Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes - March 16, 2006

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, March 16, 2006
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA
(916) 445-5073

Ms. Jeanne Woodford, Chairperson of the Corrections Standards Authority, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

INTRODUCTION OF CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEMBERS
Carol Biondi
Cal Remington
Mike Prizmich
Cleo Adams
Bernie Warner
Deborah Botts
Mimi Silbert
Pamala Gilyard
David Bacigalupo

Chairperson Woodford thanked and welcomed everyone. She proceeded with a brief history of the board.

Effect July 1, 2005, Senate Bill 737 reorganized the former Youth and Adult Correctional Agency and combined the former Board of Corrections and the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training into the new Corrections Standards Authority, under the new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. She noted that this is the first meeting of the Corrections Standards Authority since the reorganization. As such, all new board members have to be sworn in.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Chairperson Woodford had all members raise their right hand and state the Oath of Office.

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Chairperson Woodford announced that due to previously scheduled events, Mr. Joe McGrath, Mr. Gary Penrod, and Mr. Robert Hernandez will not be attending today's meeting.

Chairperson Woodford asked for a motion to excuse these absences.

A motion to excuse the absences was made by Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 2005 BOARD OF CORRECTIONS MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Mr. Remington had a concern that a quorum is not available to approve the May minutes due to the fact that there are only three members present that attended the meeting.

Mr. Jerry Read, Acting Executive Director stated that an acceptable option is for members whom did not attend the previous meeting to abstain from voting. Rules allow that a majority of members casting votes approve or disapprove motions.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the May 19, 2005, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

ELECTION OF A VICE CHAIR (AGENDA ITEM B)
Mr. Jerry Read, Acting Executive Director, stated that Penal Code Section 6025 requires that the board members vote for a Vice Chair from the membership. The process is for the Chair to accept nominations from the members, if there is only one nomination, then that person is appointed. If there is more than one nominee, then a written ballot vote is taken.

Chairperson Woodford noted that any member currently not present may also be nominated. If an absent member is voted in, confirmation of acceptance to the position will need to occur.

Ms. Silbert nominated Mr. Calvin Remington.

Chairperson Woodford asked for any other nominations. No other nominations were presented.

A motion to declare the nominee, Mr. Calvin Remington elected as Vice Chair for the Corrections Standards Authority was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

2006 CSA BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE (AGENDA ITEM C)
Chairperson Woodford stated the meeting schedule was up for discussion with the option of changing the meeting dates.

Mr. Jerry Read, Acting Executive Director, gave a history of the meeting schedule. Meetings are traditionally held the third Thursday of every other month. At least half the meetings are held in Sacramento while others are held at locations where detention facilities have been built with state or federal grant funds that the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) has administered.

Due to potential scheduling conflicts with the proposed Thursday meetings, other proposed dates were given. Mondays were not good days because of required traveling on Sundays; Tuesdays are difficult due to County Board meetings; Wednesdays and Fridays are the other options.

Chairman Woodford asked for preferences and discussion. Several members recommended the meetings to be held on the third Wednesday of every other month at the staff recommended locations listed in the agenda.

Mr. Read stated that the Wednesday, May 17, 2006 meeting is scheduled in Napa. Napa County recently opened a juvenile hall and agreed to host the meeting. The July 19, 2006 meeting will be held in Sacramento. Orange County will host the meeting at their new Leadership Academy on September 20, 2006. The final meeting for 2006 would be held in Sacramento on
November 15, 2006.

A motion to adopt the 2006 Corrections Standards Authority meeting dates and locations was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

CONSENT AGENDA - FEDERAL JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION APPROVAL (AGENDA ITEM D-1);
DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT SET-ASIDE FUNDING (AGENDA ITEM D-2);
DETENTION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM UPDATE
(AGENDA ITEM D-3)
Mr. Jerry Read, Acting Executive Director, explained that due to the time sensitive nature of items D-1 and D-2, they had to be acted on during the ten months that the board did not meet. Secretary Rod Hickman, Chairman of the CSA board at the time, authorized these items on an emergency basis.

Agenda Item D-1 simply allowed CSA staff to submit the application for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Funding. It normally would have been brought to the board; however, since the board lacked a quorum and the deadline of applying would have passed, Chairman Hickman gave authorization to process this application.

The second item, Agenda Item D-2, gave CSA staff the authority to distribute $2.1 million in unallocated Juvenile Accountability Block Grant funds to cities and counties that normally would not have been funded because they don't meet the threshold for getting a direct award. The federal guidelines allow CSA to distribute unallocated funds to those entities.
Chairman Hickman's approval was received.

Agenda Item D-3, the Federal and State Construction Grants are generally handled as an informational item but as this is a new board, staff included it as a consent item. In 1998, the board voted to bestow ministerial authority to staff to approve grant timeline changes, minor scope changes and to award any reverted money to various projects pursuant to Penal Code
Section 6025.6.

Though Items D-1 and D-2 were approved under an emergency action by Former Chairperson Hickman they are now being presented to the full board. Presenting these items allows board members to concur or to have any objections noted on the record.

CSA staff recommended that all three items be considered in one motion.

Ms. Silbert asked to have her concerns noted on record that a State Advisory Group (SAG) has not been appointed by the Governor and any distribution of federal block grant funds requires approval of the SAG.

Ms. Lynda Frost, Field Representative, stated that the application notes that eight members have been appointed to the SAG. The application included information explaining that the SAG has not had an official meeting; however, staff has attempted to keep them informed on efforts and all the federal programs. Staff received approval from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to use the CSA board in lieu of the SAG until the SAG was appointed. It is possible that OJJDP will request an update on the status of the SAG but staff was forthcoming about the situation in the application.

A motion to accept all three items with the caveat that there was concern about the State Advisory Group approval of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant disbursement of funds was made by Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

REPORT ON STAFF SAFETY EVALUATIONS (AGENDA ITEM E)
Mr. Don Allen, Field Representative, provided an informational update on the Staff Safety Evaluations that were conducted at the Preston Youth Correctional Facility, O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility, DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facility and N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility.

Mr. Allen explained that in January 2005, Correctional Officer, Manuel Gonzalez was fatally stabbed at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California. Two critical reports followed this incident that identified several issues regarding staff safety at the institution. At the March 2005 meeting of the Board of Corrections, Chairman Rod Hickman, requested staff develop a proposal to conduct staff safety reviews at all of the state's adult and juvenile detention facilities. This proposal was presented to the board at the May 2005 meeting. The proposal included convening panel of subject matter experts to establish the criteria and timeline by which the state's prison and youth detention facilities would be evaluated and the formation of an evaluation team. The Staff Safety Audit Criteria Panel is included in Attachment A.

Staff conducted a nationwide search for examples of staff safety reviews to assist the panel in developing criteria; however, no examples were identified, only security audits had been done. The panel agreed the process should result in meaningful recommendations to management rather than strictly being an audit. The panel recommended that the evaluations focus on areas that have not been audited in the past, instead of repeating an audit. The process was to focus on assaults on staff and if necessary, be broadened to include other factors. A matrix was developed to review incident reports to try and identify common themes or issues that would be apparent from reviewing the report. Staff interviews were to be informally conducted at the worksite. Comments were to be elicited from all staff levels; management, supervision, and line staff.

In June 2005, the evaluation team met for orientation, operational planning and finalizing of the schedule. Evaluations have been completed in four of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities. Overall the experience was very positive; staff of all levels were very cooperative and eager to share their thoughts and concerns.

A total of 108 issues were identified during the four reviews. Some of the issues were facility specific, many were common. Systemic problems included insufficient staffing, insufficient training, outdated policies, poor equipment and deferred facility maintenance. By
December 2005, representative from DJJ had reviewed the findings and wrote corrective action plans. With few exceptions, the responders acknowledged the issues identified in the evaluation were appropriate. A summary of the evaluation findings are included in Attachment C and D.

Mr. Remington asked if there were similar safety issues that occurred in each institution or if they were unique. Mr. Allen stated that there were some unique issues in certain facilities based on the age of the physical plant, but generally the majority of the issues were similar, and included primarily training, policies, and supervision.

Mr. Warner asked if the adult facility safety inspections would be brought to the board in future meetings. Mr. Allen said yes.

Mr. Jay Aguas, Assistant Director, Division of Juvenile Justice, was available to answer any questions in regards to the corrective action plan. Mr. Aguas complemented the CSA staff for their professionalism. He reported that the first status report is due to his office today. An initial evaluation will be conducted by him and his staff with a follow up of an on-site visit to ensure that the changes have occurred.

Mr. Aguas stated that the DJJ corrective action plan is three parts: practice, facilities, and relationships. Practice is how things are documented and how staff conducted themselves on a daily basis. The second part relates to facilities such as maintenance issues with old facilities, transportation vehicles that have too many miles on them, etc. The last part is the relationship with education, treatment of wards, etc.

Mr. Aguas informed the board that there is a five-year plan relative to the reform efforts including a transition to smaller housing units. In the short term, the building of enough modern, state-of-the-art facilities for juvenile offenders is not realistic, consequently the existing facilities will continue to be used but substantial changes will occur.

Mr. Warner stated that future updates would be given to the board on the monitoring of the corrective action plan. In terms of the facilities, DJJ is in the process of developing design requirements but at best it will be 2009-2010 before construction begins. DJJ will look into modular space including space for small groups to enhance the rehabilitative environment in each of the facilities. In addition, DJJ will be introducing new services and new staff to work in smaller housing units.

Ms. Silbert had some concern regarding the gang pressures that a youth experiences when entering the juvenile facilities. A systemic change is needed as it is currently difficult for a youth to avoid becoming part of a gang and this contributes to the safety issues.

Mr. Warner agreed with Ms. Silbert that the gang issue is very complex. To combat this the department is moving away from a classification system that places youth by their age, gender and gang affiliation and move towards an individualized treatment plan. Unfortunately this will not occur over night.

PILOT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT & ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE REQUEST - SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIVING UNIT CAPACITY (AGENDA ITEM F)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, presented a progress report on the pilot project for the size of living units at the San Diego County Probation Department's East Mesa Juvenile Hall. Ms. Aboytes gave some background on this agenda item. Both Title 15 and Title 24 have regulations that allow for innovative approaches to meet or exceed the intent of regulations. The pilot project is a short-term method to apply an innovative concept in the operation, management or design of a local juvenile or adult facility pending application to and approval by this board. The board sets criteria so that an evaluation can be made throughout that process. After the evaluation period, generally one year, the pilot project can transition or be converted to an alternate means of compliance, a more permanent approach. If that approach is successful and has statewide applicability it could be considered for incorporation into the next regulatory revision process.

The San Diego County Probation Department was awarded a state funded construction grant to build East Mesa Juvenile Hall. During the design phrase of the project, it was determined that they could raise the capacity of the juvenile hall by increasing the capacity of nine of ten of their living units from 30 to 40. A tenth living unit would remain at twenty for an administrative segregation unit. This is the second county to request a pilot project/alternate means of compliance to exceed the capacity of living units. Orange County has been granted an alternate means of compliance.

At the May 2000 Board of Corrections meeting, the San Diego County Probation Department requested pilot project status for nine 40-bed housing units at their brand new East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. A pilot project was required because Title 24 regulations currently require that living units for juvenile halls not exceed 30 minors. This is the second of two progress reports that was required as the result of the pilot project status.

The East Mesa Juvenile Hall is in compliance with all the other physical plant requirements for juvenile halls and also complies with the Title 15 requirements of one staff for every ten minors during the day and one staff for 30 minors during sleeping hours. The required evaluation component was provided in Attachment A. The evaluation period was from July 1, 2004 to
July 1, 2005 and included statistics regarding the frequency of specific incidents at East Mesa compared to those same incidents in a 30-bed unit at Kearny Mesa Juvenile Hall. Staff recommends the board grant an Alternate Means of Compliance allowing the San Diego Probation Department to exceed the 30-bed living unit maximum at the East Mesa Juvenile Hall. Craig Stover, Probation Director from the San Diego County Probation Department, was introduced to answer any questions.

Ms. Biondi's had some concern in regards to approving larger units rather smaller units when the State has made a commitment for smaller units in their facilities. Ms. Biondi's asked if there would be four staff with 40 juveniles at all times.

Ms. Aboytes stated that the staffing regulation allows for flexibility. It is recognized that the minors are in a classroom most of the day but if medical attention is needed an escort is available. Rovers go from unit to unit as needed. Ms Aboytes mentioned that on a typical day the minors have 240 minutes of school, outdoor exercise, along with various other programs.

Mr. Stover assured the board that the staffing level has never fallen below Title 15 requirements and that besides the fully credited education programs, minors also attend programs led by staff such as chemical dependency, anger management, Character Counts, and Looking for a Change.

Ms. Silbert commented that the programming sounded excellent and that it was great that the staff were involved. She also had some concern that the intent of construction grant money was to build smaller facilities and get more kids into the communities.

Mr. Stover passed out a list of incidents comparing incidents in a 40-bed unit at East Mesa and with a 30-bed unit at Kearny Mesa. The intent of the comparison was to show that there is little difference between the two units in the number of incidents.

Ms. Aboytes mentioned that while staff has asked that the board approve the Alternate Means of Compliance for San Diego County, regulations allow the board to determine approval on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Warner asked what the implication would be if the board was to not approve this. Mr. Read stated that there are options; the board could disapprove the Alternate Means of Compliance or extend the pilot project with or without other conditions. If the board chooses to deny the Alternate Means of Compliance or an extension to the pilot project, San Diego would have to go to a 30-person living unit because that's the maximum the regulation allows.

Ms. Aboytes stated extending the pilot project means that San Diego County would not be out of compliance with regulations. The board would set the timeline of the extension and the board's approval is needed prior to any changes.

Mr. Warner made a motion to approve another conditional extension and indicated that he would like San Diego County to do a presentation at a future board meeting. He would like them research alternatives to detention and be prepared to further discuss the population issue.
Mr. Prizmich seconded the motion. Further discussion was held for clarification of this motion. Ms. Biondi asked that the timeline be six months. She also expressed her disagreement in regards to the extension, stating that continuing a pilot project for additional time would not be beneficial. Mr. Remington requested feedback from staff regarding how this pilot project was handled so the board can come to some consensus of how to deal with these types of issues that may arise in the future. After all discussion, Mr. Warner amended his motion to say that at the next board meeting, staff will develop some kind of criteria that the board could evaluate to determine the effects of the larger nine units. Mr. Prizmich seconded the motion. Vote was ten yes, one nay. Motion was carried.

A motion to table this matter until the next board meeting for an evaluation report to be given at the May 17, 2006 CSA Board Meeting with a possible six month continuation by Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE REQUEST - GLENN COUNTY PROBATION - CLASSROOM SIZE (AGENDA ITEM G)
Mr. Bob Takeshta, Acting Deputy Director, provided a status report on the pilot project for Glenn County Juvenile Hall's reduced classroom size. The county is requesting to convert this pilot project to an Alternate Means of Compliance for Glenn County Probation Department to use a computer lab as a classroom, although it does not meet Title 24 standards, which requires 160 square feet for a teacher's desk space.

In May 1999 the Glenn County Probation Department applied for and received a Violent Offender Incarceration Grant to add 12 additional beds to their 8-bed juvenile hall. This expansion would increase their total capacity to 20 beds. This expansion included the addition of a classroom for 20 minors. During the time of construction, the architect reviewed the plans and found that they could add two additional rooms at no additional construction cost. Glenn County officials decided to add 14 beds, increasing their total capacity to 22 beds. They also added a computer lab adjacent to the classroom. The computer classroom had sufficient floor space for two students, but lacked the 160 square feet required for a teacher and teacher's desk. In
July 2001, Glenn County applied to the board for a pilot project, which was granted. Since opening in May 2004, they have been able to provide in excess of 500 hours of individualized time for 200 students with special needs, i.e. special reading groups. In the opinion of staff, the programs are very successful. Ms. Linda Shelton, Chief Probation Officer of Glenn County was present to answer any questions.

Mr. Remington asked Ms. Shelton to explain how the minors are rotated into the computer lab from the main classroom for one-on-one time. Ms. Shelton said the minors receive instruction in the computer lab for a variety of reasons. She said the computer lab has been used to teach English as a second language and an accredited GED program is available. Recently a graduation was held in the juvenile hall and one young lady used the skills learned in the computer lab to do her presentation on PowerPoint. Supervised Internet classes are also offered. This is a great opportunity for researching current events and writing essays on issues. Individualized reading programs, homework assignments, and after school assistance are some other ways the computer lab is used.

Mr. Prizmich asked if there are any downsides to not maintaining the square footage that the regulations require. Ms. Shelton informed him that this is not a problem because the teacher's desk is right outside the door, so that you can actually see both sides at the same time. Part of the lab area is a workstation for the aide to work from as well. Everyone is thrilled with this set up. Mr. Prizmich was delighted that so far there aren't any downsides and commended
Ms. Shelton for her efforts.

A motion to approve the Glenn County Probation Department's request to convert the Pilot Project for a computer lab adjacent to the facility classroom to an Alternate Means of Compliance was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

REQUEST FOR PILOT PROJECT STATUS - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY - DORMITORY CAPACITY (AGENDA ITEM H)
Mr. Bob Takeshta, Acting Deputy Director presented a request for a pilot project, on behalf of San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department to increase the maximum capacity of eight dormitories from 64 inmates to 70 inmates at the Adelanto Detention Center. Mr. Takeshta provided some background about the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. He said the department has experienced a rather large increase in population with the growth of San Bernardino County so they have been trying to seek alternatives to alleviate their jail crowding problem. In the summer of 2005, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department entered into an agreement with the Maranatha Corporation to purchase an existing community correctional facility that contained (among other housing units) four large dormitories that housed approximately 150 to 200 state inmates each. CSA staff informed the San Bernardino's County Sheriff's Department that the large dormitories were not compliant with Title 24 regulations, and they would need to structurally reduce the size of the dormitories. San Bernardino developed a plan to divide each of the large dorms into two housing units. During the time of construction, San Bernardino County officials realized there were adequate toilets, washbasins, showers, dayroom space, and living space inside each dormitory to accommodate up to 70 inmates. As a result, they contacted CSA staff to discuss the possibility of submitting a proposal to increase the capacity in the affected dorms from 64 to 70 as a pilot project.

In this particular circumstance the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department made a large investment, about $3.8 million to improve the facilities. The units now meet all applicable
Title 24 regulations pertaining to dormitories and dayrooms except the regulation limiting dormitory capacity to no more than 64 inmates. Staff recommends approval of San Bernardino County's pilot project request. The approval of this project will not affect any program activities or exercise and recreation. Lieutenant Kevin Lacy from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department was present to answer any questions.

Ms. Biondi asked if there are currently 70 or 64 inmates housed in the dormitories. Mr. Lacy responded that in half of the dorms there are 70 but in the other half, there are 64. Mr. Warner asked if there has been a change in staffing requirements. Mr. Lacy clarified that the facility did not open until January 13 and it did not open to full capacity. He said it is currently operating near capacity and the original staffing plan is adequate. Chairperson Woodford asked what types of offenders are housed there. Mr. Lacy stated that the majority of the inmates are non-sentenced. Ms. Biondi had some concerns about the assessment of the inmates, in regards to mental health and gang issues. Mr. Lacy informed the board that the inmates are classified prior to arrival and they only receive the lowest level offenders. He also stated that inmates with medical issues are not transferred to this facility.

Mr. Warner confirmed that if the board approves this pilot project, after a 12-month period a final report to the board would be presented summarizing the data collected of incidents occurring and population. Ms. Biondi still had some concerns that in new construction this would not be an option, so why allow it in this situation. Mr. Takeshta responded in saying that the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has made a major investment by trying to find creative solutions in their overcrowding situation. They were meeting all regulations required when this opportunity arose. With the type of structure and offenders this facilities holds, it cannot be compared to other facilities. The board can assess through this pilot project what the successes are and what the failures may be. If successful, this could generate discussion and evaluation for future regulation revisions of Title 24.

Mr. Warner asked what the implications would be if the board was to disapprove the proposal. Mr. Takeshta replied that they would have to revert back and meet the standards. Mr. Warner requested that if approved, a follow-up recommendation to evaluate staffing levels for the 70 inmate dormitories. Mr. Takeshta stated that any information requested by the board would be brought back to the board for review.

Chairperson Woodford stated that the classification process being used to put these offenders in this facility is actually a safer situation for them. Mr. Lacy believed it was and stated that during the experience of the racial disturbance in Los Angeles County, it did not spill over to this facility. Carefully screening of inmates being sent to this facility is extremely important.

A motion to approve the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Pilot Project request for Title 24, Section 470A.2.8 - Dormitories, to increase the maximum capacity of Dormitories A, B, E, F, G, H, K, and L to 70 inmates was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Deborah Botts. The motion carried.

REGULATION REVISION PROCESS - MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCAL JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES, TITLES 15 & 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (AGENDA ITEM I-1)
Mr. Bob Takeshta, Acting Deputy Director requested board approval to submit the draft revisions of Titles 15 and 24 to the Office of Administrative Law, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

In January 2005, Board of Corrections members directed staff to begin the regulations review process for the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities. Former Chairman Hickman appointed Mr. Remington as the Chair of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC). The ESC is an adhoc committee that oversees large projects, carries out specified tasks and submits findings and recommendations to the board. The ESC tries to include a broad cross section of constituents, shareholders, and stakeholders together in the process. Work groups are created to examine the large number of issues that arise. The ESC then reports their recommendations to the board.

Staff requested approval to submit the ESC's recommendations to the Office of Administrative Law (Attachment C), to proceed with the public comment period, and to hold a public hearing within that 45-day public hearing period. Staff requested that the ESC Chair Mr. Remington be approved to Chair those public hearings, and asked for approval of the revised timeline, Attachment B.

Ms. Silbert commended the ESC for the thorough job done. Mr. Remington stated that it is an on-going process. Mr. Warner asked what the procedure would be after board approval.
Mr. Takeshta explained that after the draft revisions were submitted and the public comment period is held, the ESC will return to the board for approval to the adopt the final regulations.

Ms. Biondi asked what the process would be for the board to ask questions or make comments about the changes to the regulations. Mr. Takeshta informed her that he could be contacted directly.

A motion to adopt the revisions recommended by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to the Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Titles 15 and 24 for the purpose of beginning the public comment period; directing staff to commence with the public comment period; approving the revised timeline; and appoint the panel chair and allowing staff to schedule public comment hearings based on the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) submittals was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

REGULATION REVISION PROCESS - MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SELECTION AND TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONS, TITLE 15, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (AGENDA ITEM I-2)
Ms. Debbie Rives, Acting Deputy Director reported that this is an action agenda item regarding the draft regulations revisions for the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) in Title 15. In January 2005, the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) board directed CSA staff to begin the standards review process for the STC and Sheriff Prizmich was appointed Chair of that Executive Steer Committee (ESC). In February 2005, a list of recommended members and a proposed timeline was developed and was brought back to the board in March 2005. The CSA board approved the ESC membership, Attachment A, and the proposed timeline, Attachment B.

In April 2005, the ESC met and reviewed the regulations and identified some issues and language revisions which they referred to CSA staff to incorporate into the regulations. In June 2005, the ESC discussed these revisions and approved the proposed draft regulations, Attachment C. Staff is requesting the board to adopt the revisions recommended by the ESC and direct staff to proceed to the public comment period, and to approve the revised timeline.

Mr. Prizmich commended the ESC members for doing a great job and expressed his appreciation. Ms. Silbert asked if any attempt was being made to restore the money back into STC training. Mr. Prizmich said a continued effort is being made in supporting the restoration of these funds. Mr. Prizmich clarified that training is still occurring, though the cost of training has been absorbed by the agency itself and commended staff for their efforts. Ms. Biondi also informed the board of the Mental Health Services Act, which may allow funding for training for county correctional staff. This is Proposition 63 and information can be obtained from the State Department of Mental Health.

A motion to adopt the revisions recommended by the ESC to the Minimum Standards for Standards and Training for Corrections Program, Title 15, California Code of Regulations for the purpose of initiating the public comment period; directing staff to commence with the public comment period; approving the revised timeline; and adopting the proposed tentative public hearing dates was made by Sheriff Mike Prizmich and seconded by Mr. David Bacigalupo. The motion carried.

UPDATE ON THE JUVENILE PROBATION AND CAMPS FUNDING PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM L)
Ms. Lynda Frost, Field Representative, provided an informational overview of the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding Program. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) assumed this responsibility in August 2005. The CSA is relatively new to this program but county probation departments are not. Except for a switch in the funding source from Federal to State dollars, this program essentially mirrors the effort previously funded with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds.

Approximately $168.7 million was dedicated to probation services serving at-risk youth, juvenile offenders and their families in all 58 counties and an additional $32.7 was appropriated to counties that operate a juvenile camp or ranch. Funds from both must be spent on services that fall into one of the 23 categories in the statute. The all-county allocations are outlined in the agenda item. These allocations are population driven and reflect the amounts counties claimed in 2004-05. They range from $584 for Alpine County to over $67 million for Los Angeles County. For the camp funds, counties receive a share of the total based on the average camp population in each quarter. The allocations for the 27 counties that operated camps in the first quarter of this fiscal year are outlined in Attachment B. These allocations will change as counties establish camps, and as the camp population increases or decreases. As with all major programs administered by the CSA, the process for getting this program established involved the active participation of Chief Probation Officers and other stakeholders. As of this morning, 52 counties had submitted their agreements. After counties have an executed agreement, they can begin submitting invoices using the CSA on-line invoicing process for the all-county allocations. CSA has processed over $73.7 million of invoices submitted. The next step is to get the few counties remaining under agreement and then begin the process all over again for funds that are appropriated in 2006-07 for this program.

APPROVAL TO SUBMIT TITLE II FEDERAL FORMULA GRANT APPLICATION (3-YEAR PLAN) TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM J)
Mr. Marlon Yarber, Field Representative requested approval to submit an application to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for Fiscal Year 2006 Title II Formula Grant Funds. Although state allocations have not been finalized by OJJDP, it is anticipated that California will receive approximately $7.7 million in Title II funds from this application. At least two-thirds of the funds awarded to each state are intended to support state and local delinquency prevention and intervention efforts and juvenile justice system improvements. OJJDP awards formula grants to states based on their proportionate population under age 18. There are four core requirements for eligibility outlined in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) - they are deinstitutionalization of status offenders; separation of juveniles from adult offenders; removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups; and addressing efforts to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). DMC is essentially an initiative that the federal government has led to ensure fair treatment of all youth at each stage of the juvenile justice continuum.

The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) is responsible for the statewide administration of the Formula Grants program and development of the 3-year State Plan. DMC utilizes a systems model, based on the recommendation and approval of the CSA board in March 2005. Based on the lessons learned through the initial period of implementation, this application and enhancement seeks to broaden the scope of DMC through increased financial support for participating counties. The proposed project will increase funding from $200,000 to
$1 million; increasing the amount of counties that can participate from three to six; extending the time period of implementation from one year to three; and moving the bulk of the decision-making for selection of expert consultants to the locals.

If the state does not comply with the core requirements, it could result in a reduction in the award. Non-compliance with each requirement can result in a 20% reduction of future grant awards for each requirement and/or the federal government can require 50% of the award be dedicated towards compliance efforts. The 3-year plan is included with the agenda item.

At least two-thirds of the funds must be distributed to local government, Native American tribes, and community-based organizations. Mr. Warner asked if the state will receive it's one-third. Mr. Yarber stated that historically it is dedicated towards other state programs such as DMC, compliance monitoring efforts, planning and administration, and to support the State Advisory Group (SAG). The state would not necessarily be excluded from utilizing this one-third.

Ms. Silbert reiterated that there is no SAG currently constituted and law requires it. Ms. Silbert had some concern with DMC compliance. Mr. Yarber stated that CSA was forthcoming with OJJDP in regards to the SAG activities. An agreement was received to allow the CSA board to provide the approval.

Mr. Yarber informed the board that the award is for three years, October 1, 2005 to
September 30, 2008 and each year CSA applies for the funding. Mr. Warner expressed that the report Mr. Yarber presented is well written with a lot of information.

A motion to approve the submittal of the federal fiscal year 2006 application and State Plan for the Title II Formula Grants Program was made by Ms. Carol Biondi and seconded by Ms. Pamala Gilyard. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF ALLOCATION OF $7.7 MILLION IN FEDERAL JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES (AGENDA ITEM K)
Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative presented a proposal to distribute $7,706,562 in unallocated Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) funds to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Juvenile Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the JABG at the federal level. The purpose of the JABG program is to strengthen the juvenile system through accountability focused efforts. There are 16 key areas that they reference as purpose areas for which state or local entities can focus their funding efforts. The areas can be from construction, to accountability programming, to training of staff and various focal points that cross the whole accountability spectrum.

Seventy-five percent of the funding is distributed annually on non-competitive direct allocations to cities and counties based on a predetermined federal formula. Much that is left is discretionary funding to meet the states needs and priorities. JABG allows funds to benefit any youth still involved with the juvenile justice system, with no age cap. With the purpose of the JABG program being to strengthen the juvenile system, promoting the reform efforts for the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is right on target.

DJJ has developed a detailed proposed plan, which is in Attachment A. It addresses critical needs within the system. Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) staff has been working with DJJ staff in developing the plan, and with the board's permission, would like to continue working together throughout the expenditure process. This combined effort has helped to ensure joint commitment on appropriate and time sensitive projects towards meeting the critical deadline of November 30, 2006.

Elizabeth Siggins, Chief of Juvenile Justice Policy was present to address the board and answer any questions. Ms. Siggens stated that the DJJ houses the highest-risk, highest-need youth in the state. There have been numerous problems over the years. Unfortunately due to decades of neglect, the department has been under serious criticism, a state taxpayer lawsuit, and numerous investigations by the Inspector General's office identify serious problems.

In December 2004 the governor committed to reforming the system. The reform includes areas such as mental health, education, general corrections, sex behavior treatment, and health care. The governor's proposed budget identifies approximately $50 million in proposals to address many of these needs and fundamentally reforming the system. The proposal for the JABG funding identifies some of the pressing issues and will lay a foundation for the rest of the reform. The plan is to reduce living unit size, increase staff but also to create additional program and education space. Some of the modular space identified in the proposal is a supplement to what is in the governor's proposed budget plan.

Ms. Silbert asked if any of the program models are based on living units that program together with a reward system influence. Ms. Siggins explained that part of the problem now is that the youth are placed in living units based on age, gender, and gang affiliation. Initial assessments are completed but it does not tie to the individualized treatment plan. Phase One of this plan is to create a positive peer cultural and work to keep youth on the same unit and bring services to them, so that they get a sense of accountability and responsibility.

A motion to authorize grant funding to be disbursed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as specified was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Ms. Carol Biondi. The motion carried.

UPDATE ON THE JOB FAMILIES PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM M)
Ms. Debbie Rives, Acting Deputy Director provided an informational overview of the Job Families Project currently conducted by Corrections Standards Authority (CSA).

The goal of this project is to develop selection and training standards that are fair, legally defensible, and job related to the state correctional peace officer classifications. CSA was tasked with this responsibility in July 2005. Currently, CSA staff has been working in collaboration with the California State University Sacramento (CSUS) to develop a foundation for this project.

The scope of the project consists of setting standards for entry-level and advanced rank and file correctional positions up to second-line supervisory. CSA will be responsible for approximately 47 different job classifications that have been identified. Traditionally job analyses take one to two years to complete. CSA is taking an innovative approach to complete the job analysis more quickly and effectively without jeopardizing the integrity of the product.

The approach involves identifying the similarities between job classifications, identifying the "building blocks" or core tasks and Knowledge/Skills/Abilities and Other Characteristics (KSAO) common to the different classifications and how they may be combined into groups or job "families".

The goal is to capitalize on the similarities for better efficiency and less duplication of efforts while respecting the uniqueness of each individual job. The approach is not a new concept and has been used before in the military and in research studies but this will be the first application that we are aware of in the correctional field.

During the past months, CSA staff has been working with CSUS staff to develop the methodology that will be used for the project. This has involved gathering historical data on all of the job classifications, developing a task or KASO library for knowledge and skills. Currently, over 14,000 tasks from the different classifications have been identified. Those tasks will be clustered based on functional areas and will be linked back to the individual jobs and to determine the level of overlap of job content to confirm the job families.

The Job Families Project will lead to the development of selection and training standards for each job family, the development of criteria for monitoring the effectiveness of selection and training standards and to develop the protocol for on-going maintenance of the standards. CSA staff has been actively engaged in the planning process and also have done extensive data gathering to launch the project. The focus for the next step is to incorporate the largest cluster: the correctional officer, youth correctional officer and youth correctional counselor positions. In the future, staff will be gathering information from the field by doing on-site observations, facility tours, interviews, and focus groups with the subject-matter experts to refine the data.

The end product is a dynamic task or KASO library that will be used for both state and local agencies. Selection tools, such as written exams, and physical ability testing, that are based on current information will be available. We will have training standards that will assist with the academy curriculum development of instructional objectives.

Benefits of this project will be a legal defensible product, which will enhance the quality of the workforce, reduce the risk of litigation, provide standards based on research that is consistent with professional best practices, provide common language that is applicable state-wide and a task library that will allow for the continual update of job analyses. The bottom line is hiring the right people for the right job at the right time.

Periodical updates will be presented to the CSA board on the progress and development in the area.

Ms. Biondi asked if there was an option to change the name and replace "family" in the Job Families Project to another word. Ms. Rives stated that this project was in the developing stage and this request will be taken into consideration.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM N)
Mr. Aaron Long, Acting Deputy Director provided an update of recent legislative activity. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) actively tracks and analyzes proposed legislation that will directly impact CSA and its programs. We recognize that many of CSA's partners have an interest in legislation beyond those measures that directly impact CSA.

As an aid to our many partners, CSA uses an automated legislative tracking service to identify legislation that may be of interest. The result is the attached compilation of bills that includes the bill number, the author, and a short digest of each bill. In many cases, CSA staff has not thoroughly reviewed these bills. If you board members are interested in additional information about any of the bills listed in this report, visit the Legislative Counsel's website at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Mr. Long touched on some of the bills presented. Assembly Bill (AB) 2662 is about probation officer's standards and training. CSA is currently watching this bill but at the moment it is specific to Los Angeles County only.

AB 2819 is a bill related to credits for inmate work release programs. Existing law requires that for every six days of confinement, one day shall be deducted from a prisoner's period of confinement for compliance with the rules, and one day shall be deducted for satisfactory performance of labor. This bill would apply these deductions to prisoners participating in work-release programs. The intent of the bill is to encourage eligible inmates to participate in work release programs as an alternative to incarceration.

HR 4466 is a federal bill proposing to regulate inmate phone call costs. This bill would impact state and local correctional facilities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Read explained that anyone requesting to address the board may do so during the public comments period. This time is made available at the end of the agenda items. Comments are limited to ten minutes. Any information not on the agenda may be tabled for action at another board meeting. However, the board will listen to any comments during the public comment period. Ms. Woodford added that board may respond in a written format within a prescribed period of time if the request is made. Mr. Read explained that the audience is generally asked to sign in but are not required.

Mr. Read asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Mr. Mike Jimenez, the current President of the California Corrections Peace Officer Association (CCPOA) requested to speak. Mr. Jimenez spoke about the training standards of the state correctional peace officers that work in the prisons and the juvenile justice facilities.

Mr. Jimenez stated he was a little taken back that since the passage of Senate Bill 737, which transferred the responsibility of training from the Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST) branch to the CSA board, nothing has been done. He believes that it absolutely impossible at this moment that we are in compliance with state and federal law in regards to the application of apprenticeship standards that are mandated to the Correctional Peace Officer classification. The CCPOA contract gives clear directions on how training standards exist, how they are modified, and how officers move through the pay classifications. Mr. Jimenez informed the board that due to the absence of an apprenticeship committee, it is difficult for certain standards to be met to finish the apprenticeship program. The May 2005 Inspector General's report listed some key elements ensuring that all participants in the apprenticeship program rotate through a variety of work assignments and receive appropriate training in all aspects of the occupation, systematic discipline of apprentices for failing to fulfill obligations on the job or related instructions, including provisions for fair hearings.

Mr. Jimenez questioned the Jobs Families presentation. His understanding of the community college program is that all physical standards and psychological standards will occur during training and this is a violation of the law because it is suppose to be done prior to training.

Ms. Woodford asked if Mr. Jimenez would like a written response and offered him an opportunity to contact her office to make an appointment to meet and discuss these issue with her. Mr. Jimenez did request a written response. Ms. Woodford stated that the board would have a chance to review the response.

A motion to adjourn the Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by Ms. Deborah Botts and seconded by
Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 12:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Originally signed by

YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
Jeanne Woodford, Chair, CDCR Secretary
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County
Calvin Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County
Deborah Botts, Chief Probation Officer, San Benito
Mimi Silbert, Ph.D., Local Community-Based Correctional Program
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff

CSA Staff
Jerry Read, Executive Director (A)
Bob Takeshta, Deputy Director (A), FSO
Aaron Long, Deputy Director (A), CPP
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director (A), STC
Don Allen, Field Representative
Marlon Yarber, Field Representative
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Lynda Frost, Field Representative
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant

Guests
Stephen Ruehmann, Stern, Van Vleck & Ruehmann, LLP
Gracey Steple, Sacramento Probation
Bill Fenton, Alameda County Probation
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff's Department
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Lynn Nenring, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Emmitt Watkins, Fresno County Sheriff's Department
Craig Stover, San Diego County Probation
Linda Shelton, Glenn County Probation
Brandon Thompson, Glenn County Probation
Dana Fredendall, Riverside Sheriff's Department
Jay Aguas, CDCR, Division of Juvenile Justice
Mike Jimenez, CCPOA
Elizabeth Siggins, CDCR, Juvenile Justice Policy
Doug Papagni, Madera Department of Corrections