itself, he has some significant issues in the department in terms of policy and procedures as well as compliance with those policies and procedures. He has established a workgroup eternally to address these issues to have a more structure of the policy and procedures spread out in 40 facilities and departments. As for CSA, $5.5 billion dollars of projects, will come through this body for addressing and as a board will dominate how to assist the State and locals in terms of getting this money out for projects and what oversight we provide for this money, to make sure that the taxpayers of California feel that these monies are going for a good purpose. Talk about a role of responsibility for CSA. Mr. Tilton suggested some of the members together with staff, working with Joyce to discuss what structure of process and procedures are we going to put in place to make sure that the oversight of these resources is done appropriately.

Ms. Silbert has some concerns in the reorganization because the focus should be on the locals. Mr. Tilton stated that his perception is that Board of Corrections was an entity in the state government that had a huge creditability in its relationship with the local jails and local juvenile facilities and with the reorganization CSA has lost the identity. CSA is an asset to the State because it provided that connection. Mr. Tilton stated that Mr. Harris does not have the resources necessary to provide the staff work on this huge assumption about the role of CSA but he suggested not changing the reorganization but having a more incremental approach. The strategic plan is a long term strategy, it’s not going to fix all of this or change all of this in a year or two. Mr. Tilton will be releasing a report within the next month or so that says what has been done and what will be done in the next 12 to 18 months, it’s not everything on the agenda but it’s significant. Mr. Tilton would like to review the roles and responsibilities of CSA before diluting the roles and responsibilities because he would like the Board to continue being a liaison with the locals.

Ms. Biondi stated that since the State Advisory Group (SAG) is about to happen, couldn’t this Board delegate some of the committee work on the juvenile piece to the SAG. Ms. Silbert wasn’t sure if it would be possible because of the federal guidelines. Ms. Biondi thought the only thing the federal government requires is that you have a constituted group of people from various categories to advise the Board and that other states use their SAG for almost any purpose that the Governor or the CSA needs advise from juvenile justice experts.

Mr. Tilton recommended to Mr. Harris that a workgroup of Board members whom are interested in this issue get together and discuss how or what groups need to work on, staffing resource needs, and criteria issues for this money and report back to the Board with their recommendations. Mr. Roldan stated he has been in communication with Mr. Taylor and Ms. Schavas from the federal government in bringing us into compliance and he will address these questions directly to the persons whom are going to diem the SAG. Mr. Harris asked the Board if anyone would be interested in this workgroup to please contact him or Mr. Tilton.

IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 478 FEMALE INMATES AND WARDS MANAGEMENT OF PREGNANT INMATES AND MINORS; LIMITATION ON RESTRAINTS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Deputy Director Bob Takeshta stated that at the November 15, 2006 meeting, the CSA directed staff to begin the regulation development process for Female Inmates and Wards-Management of Pregnant Inmates and Minors as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 478. Staff requested that the Chairman appoint a CSA member to chair and a CSA member to co-chair an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to oversee the process. Mr. Remington was appointed as Chair and Mr. Ingrassia as Co-Chair. Working with CSA staff, the Chair and Co-Chair developed the list of ESC members and finalized the project timeline.

The ESC met on December 13, 2006, first as a large group, then as separate groups (the Adult Regulation and Juvenile Regulation Sub-Committee). Both groups discussed the statutory requirements and their impacts and crafted regulatory language. CSA staff compiled this information into a consistent format and it was sent to the ESC for review and comment. Based on the ESC’s review and direction, the regulations were finalized for submittal to the CSA.

The ESC is requesting CSA approval of the regulations in order to proceed with the 45-day public comment period in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In addition, CSA staff typically provides two public hearings, one in Sacramento and one in Southern California. With CSA approval, staff will coordinate these hearings to fall within 45-day public comment period as required by the APA. Results of the public comment period will be presented at the May 2007 CSA meeting. After a comprehensive public review process, the Board will accept, reject or modify the recommendations and submit the new regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for review before the final standards are published.

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

2006 JUVENILE TITLE 15 AND 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS REVISION PROCESS – REQUEST FOR FINAL ADOPTION (AGENDA ITEM E)
Deputy Director Bob Takeshta requested the Board consider the comments received during the 45-day and 15-day public comment periods; review the work group and staff’s response to those comments; grant final approval for the proposed changes to the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities; and authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.
At its January 27, 2005 meeting, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 210 and 885, the CSA directed staff to begin the regulations review process for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR).

Mr. Remington was appointed as Chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for this process. In addition, the CSA directed staff to work with the chair to develop a list of recommended ESC members and a timeline for consideration at the March 23, 2005 CSA meeting.

The ESC identified three workgroups, recommended their composition and presented each workgroup with issues to address. They directed the workgroups to meet and develop proposed revisions to the regulations.

On June 7-8, 2005, the three workgroups (Management, Health, and Physical Plant) met and reviewed each regulation, with an emphasis on those that were identified by the ESC. After a thorough review of these regulations and issues, the workgroups developed recommended revisions.

On September 14, 2005, ESC met for a second time; during this meeting, each workgroup chair presented the ESC with their group’s recommended revisions. The ESC approved most recommendations, while making minor modifications to others.

At its March 16, 2006 meeting, the CSA approved the revisions recommended by the ESC to the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Titles 15 and 24 and directed staff to commence with the public comment period beginning July 7, 2006 and ending September 25, 2006. CSA member Mr. Remington chaired two hearings. The first hearing was held at the Orange County Probation Department on August 23, 2006 and the second was held at the CSA office on September 25, 2006.

Eight comments were received relating to the following five Title 15 regulations during the 45-day public comment period:

Section 1361, Grievance Procedure.
Section 1363, Use of Reasonable Force to Collect DNA Specimens, Sample, Impressions.
Section 1370, Education Program.
Section 1374, Visiting.
Section 1377, Access to Legal Services.

With CSA approval, staff will submit the rulemaking files to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and Building Standards Commission (BSC). The OAL has 30 days to complete their review of the Title 15 regulations and certify the file, and with their approval, they will submit the regulations to the Secretary of State for final endorsement. The BSC has 180 days to complete their review prior to submitting the regulations to the Secretary of State.

Staff recommends that the CSA approve the modifications to the proposed regulation changes to Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Detention Facilities and authorize staff to proceed with the final regulation adoption process as mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Mr. Calvin Remington and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.
The motion carried.

SECTION 886.5, WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE EXPANDED CAPACTIY – SAN DIEGO PROBATION DEPARTEMENT CAMP BARRETT (AGENDA ITEM F)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented the request from San Diego Probation Department to increase the capacity of their Camp Barrett facility beyond the current capacity of 125 to 156 minors.

The San Diego Probation Department has gone through the application process to increase the capacity of their Camp Barrett facility beyond the current capacity of 125 to 156 minors. This information item advises the Board of staff’s decisions to implement Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 886.5, which allows the capacity of a camp to exceed the maximum capacity of 125 minors when specific provisions are met.

At the May 1999 meeting, pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 6025.6, the Board approved a delegation policy for staff to exercise ministerial authority to make decisions on approving, or denying, a county’s request to exceed the 125-minor capacity limit for camps as specified under WIC Section 886.5. As with the Federal and State construction grants information items, staff is required to document and identify each action for the Board in a consent/information item at future meetings.

The Probation Department has submitted the required application for expanded capacity (including the letter of intent, needs assessment and the operational program statement). The San Diego County Board of Supervisors endorses the project and there were no adverse public comments (Attachment A).

San Diego’s other camp, the Juvenile Ranch Facility, requested and received the approval to expand their camp capacity [250 in 2000]. Several other camps such as Fresno County’s Elkhorn Regional Facility [200 in 1999], Colusa County’s Fouts Springs [162 in 2000] and Orange County’s Los Pinos Camp [156 in 2004] have expanded capacities as allowed by WIC 886.5.

Camp Barrett is a non-secure or unlocked facility located 45 miles east of the City of San Diego in a rural setting outside of the town of Alpine. The camp’s history is outlined before you. What is important for today is the county’s request to expand the capacity of Camp Barrett from 125 to 156 minors. Due to budget constraints, one of the camps three dormitories was closed in the fiscal year 2004/05. In February 2006, this dormitory was reopened to provide increased alternative sentencing options and appropriate behavioral programming that will better prepare juveniles for reintegration into the community. Reopening this dorm has an additional benefit beyond the walls of Camp Barrett – it has helped to decrease the number of detention beds at San Diego’s two juvenile halls, both of which are operating above their rated capacity. Before the third dorm reopened, there were up to 79 minors waiting in JH for placement at Camp Barrett; after the third dorm reopened, that number dropped to 13 minors waiting placement.

With the approval of an expanded capacity, Camp Barrett will comply with the Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities. Its three dormitories comply with the Title 24 physical plant requirements to allow 52 minors in each dorm and the facility will continue to operate in compliance with Title 15 with respect to staffing ratios – 1 staff for every 15 minors during the day (52/15 = 3.5) and 1 staff to 30 minors at night (two staff). In one important area, the camp exceeds regulations; visiting hours are Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., well beyond the Title 15 requirement of one hour of visiting each week. They also allow special visits by family members (sisters, brothers, cousins) on Saturdays.

As an example of their commitment to the youth in their care, the department offers a number of programs at Camp Barrett. County staff can provide more information.
Ms. Ann Sasaki-Madigan, Chief Deputy Probation Officer and Director Jim Seal, Camp Barrett were available to answer any questions.

Ms. Aboytes provided a handout describing the programs offered at Camp Barrett and a document describing the facility’s staffing.

Ms. Biondi asked how many staff members will be with the 52 juveniles in the dorm. Ms. Aboytes stated that there would be four in each dorm. Mr. Seal stated that we would have to maintain the ratio of 15 to 1 minimum. Ms. Biondi is concerned about just staying at minimum and would like the Board to acknowledge the research of what works for safety for staff and minors, and for success in the community when they return, that small is better.

Ms. Saski-Madigan stated that their ultimate goal is to provide the best services to the minors in their facilities. Ms. Saski-Madigan explained that the difference in the behavior patterns of minors incarcerated in a juvenile hall verses Camp Barrett is striking, it gives them the opportunity to remove individuals from an institution setting into a more of a camp-like setting to offer them more services.

Ms. Silbert asked if it is a given that people going to the camps are coming from juvenile hall as oppose to juveniles who might not be incarcerated at all, now are going to the camp. Mr. Seal stated that these are post-adjudicated; they are East Mesa waiting for placement. Ms. Silbert expressed that as sometimes legislative does, after a pilot project is completed and the research is successful it gets lost in transition or we move on to next issue. It is critical that as board members we see that these programs don’t get diminished. Ms. Silbert suggested that the Board is kept updated on what San Diego did in the local action plan and if it is still ongoing.

Ms. Biondi asked how they are evaluating what they’re doing is working. Mr. Seal explained that currently they are working on a study to show what works and what programs appear to be effective, and how does it effect recidivism.

Ms. Aboytes reiterated that at Camp Barrett the kids are kept busy between school, ROP programs, anger management, and other programs that there is little time spent in the dorms.

Mr. Tilton understood Ms. Biondi’s concern in regards to minimal is not the ideal but it is unfair to San Diego to come here with a proposal in operation with those standards to then hold them up to different standards.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS INFORMATION ITEMS
(AGENDA ITEM G)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented this information agenda item that allows CSA staff the opportunity to provide the Board an update of the federal and state construction grant program.

Previously, the Board of Corrections approved a delegation policy for staff to exercise ministerial authority to make decisions on approving minor or nonsubstantive project changes that do not have a significant impact on construction projects or have significant policy implications. The intent of this policy was to expedite project implementation timelines and avoid individual nonsubstantive requests on the regular meeting agenda where staff and counties agree on minor matters, allowing counties to proceed with the work.

With respect to the federally funded construction projects, Riverside and San Mateo counties have completed their construction projects and are in the process of completing the remainder of their grant requirements. Sacramento, San Francisco and Alameda will complete their projects in 2007. The remaining stated funded project, Santa Clara, will complete their project in 2007.

The revised attachment A shows that the construction end date has changed for the San Mateo and San Francisco projects. It also shows that $240,297 in unused administrative funds has been reverted to Sacramento County for their 90-bed juvenile hall expansion project.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2006-2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM H)
Ms. Magi Work, Field Representative requested CSA to approve the funding recommendations for the Title II Request for Proposals (RFP) released July 2006. The Formulas grants program supports state and local prevention intervention efforts and juvenile justice system improvements.

Since the September 2006 meeting, in consultation with John Kohls, Ph.D. (creator of the Grant Proposal Evaluation Process) and direction from the Board CSA staff developed a two phase approach to manage the volume of applicants expected, 141 proposals were received for the RFP. As a note, the RFP evaluation was designed to ensure that: all applicants were treated fairly; the grants awards were made on the basis of good measurement; the most meritorious proposals were selected and programs would be funded that best satisfied the grant goals and had a high probability of success.

With the assistance from several Board members CSA staff assembled 24 subject matter experts to review the proposals for adherence to the RFP, and for clarity and completeness. The panel represented probation, police, sheriff, and community based organizations.

Consistent with the traditional rating process, all raters convened and attended training on the rating process. The readers rated the proposals based on selected rating dimensions (rating criteria) approved by CSA and requirements included in the RFP. Two panelists rated each grant proposal. The scores of the two panelists were recorded. Panelists worked together to reconcile differences to produce a final rating. Of the 141 proposals received, the top 34 proposals, rated most in compliance with the RFP Moved forward to the second phase.

The top rated proposals advancing to the second phase of rating were determined by total dollar amount of proposals equal to twice the amount of funds available (13 million).

CSA staff convened a second panel of subject matter experts and current practioners to rate the identified finalists. Four state advisory group members participated as raters for the second phase.

CSA staff trained the second phase of raters. The raters made independent ratings for all 10 rating dimensions described in the RFP. All 8 raters read and rated all 34 proposals. After all ratings were submitted, they were entered into the CSA’s proposal evaluation software. The eight-member panel was assembled to review the ratings. Rater disagreements were discussed and reconciled if necessary. The rating totals were complied and the proposal rankings were presented to the panel for their approval. The final ranking of proposals recommended for funding are attached to the agenda item.

During a review of the master file of proposal scores, it was identified that Phase I rater’s entered data incorrectly for the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal. The correction revealed that the proposal should have moved to Phase II. It was determined that the data entry for the Antelope proposal was an isolated error after CSA staff reviewed the remaining 140 proposal scores.

To remain consistent with the proposal evaluation process and the established timelines for the projects start date of April 1, 2007, staff recommended CSA approve one of the following options:

1. Forward the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal to the Phase II panel of eight to be rated. Determine if the current ranking will be affected. If the proposal ranks within the top 16 proposals it is recommended to re-rank the current 16 proposals which will result in the eliminations of the lowest ranked proposals currently recommended for funding. Allow staff to initiate grant contracts with the agencies identified in the results of the new ranking.

If the proposal does not rank high enough to affect the current top 16, allow CSA staff the discretion to move forward with the current recommendations in this agenda item.

2. Forward the Antelope Valley Healthcare proposal to the Phase II panel of eight to be rated. Determine if the current ranking will be affected. If the proposal ranks within the top 16 proposals, it is recommended that a proportional reduction of the current 16 proposals occur to include funding for the newly ranked proposal. Allow staff to initiate grant contracts with the agencies identified in the results of the new ranking.

If the proposal does not rank high enough to affect the current top 16, allow CSA staff the discretion to move forward with the current recommendations in this agenda item.

Mr. Biondi asked if in the future we should look at the goal first and if one of the goals is to develop the communities’ capacity to deal with these problems then have agencies like the probation department and sheriff work collaboratively together. Ms. Biondi stated that we need to discuss what we want to accomplish rather than just automatically returning most of OJJDP dollars back to government agencies. Ms. Biondi asked how the appeal process would fit in with the reassessing based on this one error. Ms. Works explained that after finding out what the action will be taken by the Board today then the proposal will be sent out to the 8-member panel to get that proposal rated as quickly as possible and then find out if the original ranking was disturbed at all. If it is, then we would need to notice the field again and with that notice we could include the appeal process. Ms. Biondi asked what could be accomplished with the appeal process. Ms. Works stated that the appeals process has four steps, we would require that the applicant meet with CSA staff and discuss how we rated these proposals, this gives them the opportunity to appeal this process but they can’t appeal the scores. Applicants would have to identify a flaw in the process that was developed. Staff would give the applicant as much information as possible so that they understand how we developed this whole rating process. If they still are compelled that there is a flaw in the process, then they would submit a letter to our Executive Director and then he could make a determination at that time based on all the information or he could move the appeals in front of this body. Then the CSA Board would make the final decision.

A motion to approve staff recommendations for the first option to re-rank was made by Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen. The motion carried.

EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE AND TIMELINE TITLE II FORMULA NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM I)
Ms. Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant requested the Board’s approval of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process to award $80,000 in federally appropriated funds for the Title II Formula Grant Program addressing the Native American issues; appointing chair and co-chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to oversee the RFP process (currently two members have expressed interest, Mr. Remington on a limited basis and State Advisory Group (SAG) member Chief Sanchez); authorize ESC co-chairs to appoint additional members of the ESC who are local subject matter experts on Native American issues; approve the activities and timeline proposed for the administration of the RFP included in this agenda item.

The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 created the Formula Grants program. It supports state and local delinquency prevention and intervention efforts and juvenile justice system improvements. Grants to states are based on our proportionate population under age 18. At least two-thirds of the funds awarded must be used for programs operated by local public and private agencies and federally recognized tribal governments.

In the 2006 Federal award of $7 million, $7,000 is allocated to specifically fund Native American programs. In March 2006, the CSA approved the State Plan which appropriated up to $80,000 to fund Native American programs. The current Title II Native American project is in its third and final year of funding. This will be the first competitive Title II Native American RFP administered by the CSA.

Staff recommended that the ESC for this program be comprised of five to seven members. Staff will work with co-chairs to identify individuals who have subject matter expertise and the ESC will be charged with making recommendations in four areas; technical requirements, rating criteria and evaluation process for the RFP; rating the proposals; and making recommendations for grant awards.

There is no match requirement to the $80,000 through this RFP process. Grants will be awarded for a one-year period, beginning October 1, 2007, with the possibility of funding for up to two additional years. Eligible applicants must be an Indian tribe and/or Indian Consortium in California. They must submit an application which includes: plan for conducting programs, projects, and activities; the plan must identify the juvenile justice and delinquency problems and prevention needs that will be addressed by the Indian tribe w/in their jurisdiction; they must perform law enforcement functions; to enhance California’s efforts applicants must incorporate a disproportionate minority contact (DMC) educational component into their proposal. Attachment A outlines a proposed timeline of activities necessary to administer competitive RFP for the Title II Formula Grants – Native American Set-a-side Program.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Kim Petersen.
The motion carried.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT – TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT FINAL REPORT (AGENDA ITEM J)
Ms. Shalinee Hunter, Corrections Consultant provided an overview of the Disproportionate Minority Contact – Technical Assistance Project (DMC-TAP) Final Report. The report outlines successes specifically focusing on improving the juvenile justice system.

CSA staff conducted a process evaluation designed to identify operational successes and challenges and to guide future approaches to DMC reduction efforts in California. One of the requirements is that states must make a good faith effort to address DMC, which refers to the overrepresentation of minority youth relative to their numbers in the general population at any point in the juvenile justice system process. Contra Costa, Alameda, and Ventura counties participated and demonstrated their commitment to addressing DMC and in process laid the groundwork for their future efforts on this issue but also provided the impetus for an expanded DMC reduction initiative at the state level. The findings from the DMC-TAP captured in this final report have helped guide CSA’s exciting new approach to addressing DMC through the incremental approach of the Enhanced DMC-TAP grant.

Mr. Warner was concerned that we go through this systems approach cycle, agree on definitions, collect data, and then there tends to be some difficult decisions the people have a difficult time at a local level making and wants to assure that in phase two the commitment to develop a the action plan augmentation. Ms. Hunter stated this phase approach allows for some solid information to be developed and taken into the collaborate efforts so that everybody has as much education for that in time they are able to make those hard decisions. Mr. Warner encouraged the Board when looking at funding, future grants and programs that we learn from some of these recommendations and build them up into our proposals and hopes that what happens in these counties is also built into the broader decision making effort. Mr. Remington thanked
Ms. Hunter for doing a good job as the DMC Coordinator.

JOB COMPONENTS ANALYSIS PROJECT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM K)
Ms. Amy Kohls, Research Consultant updated the Board on the Job Components Analysis Project (JCAP), which is an effort to develop and monitor standards for selection and training of state correctional peace officer classifications. The first part of this update focused on the development of the new written exam for Correctional Officer (CO), Youth Correctional Officer (YCO) and Youth Correctional Counselor (YCC).

Back in February 2006, the Officer of Peace Officer Selection (OPOS) approached CSA with an interest in combining the written tests for CO, YCO, and YCC into one exam. They wanted this for a couple of reasons: Many applicants were interested in being considered for more than one of these positions, and were therefore required to sit for more than one exam. Adds time onto selection process. Having one exam would allow for only one testing session per applicant rather than what could potentially be three separate testing sessions with three sets of proctors. The surface, the tests appeared similar in terms of content. Expert consultants reviewed the three exams for quality and content. It was determined that although they appeared similar, the three tests were significantly different from each other and had some deficiencies, which meant that combining them would not be feasible. Due to these issues, and after reviewing the minimum qualifications for the three positions, CSA proposed the development of a single exam for all three classifications.

The agenda had an outline of the work done throughout 2006 to develop the exam. Basically with the help of graduate student assistants and our expert consultants, we wrote 300 test items with which we developed two draft exams. Administered the exams to approximately 500 correctional officer, youth correctional officer, and youth correctional counselor academy students, and then analyzed the demographic and item performance data. We then chose the best quality items for the exam and drafted the final version.

The new test was completed in December, and is a timed, multiple-choice exam covering three areas – reading comprehension, writing or grammar, and basic math. The choice of these areas for inclusion in the exam was based on the prior job analysis as well as our expert consultants’ review of the three jobs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) began using the exam January 2 nd.

In addition to the 90 scored items on the test, there were five extra items per section that we were piloting. These items aren’t scored, but we are collecting performance data on new pilot items each quarter so that we can start building up a bank of the best-performing items. A new exam will be developed annually, using these items.

Staff has completed the consolidation of the task statement list – we now have an unduplicated list of 330 statements pertaining to the CO, YCO, and YCC job duties (we started with over 6500 statements) – basic, preliminary description of the jobs. We are also close to finishing the consolidation of the knowledge, skill, and ability statements, when that’s finished, we’ll have a basic, first conception of what characteristics an employee needs to perform successfully on the job. Milestone, because these two lists are the basis of the job analysis portion of the project and are the platform for our next steps. Now that we have a preliminary idea of what the jobs entail, we have to have subject matter experts that know the job intimately review these lists to make sure that our consolidation process was accurate – that we’ve defined the job completely.

We are currently planning meetings with incumbents in each of the three classifications as well as supervisors to have them review the results of our consolidation process and confirm that what we’ve done is accurate and/or provide us with suggestions or changes. Once that’s completed, we will be ready to have additional subject matter experts at a sample of the facilities across the State tell us the frequency with which they perform the various tasks and how important each KSAO is for successful performance of the job. This will be the data gathering and analysis step that will allow us to provide a complete, current definition of each job and determine what overlap exists between the CO, YCO, and YCC jobs.

Mr. Tilton asked at what point in time should we make sure that the information gathered in regards to the scope of the job is consistent with CDCR’s direction. Ms. Kohl’s explained that at this time it is a base acknowledgement of what is being done and are aware of the direction in which the Department is going. Mr. Tilton stated that this is a ratification of the existing situation and when we get to training we’ll talk about changes. Ms. Kohl agreed.

Mr. Bacigalupo would like to see the performance evaluations tied into this process. Mr. Penrod asked if the new exam is harder or easier for people to get into the system? Ms. Kohls state that it really doesn’t change the ability for people to get into the process but it is a better exam which my make it easier. Mr. Penrod asked if the Association has been involved in this process.
Mr. Kohls stated that they have attended these meetings and aware of the situation.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM L)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided an informational legislative update.

The legislature convened last month for the start of the new 2007-2008 two-year session. With all the attention that has been focused on corrections for some time, this new legislative session will be an interesting one for CSA, as well as our larger CDCR organization and the locals alike, in terms of new directions and program potential.

The Legislation of Interest report will continue to include not only those bills directly impacting CSA, but also those of interest to local corrections.

As part of getting the ball rolling on the first day of the session was Assembly Bill 77 introduced by Assembly Member Lieber, which tasks CSA with new responsibility should this pass.

With an eye towards the goal of a system of reentry in California, a topic that has been getting much needed attention, this would help towards ensuring that inmates make a successful transition from prison to the community. There are two basic components to this bill. The first being that Secretary Tilton shall appoint a working group of national experts to develop a detailed action plan that sets forth the necessary reforms and an implementation strategy. Secondly, and where CSA is specifically mentioned along with our local constituents, CSA shall award local reentry planning grants, not to exceed $75,000, to any county that submits a request for the purpose of developing a multi-agency local action plan as a response to parolees’ needs and recidivism issues, utilizing a collaborative approach, and to include an evaluation component. By June 2008 each county awarded a grant shall report to the CSA on which plan component it selected for implementation.

While there is a $4.3 million allocation proposed in this bill to cover the county planning grant costs, there are no dollars currently proposed for CSA’s program administration costs associated with this new endeavor; however we will work for inclusion of administrative dollars for CSA. As this bill was just recently introduced and is in the infancy stages of the legislative process, we will continue to track it for progress.

Mr. Tilton suggested having Ms. Marisela Montes, Chief Deputy Secretary of Adult Operations give a presentation on re-entry at the next board meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (AGENDA ITEM N)
Mr. Patrick Wilson, an engineer for Los Angeles and a former prison inmate discussed and presented the board with a handout in regards to “Corrections Standards Authority – Limited Study of the Entire Subject of Crime and Penology per Section 6027 – 2006 Penal Code”.

An announcement was made informing everyone that the next CSA board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to be held in Fresno County.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Originally signed by
YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
James E. Tilton, Chair, CDCR Secretary
David Runnels, CDCR, Adult Offenders
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Gary Penrod, Sheriff, San Bernardino County
William Powers, County Supervisor
Calvin Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Mimi Silbert, Ph.D., Local Community-Based Correctional Program
Kim Petersen, Public Member, Represents Interests of Crime Victims
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Karrie Eckhardt, Rank & File Representative, State Parole Officer
Max Scott, Community-Based Youth Service Organization

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Bob Takeshta, Deputy Director, FSO
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director, STC
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative
Magi Work, Field Representative
Connie Lucero, Corrections Consultant
Shalinee Hunter, Corrections Consultant
Amy Kohls, Research Consultant
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant

Meeting held at: Town & Country Resort & Hotel, 500 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, CA 92108

Mr. James E. Tilton, Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone and explained that there were new board members that would have to be sworn in before commencing with the meeting.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Chairman Tilton asked the new board members to raise their right hand and state the Oath of Office. He conducted the swearing in of:
Mr. William Powers
Mr. John Ingrassia
Ms. Kim Petersen
Mr. Max Scott

Chairman Tilton of the CSA, called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

Chairman Tilton directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:
James E. Tilton
David Runnels
Bernard Warner
David Bacigalupo
Robert Hernandez
Michael Prizmich
Gary Penrod
William Powers
Calvin Remington
John Ingrassia
Mimi Silbert
Kim Petersen
Carol Biondi
Pamala Gilyard
Cleotha Adams
Max Scott

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Campos announced that due to an emergency at her office, Ms. Deborah Botts would not be attending today’s meeting.

Chairman Tilton asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by Mr. Cal Remington and seconded by Mr. David Bacigalupo. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 19, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
(AGENDA ITEM A)
Mr. James Tilton, Chairman asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes. There was no discussion or change. Mr. Tilton asked for approval of the minutes.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the July 19, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 30, 2006, CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY TELECONFERENCE MEETING
(AGENDA ITEM B)
Mr. James Tilton, Chairman explained that this conference call was held for approval from the board in the issuance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) recommended by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the August 30, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority teleconference meeting was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi. The motion carried.

Mr. Harris referred to the e-mail of an update on members received from Mr. Alberto Roldan from the Governor’s office, replacing Ms. Heather Lambert. The CSA board has seventeen members with 2 vacant positions; the Rank and File Representative, State Parole Officer and the Rank and File Representative, State Adult Correctional Facility. There are people under consideration for these positions.

Mr. Yarber responded that to the federal administration of grants programs, the SAG is required in the federal legislation; however it isn’t for the state general funding programs. Typically, this body is used to oversee those funds and provide updates.

Mr. Tilton commented that one of the things he will be doing as Secretary of CDCR is reassessing the reorganization. Clarifying the structure of these entities and providing the resources necessary. Mr. Tilton asked for the board’s sense of priorities to move forward as a board. He suggested an off-site to discuss the board’s roles and responsibilities. Mr. Remington thanked Mr. Tilton for the comments and agreed that there are some positives in the reorganization.

LEGAL OPINION REGARDING CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY’S AUTHORITY
(AGENDA ITEM D)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director informed the board on the authority of the board. He referred to the fax received this morning from the attorney of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) at CDCR regarding board member requests for information and the ability of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) or its board members to take action with respect to documentation or information that is within the purview of the CSA.

The faxed information stated the CSA has provided that the types of inquiries posed have included requests to hear from different departments and key staff from CDCR (or CSA) about current priorities or projects or to hear from representatives of Prison Industries Authority (PIA) on what is being done to expand rehabilitative programs and training, particularly at Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in light of the settlement of Prison Law Office (PLO) lawsuit.

Pursuant to SB 737 (Chapter 10, statutes of 2005), which facilitated the reorganization that created the CDCR, the former Board of Corrections was abolished and the CSA established within the CDCR. The CSA is authorized, among other things, to study of the entire subject of crime and penology and report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature at such times as they may require and to establish minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities in areas including, but not limited to, 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 CSA is also authorized to conduct biennial inspections of each local detention facility in the state.

Given that the statutory language that defines the CSA’s scope of responsibility is exceptionally broad, questions such as a request to hear from key CDCR or CSA staff regarding current priorities or projects, or from PIA concerning what is being done to expand rehabilitative programs and training, seem particularly suited to the CSA’s mission.

Under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Act), the policy of the state is to conduct the proceedings of public agencies openly so that the public may remain informed. The Act applies to every state board, commission or any similar multimember body, including the CSA. CSA board members, like their counterparts in state service, should be cautioned to take only such actions as are allowable in an open meeting format and to request additional direction regarding their responsibilities under the Act when questions arise.

Concerning the issue of authority to conduct inspections of state prisons, the CSA’s authority is defined in the provisions of the Penal Code. For example, the CSA is expressly authorized to establish minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities. Under Penal Code Section 6031, the CSA is required to inspect, biennially, each local detention facility in the state. State correctional facilities are not included with the definition of “local detention facility” and there is no companion provision that mandates inspection of state prison facilities.

It is conceivable, however, that the CSA could inspect state prison facilities in a number of situations. For instance, the CSA could resolve to inspect such facilities as part of its mission to study the “entire subject of crime,” as a part of the process of establishing minimum standards or under the auspices of a “special commission” established upon request of the CSA or the Governor. In each of these circumstances, the CSA is authorized to report its findings and/or make recommendations as established in the Penal Code.

While this response does not represent a formal legal opinion of the OLA, it may be useful in facilitating CSA board discussion concerning the direction to be taken in the management of its statutory duties.

To synopsize the e-mail, Mr. Harris stated that the authority of CSA is that it can inspect state jails but it’s usually under direction of the Secretary. It’s not as specific as the language used for the locals. The language used for inspections of local jails states that specifically that CSA is in charge of that but it is not as clearly stated for state institutions. The Secretary has the discretion and has actually in the past has had CSA audit an institution.

Ms. Biondi was confused about the information in the New Member Orientation binder where it refers to Penal Code 6030, as to CSA shall establish minimum standards for state & local correctional facilities. In the first board meeting there were four safety issues on Youth Authority facilities and a proposed timeline to complete an inspection of all 32 by November 2006 or January 2007. Within the timeframe of the last reports, there should have been 14 adult and seven juvenile facilities inspected.

Mr. Harris reminded Ms. Biondi that the Secretary has already stated that he is going to reassess. As far as what are the inspections that can be done or what minimum standards means, it means that we set the standards doesn’t necessarily mean that we inspect for compliance, although this could change under the discretion of the Secretary. Direction was given by the previous Secretary for the last inspection.

Ms. Silbert agreed that the reorganization plan is difficult to understand and would like for the responsibilities to be made clear of what they are. CSA has done a phenomenal job on state standards in jails. Mr. Tilton agreed with Ms. Silbert, the reorganization needs to be clarified. The concepts in the reorganization make a lot of sense. How do we make the process that’s incremental in terms of moving forward? Getting back to basics, having the board determine what are certain tasks they want to invest their time and resources then making sure they have incremental support in terms of resources to processes to move the project forward.

Mr. Tilton is very sensitive to CSA and doesn’t want to deter that by giving CSA too big of a responsibility that can’t be handled appropriately and discrediting this body that has a long standing history of doing well.

Ms. Biondi asked the status of the four inspections that were done. Mr. Runnels and Mr. Warner informed Ms. Biondi that a corrective action plan has been developed for each of the inspections.

Mr. Remington agreed with Mr. Tilton’s suggestion of having an off-site and looks forward to an update from Mr. Tilton on the responsibilities and recommendations of CSA.

Just as a background, Mr. Read stated that the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) board establishes regulations for design and construction of local detention facilities. If a county wants to depart from those standards, they have to make out an application for a pilot project to describe any issues that may arise from not following the minimum standards.

At the March 16, 2006 CSA meeting, San Bernardino County requested pilot project status to hold 70 inmates in dormitories; regulations limited dormitory maximum capacity to 64 inmates. San Bernardino County bought a former community correctional facility that had been privately operated by the Maranatha Corporation and did some extensive remodeling. Initially, the facility had four very large dorms, 150+ people in each of the dorms. CSA staff met with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to determine what they had planned for the facility which was not compliant with regulations. Their plan was to divide the four dormitories in half. They met all of the regulations except the limiting of the capacity to no more than 64. As a condition of the pilot project status that was approved at the March meeting, they were required to provide a 6-month update to the CSA Board. Attached is the result of the 6-month update. The grievances at the Adelanto Detention Center are fewer than at any other detention facility. They’re exceeding the minimum standards for recreation time, there are more empty rooms for visiting, they’re addressing all non-emergency medical requests within 24 hours, they have adequate staffing, there have been no assaults on staff and there are less inmate fights. It appears that at this 6-month review, the progress is good on the pilot project status.

Captain Virgil Merrett and Lieutenant Kevin Lacy, both of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, were available to answer any questions.

Mr. Tilton asked how long the pilot project status lasts. Mr. Read stated that generally it lasts about a year. They are scheduled to return in March for their second 6-month update. In conjunction with that, they will make their application for an Alternate Means of Compliance, which a is permanent process so they can continue to house 70 inmates. This is provided that the board approves it.

Mr. Tilton asked if there were particular types of inmates housed to provide these statistics. Captain Merrett explained that the inmates are classified as low to medium risk, general population. They are pre-trial inmates that are hand-picked depending on their classification scores. Mr. Remington asked if this process would continue to be an on-going policy. Captain Merrett stated that this is a written policy and they do not intend on changing it.

Mr. Ingrassia stated that based on this type of criteria, that in another six months this could be permanent and this affects other facilities. At what point will Title 24 revision occurs. Mr. Read replied that generally in the revision process, the results of the pilot project is re-visited, and the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) will have the opportunity to address the success of the pilot project prior to the revisions.

JUVENILE DETENTION PROFILE SURVEY – 2005 ANNUAL REPORT
(AGENDA ITEM F)
Mr. Jerry Read, Field Representative combined both of his presentations, item F and G and gave a briefing on the key findings of the 2005 annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) and the Jail Profile Survey (JPS).

The CSA has been gathering statistics for the adult jails for the last 11 years and the last seven years for the juvenile facilities. The population driven data is what Mr. Read discussed but stated that there is data on a lot of different variables, such as the classification of inmates; the gender of the inmates that are being held; etc.

As an overview, the JPS reports that there are currently 74,000 rated beds in California jail systems. The average daily population during 2005 was 79,615. The profile survey has statistics on the highest one-day count. Each one of the jails report during one month the highest inmate count during that month; this could be a different day depending on which jail. Then they aggregate those for each month. The average highest one-day count in county jails is 86,000 inmates and we have rated beds of 74,000! Already there is a demonstrated need for about 12,000 beds in county jails. Numbers are also taken for a capacity need; the average daily population is taken and then 10% is added. The 10% covers the highest one-day count, the fluctuation for that and also covers the fact that you have to classify inmates. You’ll never have the right type of inmates to fill every bed. There are too many of the higher classification types to be segregated. You have to have a considerable amount of vacant beds to satisfy the classification needs.

On an average month, 7,900 pre-trail inmates are being released because there are not enough beds. Each month there are 11,542 sentenced inmates that go home early; they don’t finish their sentence. This amount is on top of the 12,000 beds that are needed, it’s a pretty bad situation and it is getting worse.

The average bookings per month are the highest numbers that have ever been at 106,000 since the jail profile survey started 11 years ago. The percentage of felony inmates has gone up; currently the average is 78.1%. The non-sentenced average population is at 66.8%, so the majority of them are non-sentenced. All the sentenced inmates are at work release or doing some alternative incarceration. Inmate assaults on staff are up 20% in 2005. There are, on average, 303 assaults on staff that were reported. The average length of stay is 21.3 days, which is getting to be less and less.

The JDPS is a little brighter. The rated capacity is higher than both the average population and the highest one-day count. There are 7,904 rated juvenile beds currently. The highest one-day count, on average, for 2005 was 7,587, so it’s about 300 beds less. This isn’t to say that other juvenile halls aren’t crowded; there are still a number of facilities that have crowding issues.

The bookings per month have gone down for juvenile facilities. The average is 305 bookings each day. The percentage of males in both juvenile halls and camps has been decreasing since 2005. There has been an increase in females; it has gone up to 16.2%. Suicide attempts have gone down, 41% since 1999. In 2005 there were 643 suicide attempts, a decrease of 440 attempts since 1999, which continues to go down every year. A number of mental health cases in juvenile are going up, though the use of meds is going down. The down fall to juvenile populations is that the numbers in the first part of 2006 are very high.

This information is provided as a highlight of the report attached to the agenda. This report will be posted to CSA’s website.

Ms. Biondi asked if there are plans to do more evaluations in the CSA about what works and what doesn’t. Mr. Read stated that there was numerous researches done on this and now we know what works that the attempt is to apply the money to services rather than the research.

JAIL PROFILE SURVEY – 2005 ANNUAL REPORT
(AGENDA ITEM G)
Mr. Jerry Read, Field Representative combined both of his presentations, item F and G, and gave a briefing on the key findings of the 2005 annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) and the Jail Profile Survey (JPS). Please see item F.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
(AGENDA ITEM H)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented this informational agenda item on the ministerial staff decisions on state and federally funded construction grants listing any timeline changes, budget changes, or minor scope changes.

Seven federally funded projects remain. Construction is completed for the Fresno and Napa County projects. Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Mateo counties are still under construction and are currently on track to be completed before the end of 2006. Alameda County is scheduled to complete their project in October 2007. Only one state funded project remains; Santa Clara County is scheduled to complete their project in 2007. Orange County has completed their project.

There were two timeline changes since the July CSA meeting. Sacramento and Riverside County requested and received time extensions.

Ms. Aboytes asked for any questions. No questions were asked or discussed.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2006-2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RATING PROCESS
(AGENDA ITEM I)

Mr. Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director requested the board’s approval of the rating process for the Title II Formula Grants Program Request for Proposals (RFP) released in July 24, 2006.

Mr. Yarber stated that this is an action item relative to the Title II Formula Grants proposal rating process. There is included in the agenda item some background in regard to the Title II RFP. This is the first time that CSA has administered the Title II Formula Grant RFP which was previously administered by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Subsequent to the abolishment of that office we inherited the juvenile justice grant programs, and have administered those effectively since January 2004. We are hoping to make new awards with this process.

The rating process is traditionally customized with regard to each competitive grant program CSA administers. It is anticipated that 200-300 proposals will be submitted in response to the Title II RFP; 270 proposals were submitted the last time the RFP was issued. Due to the expected volume of applications and time required, it will be necessary to further alter the current rating system in order to fairly assess each application. Were the traditional system utilized without modification, it is estimated that subject-matter experts would be asked to volunteer 200-300 hours of service to the rating process.

A two-tiered approach has been developed that will address the need for rating the volume of proposals expected. In the first phase, a panel of readers will convene and attend training on the rating process, they will then rate the proposals based on selected rating criteria approved by CSA and included in the RFP. Different combinations of rater pairings will be used so that rater tendencies can be compared and rater reliability can be assessed. The second phase of the modified rating process will include only the top proposals identified by the first group of raters. CSA staff will convene a second rating panel of subject-matter experts and current practitioners to rate the identified finalists. State Advisory Group (SAG) members will be called upon to participate as raters during this process. As part of this second phase of review, all of the raters will read and score all of the proposals. Once rated the scores of each proposal will be entered into the software program to analyze the ratings, determine the level of rater agreement, and rank proposals according to merit. The first rating phase will require approximately 60-80 hours of review time for each rater. We anticipate the second phase of rating will require approximately 30-40 hours of review for each rater. CSA is having a difficult time gathering volunteers due to the fact of the long hours required. Discussion has been brought to CSA attention of possibly giving compensation for these hours. Stipends of $3,000 could be afforded to each rating panel member participating in this first phase. As an option to this expense, raters could be paid hourly at the Field Representative salary rate, approximately $55 per hour. Currently there are three volunteers for the first tier and CSA is working diligently trying to identify five more.

Ms. Silbert asked if this staff recommendation included the payment or if it is just the approval of the two tier process. Mr. Yarber clarified that the board approval of the recommendation includes the payment. Ms. Silbert stated that this is a horrible precedent to have payment involved for selection of people and doesn’t believe this is a good idea.

Ms. Petersen asked in regards to filling the two phases, would there be an issue with some being paid and others not and also is there a perception that those being paid are of a higher quality versus the ones volunteering? Mr. Yarber stated that there would be a difference in the first phase of review.

Ms. Biondi asked why not hire consultants at the same cost and then have SAG, do the work? Mr. Yarber stated that the first panel could be viewed as consultants without straying too far from the traditional model that has been successful. Mr. Remington thought hiring retired annuitants for review is a good idea but he agreed with Ms. Silbert of not setting the precedent of payment. Mr. Prizmich suggested increasing the number of evaluators in the first phase.

Mr. Yarber stated that this could be an option but the minimum number has to be achieved first. Ms. Biondi commented that the more people you have, the standard is lowered. Ms. Silbert stated that there could be actual measurable things that more people could do without breaking up objectivity, using more discretion on the second phase of evaluators. Mr. Tilton agreed that we don’t want to set a precedent and better solution would be to use more people and be very specific with the selection criteria. As board members we should reinforce the importance of getting some volunteers. The time element is the problem, maybe at this stage count on staff to identify additional raters. Mr. Powers stated that our efforts and focus has to be in criteria and making them specific before going into processes.

A motion to approve the modified rating process for the 2006-2008 Title II Formula Grants Program Request for Proposals without funding for the first phase and leave it up to the staff for final volunteers was made by Mr. James Tilton and Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi and Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

UPDATE ON CORRECTIONS PLANNING AND PROGRAMS LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
(AGENDA ITEM J)
Deputy Director Marlon Yarber presented an update on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCR); Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program; and Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) as administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division.

On September 13 and 14, CSA staff conducted MIOCR Request for Proposals (RFP) workshops in San Bernardino and Sacramento, there were approximately 150 attendees. CSA received great feedback on these workshops.

As update for JABG, there are now 38 contracts in place with only one county awaiting a Resolution from their Board of Supervisors. There are 26 Set-Aside contracts. Notification was received of our JABG allocation 2006 award. The allocation is $4,014,900, which is a 7% reduction from the 2005 award of $4,326,483.

The DMC-TAP, as part of our statewide response to the core requirement, is designed to assist probation departments in understanding and identifying DMC, and foster leadership among those departments in local DMC reduction effort. CSA sought out volunteer counties to participate in the DMC effort. This RFP will hopefully afford enough funds to service five counties, perhaps six counties. On August 22 nd, CSA staff held a RFP workshop in Sacramento, 65 attendees and 23 counties participated. There was an excellent round-table discussion among the attendees.

Mr. Warner asked if the proposals will come back to the board for final recommendation.
Mr. Yarber stated that the proposals will return to the board, a rating team is in place for that project.

INFORMATION SHARING PLAN
(AGENDA ITEM K)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative requested the board’s approval of a plan for information sharing and highlighting of programs for the members in areas related to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

At the last board meeting, Mr. Harris had indicated he had had requests from board members for more information on corrections activities, particularly at the state level now that we are joined within CDCR as a single agency. As discussion ensued on that agenda item, key strategies surfaced as potential recommendations about how the educational opportunities and sharing of information might be accomplished such as: distributing via e-mail important articles; having presentations at board meetings on programs or operational topics; focusing on both the adult and juvenile entities; developing a sub-committee of the board to plan for these issues and events on on-going basis; and holding Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) meetings at local or state detention facility sites, with the site providing a presentation.

The outcome of that agenda item discussion was that staff was asked to develop a plan for the process of providing pertinent information to board members. Since the last board meeting staff has reviewed the meeting’s discussion notes and talked about ways we can be helpful, yet also reasonable within our own existing resources and the resources of our state and local constituents. Staff recognizes the varied makeup and the broad spectrum of experience that the board represents and believes that with the aid of our collaborative partners within CDCR, and consultation with our board members, we can bring forth valuable information and experiences that will provide enrichment in the area of corrections-related issues.

Staff is recommending that the board approve an Information Sharing Committee comprised of two board members. They would coordinate with CSA staff and specific staff assigned from both the Division of Adult Operations and Adult Programs, and also the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for the purpose of planning for an information sharing event for potentially each CSA board meeting, utilizing the strategies suggested by board members. They could direct staff to disseminate to CSA board members any relevant news or magazine articles affecting CSA.

Mr. Tilton suggested having CDCR’s Communication staff distribute these articles to the board members. Ms. Silbert suggested having a meeting in San Francisco or Los Angeles to meet prior to the board meeting to get to know the board members since there are lots of new staff, maybe having lunch together. Mr. Tilton stated it would be good to build a good working relationship with one another. Ms. Gilyard agreed with having an off-site to share information together and not create more work for CSA staff.

Mr. Tilton recommended that the board be put on a CDCR distribution list so they could receive the news articles and not add more work to the CSA staff. This agenda item required no action to be taken at this time. All the board members agreed.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
(AGENDA ITEM L)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative introduced staff from the San Diego County Probation Department, who provided a presentation on a selection of juvenile justice programs administered through their agency. Ms. Heller stated that San Diego Probation is the recipient of a number of both federal and state juvenile justice grants administered through our Corrections Planning and Programs Division. They have a reputation of being strong performers with their programs, some of them award-winning.

Handouts relating to this agenda item were provided by the presenter, Ms. Kim Broderick, Probation Director. Ms. Broderick presented a sampling of their juvenile justice programs, the Community Response Officer Program (CROP) and the Multisystemic Therapy (MST).

The CROP was established in February 1999 and is part of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG). There are 12 deputy probation officers and one supervisor involved in the program. Probation officers are stationed at law enforcement agencies to act as liaisons with law enforcement, schools, community organizations and the Courts. San Diego County’s funding from JABG is $214,903. A 10% match from the County is required ($23,878) for a total of $238,781. The total program cost is $1,525,220. Some of the CROP outcomes for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 included participation in over 50 sweep efforts, contacting more than 1,000 juveniles, assisting in clearing 535 juvenile detention orders, and participating in over 300 collaborative meetings with school, community based organizations and law enforcement. CROP achievements included a customer satisfaction survey which had 163 respondents and satisfaction rating of 3.73. They received the California State Juvenile Officers’ Association (CSJOA) Distinguished Program Award.

The MST was established in July 2005 and is part of Title V, Community Prevention Grants. MST is a community-based, family-driven treatment program to address antisocial and delinquent behavior. MST focuses on empowering caregivers (parents) to solve current and future problems. MST is an evidence-based treatment model. A study conducted by the University of Colorado reviewed 700 treatment programs and named MST as one of 11 “model” programs in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency and substance abuse. Taxpayers gain approximately $31,661 in subsequent criminal justice cost savings for each program participant. Adding the benefits that accrue to crime victims increases the expected net present value to $131,918 per participant, which is equivalent to a benefit-to-cost ratio of $28.33 for every dollar spent. Based on the Washington State Institute Public Policy report, a typical average cost per MST participant is about $4,743. MST is different because all services are provided in the home, school, neighborhood and community. Length of treatment averages three to five months. MST emphasizes collaboration across the systems within which youth are embedded and utilizes the strength of each of those systems to facilitate change. Some of MST outcomes for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 include number of youth served – 62 (exceeded the target); number who offended – 8 new arrests; educational improvement – 67% improved success in educational setting; change in behavior – 60% involved in pro-social activities; and completed program goals – 82% met all or some of their program goals. San Diego Probation Department’s future goals are to apply for Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Grant, apply for Title II Formula Grant to implement a gang prevention/intervention program, and apply for Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant to assist juveniles and adults who have mental illness.

Ms. Broderick, in closing, thanked CSA for their support. Mr. Remington asked about the MST team. Ms. Broderick stated that the school district that they worked with had someone from the mental health resource center with extensive MST experience, four therapeutic staff trained and certified in MST and three of those are Spanish speaking, which in San Diego is a real commodity and there is a probation officer who works as a liaison from the law enforcement perspective. Ms. Biondi asked if these kids are allowed to have a felony record. Ms. Broderick stated that the guidelines are very clear that only first-time offenders can participate.

Mr. Warner asked about the partnership with state parole and San Diego. Ms. Broderick stated that under Senate Bill 618, there is an opportunity for the partnership with adult and juvenile programs.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
(AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided an update of bills that have specifically named Corrections Standards Authority (CSA).

The Legislature convened for a special session in August focusing on prison overcrowding and adjourned at the end of August. None of the bills introduced in the special session went anywhere (stopped in their tracks). A few bills were introduced naming CSA.

Of particular interest to our local constituents, with support from State Sheriff’s and Chief Probation Officers, was a bill that was introduced into each of the Houses focusing on local detention facility construction funds for both adult and juvenile facilities, a process to be administered by CSA. This would have gone to voters for approval for bond funding. This is a significant issue to our local constituents and is likely to surface again in the not too distant future. It is not likely that the Legislature will reconvene by November 30 th (official end of session).

The legislation of interest regarding current bills was given to board members for review. This report is a list of bills that are currently in motion. Please note the “location” designation, which on this report is showing either enrolled or chaptered. The Governor has three choices of action within 30 days of receiving the enrolled bill. Within the report are four bills that name CSA specifically.

AB 1806 – State government - budget bill (chaptered) – Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program, to be administered by the Division of Juvenile Justice in consultation with CSA, to award competitive grants to counties and non-profit organizations for reentry services.

All three of the following bills are in enrollment - on the Governor’s desk awaiting his action.

AB 1849 – Sex Offenders - Would require each probation department to report to the CSA relevant statistics and information regarding the electronic monitoring of sex offenders, and the CSA would report this information the Legislature and Governor every two years. Some of the information includes recidivism rates and cost of monitoring.

SB 1128 – Sex Offender Punishment, Control, and Containment Act of 2006 - Would require the CDCR and each probation department to administer a specified sex offender risk assessment tool. The CSA would be responsible for developing standards for the training of probation personnel who would administer the assessment tool.

SB 1356 – Suicide Prevention – Would establish the California Suicide Prevention Act of 2006, and would require the State Department of Mental Health, in consultation with specified state departments including the CSA, to adopt and distribute a statewide strategic suicide prevention plan.

For more detailed information on any of the bills, visit the Legislative Counsel’s website (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov).

PUBLIC COMMENTS
(AGENDA ITEM N)
Mr. Patrick Wilson a piping engineer for a Los Angeles firm, asked to speak. Mr. Wilson asked why the model, the Delancey Street Foundation, that has been tested, demonstrated for years for its effectiveness and supported by many members of the legal law enforcement community been not formally adopted by the Corrections Standards Authority long ago. Mr. Wilson stated that the Delancey Street Foundation has been so successful providing for citizen re-entry for the last 30 years and there are only five sites in the state but 60 sites are needed to adequately deal with the returning citizens who need a place to stay once you place them on the bus with their $200.00. You kidnap them off the streets and worry constantly how they’re escaping but how much honest interest is there shown on how to put them back to recovery from incarceration. Mr. Wilson commented about the overcrowding, high recidivism rates and poor health care in the prison system and asked the board if they have played a role in developing these conditions and who else should be held responsible. Mr. Wilson stated that the Delancey Street Foundation will reduce recidivism to zero.

Mr. Tilton informed Mr. Wilson that state funding cannot be used to support the Delancey Street Foundation but, since January of this year, the Governor has been working on putting community programs, risk programs, back in place, but the Legislative did not accept those proposals in January. The special session was not just to reduce the overcrowding in prison but to put citizens in the community with programs to provide transition. Mr. Tilton suggested that Mr. Wilson support the special session to give funds and to identify programs in the system that are successful. Although these programs are not the same as the Delancey Street Foundation they are very similar. Mr. Wilson asked if these programs are successful and Mr. Tilton responded with a yes because each of these programs are evaluated and made sure that they are meeting the needs of the inmates. Mr. Remington stated that efforts have been made to duplicate the Delancey Street Foundation

The public was excused temporarily for a closed session per the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Section 11126 (e) (2) (A).

Meeting reconvened at 12:05 p.m., no further business conducted.

Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Originally signed by
YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links

Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes January 11, 2007