Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes November 15, 2006

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2006
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

Mr. Calvin Remington, Vice Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.

Vice Chairman Remington directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant of CSA to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:

David Runnels
Bernard Warner
David Bacigalupo
Michael Prizmich
Gary Penrod
William Powers
Calvin Remington
John Ingrassia
Carol Biondi
Pamala Gilyard
Cleotha Adams

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Campos announced the absences of board members and reasons as to their absence.
Mr. Tilton was out of state for some training.
Mr. Hernandez had an emergency at his office with regards to inmate population.
Ms. Petersen and Ms. Silbert had some medical concerns.
Mr. Scott was scheduled for court this week.

Vice Chairman Remington asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absence was made by
Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Mr. Michael Prizmich.
The motion carried.

PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE
Vice Chairman Remington announced that board member Mr. Michael Prizmich was retiring as of December 2006 and wanted to acknowledged and present him with a certificate from CSA for serving as a member of this board this last year. Mr. Prizmich stated that is has been and honor to serve and thanked the CSA and the State Sheriffs for their dedication.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Mr. Remington, Vice Chairman asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes.

Mr. John Ingrassia asked that page 3, agenda item C section, last paragraph be amended upon verification of the recordings, from “recidivism is not going to happen” to where he believes it should state recidivism will happen. There was no other discussion or change. Mr. Remington asked for approval of the minutes with condition of change stated by Mr. Ingrassia.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the September 19, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority meeting with the condition of the change was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by
Mr. John Ingrassia. The motion carried.

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY AND STATE ADVISORY GROUP UPDATES (AGENDA ITEM B)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director announced that Mr. Alberto S. Roldan, Deputy Appointments Secretary, Office of Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger was scheduled to give the Board an update on the Governor’s appointments for the CSA board members and State Advisory Group (SAG) members but unfortunately was not able to attend.

Mr. Harris informed the Board that there are currently 16 CSA board members. Recently one member resigned and two will be retiring by the beginning of next year. Two new candidates have been interviewed and awaiting approval. The SAG has eight members of the 15 required. Two names have been submitted to the Governor for approval and five other names have been submitted. These appointments must be completed for federal funding purposes by March 2007.

IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 478 FEMALE INMATES AND WARDS MANAGEMENT OF PREGNANT INMATES AND MINORS; LIMITATION ON RESTRAINTS
(AGENDA ITEM C)
Deputy Director, Bob Takeshta informed the Board that this is an action item. The CSA is mandated to implement regulations governing the management of pregnant inmates and minors regarding diet, childbirth and infant care education, and limiting the use of restraints. To comply with these requirements, staff is requesting 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. Due to these newly developed regulations applying to the field for adult regulations and juvenile regulations, staff is requesting that the Board consider appointing a member representing the adult facilities and one representing the juvenile facilities.

Assembly Bill 478, Penal Code 6030, and Welfare and Institutions Code 222 are to ensure a balanced, nutritious diet and vitamins recommended by a doctor and to provide education regarding childbirth and infant care. Some of the subject-matter experts that would be recommended to the ESC would be an obstetrician, pediatrician, and a nutritionist.

The board has taken an active roll in bringing in subject-matter experts, local administrators, managers, experts in the field to jointly develop the relevancy of the regulations. The standards need to provide a clear baseline of performance while providing flexibility for each jurisdiction to comply with regulations.

Staff is proposing that the Board considers the following approach for the implementation of this mandate; commence the proposed regulation development process immediately upon the appointment of the CSA members to chair and co-chair the ESC, Mr. Cal Remington has volunteered to chair and Mr. John Ingrassia has volunteered to co-chair; empower the chair and co-chair to work with staff to identify and appoint appropriate local subject matter experts as members of the ESC and to formulate a timeline for the process; authorize the ESC to meet prior to the January 2007 Corrections Standards Authority meeting to develop regulations; and instruct the ESC chair to update the Board, at its January 2007 meeting.

Ms. Carol Biondi asked if CSA board members can serve on this committee besides the Chair and Co-Chair. Mr. Takeshta replied with a yes. Mr. Remington asked for volunteers. Ms. Pamala Gilyard volunteered and Mr. Takeshta will contact her with more information.

A motion to approve staff recommendations with Mr. Calvin Remington as Chair and Mr. John Ingrassia as Co-Chair was made by Mr. Bill Powers and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich. The motion carried.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (AGENDA ITEM D)
Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative informed the Board that this agenda item 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 non-substantive 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 non-substantive 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, Fresno and Napa have completed all the grant requirements. Riverside and San Mateo counties are scheduled to complete their projects before the end of 2006. Sacramento and Alameda will complete their projects in 2007. ( San Francisco is requesting a time extension for project completion in 2007). Of the two remaining stated funded projects, Orange County has completed all grant requirements.
Santa Clara’s project will be completed in 2007.

Mr. Remington asked if San Francisco was requesting all of the year 2007 to complete theirs. Ms. Aboytes replied that all projects must be completed by July 29, 2007.

STATUS REPORT – ANNUAL REVIEW: SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS (AGENDA ITEM E)

Ms. Debbie Rives, Deputy Director reported that this is an information item providing a status report on the Annual Reviews recently completed on those agencies participating in the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program.

Corrected copies were provided to the board members regarding a correction to the agenda item where the fiscal year being reported on should be listed as 2005/06. Also included as requested by some members is a graph and individual listing of agencies and their percentage of staff meeting the minimum standards.

The STC Division conducts reviews of participating agency training records annually. These reviews are conducted during the months of July-September. Field Representatives perform onsite inspections of individual training documentation for approximately 166 agencies. These reviews consist of examining the records for the entire staff from the line level through the administration for small and medium agencies and a sample of the workforce is selected for large agencies.

These reviews also allow an opportunity to discuss specific challenges that may be occurring in the field with training managers and administrators. Following the review of agency records, department administrators are provided a letter with our findings and a statistical summary of the results.

This year the final results showed that 65 agencies trained at 100% level; 62 agencies trained at 90-99% level; 16 agencies trained at 80-89% level; 15 agencies trained at 50-79% level; and 12 agencies trained below 50%. Reported issues from the field were high vacancy rates and turnover of personnel for agencies; several staff on various types of leave, military or medical; and limited available dollars for training.

Prior to funding statewide, staff training occurred on the average at about 98% level. Since the funding had been diverted the percentage has been around 91% with this year at the lowest at 89%. Some trends were agencies focused on Core training for staff to ensure entry level personnel were adequately trained; more agencies requested certification for Core Programs than has ever been in the past (previously averaged 25 Core Programs and now we have certified almost 100); more use of in-house instructors; and more use of local or regional training.

As a result STC provided this year both Core and Annual Instructor Development Courses to assist agencies in developing their in-house instructors and their own Core Programs.

Additional Program Support was also provided to agencies in identifying different training options for agencies to assist them in meeting their minimum requirements.

Overall the participating agencies have done well in the face of significant fiscal and workforce challenges. Training has remained a priority with most administrators and from the commentary that has been provided by the field it is expected that the percentage will increase with the return of state funding for participating agencies.

Ms. Carol Biondi requested more information, a brochure on what core training consisted of. Ms. Biondi additionally asked if core juvenile and core adult different in any way. Ms. Rives explained that there are three different core manuals; the adult correctional officer, the juvenile correctional officer, and the probation officer. All three can be found on our website.

Mr. Remington stated that the stats are pretty positive over the past three years considering there hasn’t been money but expects that this should pick up this year since the Legislature put money back in the funding. Ms. Rives replied that CSA is hopeful and glad because this is certainly something that was badly needed.

JOB COMPONENTS ANALYSIS PROJECT UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM F)
Ms. Amy Kohls, Field Representative updated the Board on the Job Components Analysis Project (JCAP). CSA’s effort is to develop and monitor standards for selection and training of state correctional peace officer classifications, this includes a total 47 entry level, advanced rank and file, and 1 st and 2 nd line supervisory positions.

At the July board meeting, an update on the JCAP was given on how to “set standards for selection and training”, but the fundamentals weren’t clear. Although this wasn’t in the agenda packet, Ms. Kohls talked a little about what standards are and why they’re important before getting into what’s currently going on with the project.

When CSA uses the term selection standard, it means any tool used to make an employment decision (like whether to hire or not hire someone, to promote or demote someone). In the corrections field, to make a decision about whom we’re going to hire, we typically use selection tools like a background investigation, drug screen, a medical exam, physical abilities testing, a psychological evaluation, a written test, etc. CSA’s job is to set the minimum standards for selection– in other words, what is the minimum level of performance a candidate should attain on these tools in order to be considered appropriately qualified for a position.

When we use the term training standard, we’re talking about the training a candidate should have to go through before starting a job and while they’re on the job in order to be able to perform that job successfully. CSA’s job is to set the minimum standards for training – that means not only the types of training that should be required, but also when it should be required (in the academy verses annually for example), the minimum number of hours the training should take, what should be covered, how performance in training should be assessed, and how often it should be required. The reasons we develop and implement these standards are so that we can consistently select the right people for a particular job and then consistently give them the right training to perform the job successfully.

The thing to keep in mind is that in order to get to the point of setting these minimum standards, we first have to do the job analysis – we can’t decide what is required to do the job successfully unless we know what the job is and what it entails. One step informs the next.

CSA is currently working on the job analysis portion of the project, and we’re focusing our attention on three positions – Correctional Officer (CO), Youth Correctional Officer (YCO), and Youth Correctional Counselor (YCC) – since these jobs encompass the largest number of correctional personnel. One of the major activities of the job analysis is putting together a list of task and knowledge, skill, ability, and other characteristic (or KSAO) statements for subject matter experts from the field to evaluate and confirm. We’ve been working on this for a while now, but are close to finishing. To give you an idea of how much work has been done, we began with over 12,000 task and KSAO statements that had to be entered into the computer, consolidated, categorized, revised, consolidated again, revised, etc. This is an ongoing process. We’ve reduced the lists of statements significantly, and expect to be finished by the end of the year.

Once that’s finished, subject matter experts will evaluate the unduplicated lists of tasks and KSAO statements on various criteria such as frequency of performance and importance. We’re in the process of developing the rating system that subject matter experts will use to evaluate the statements.

In August and September, CSA met with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Office of Labor Relations, and then later with representatives from the California Correctional Supervisor’s Organization and California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) to provide them with information about the project and outline our need for collaboration as we go through this process. Part of CSA’s mission is to increase the quality of the corrections workforce in California, and we can’t do that without them and their constituents’ help.

In mid-October, CSA had four representatives from the Supervisor’s union attend a presentation held here at CSA. They asked some really relevant and thoughtful questions, and their feedback was positive. They offered to help us in any way they could as subject matter experts and as contacts when we were ready to go out and visit the various institutions.

Later in the month, CSA had two representatives from CCPOA here for another presentation. Their reaction wasn’t overly positive or negative. We didn’t get much feedback at all, and they didn’t ask any questions, so we offered to provide additional information at any time if they were interested.

CSA is still working with CDCR on the development of a basic skills test to replace the written test portion of the selection process for the CO, YCO, and YCC positions. This was based on CDCR’s effort to speed up the selection process and “widen the pipeline” so to speak – getting more people in, through the selection process, and into their jobs more quickly.

Back in July, CSA had developed the test items, and were planning several test administrations to gather data about the quality of those items. In the last three months, CSA staff have administered the test to almost 500 CO and YCO/YCC academy students, entered the data collected from those tests, and evaluated the results of the item analysis.

Ninety of the best-performing items for the first version of the exam were chosen. With each test, we will be piloting 15 extra items that won’t be scored, but we will analyze the items for quality so that we can add more and more items to an item bank. That way, we can put together additional versions of the test for the purposes of test security. We’re currently working with the Office of Peace Officer Selection to iron out all of the details, and CDCR is planning to implement use of the new exam in January.

Mr. Remington stated that this was a large undertaking and was impressed on what has been accomplished. He commented that it is good that people are working well together. Mr. Prizmich inquired about the meeting that was held with CCPOA and the intent of the meeting, what was the purpose. Ms. Kohls explained that the presentation given at the meeting was to explain the entire process of the project and what outcome was expected. This was a good opportunity to have a crowd of experts help evaluate the work that had been done. CSA would like to have CCPOA’s cooperation, in order to go to institutions and observe the jobs they are doing for a better understanding and to confirm the work that has been done. Mr. Prizmich stated that this meeting was an informational meeting, that comments for or against were not needed, and that the hope was that at some point, CCPOA would give their approval for interaction. Ms. Kohls replied that basically this was informational, CSA just wanted to make CCPOA aware of what was being done.

Mr. David Bacigalupo complimented the staff for the efforts of getting into institutions, because that’s where you can literally see the work that is being done. He encouraged the staff to focus in on the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) remedial plan efforts because the complexion of the youth correctional officer and correctional counselor are changing and will transpire the next four to five years, dictating the type of training, recruiting and testing process.

ENHANCED DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT – TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT GRANT AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM G)
Ms. Shalinee Hunter, Field Representative and Disproportionate Minority Contact Coordinator for the Corrections Standards Authority requested both the approval of the Enhanced Disproportionate Minority Contact - Technical Assistance Project (DMC-TAP) grant award recommendations and the process for dispersing remaining available funds.

In the July board meeting, CSA authorized staff to proceed with the Enhanced DMC-TAP Request for Proposals (RFP). As outlined in today’s board agenda item, recommendations are the result of all the necessary DMC RFP-related activities.

Ms. Hunter highlighted two main items. She commended all six Review Panel members;
Brook Smith, Cal Remington, Marsha Ashe, Janet Honadle, Robert De Jesus, and Brian Richart.

All played an integral role in the successful and fair rating process. On behalf of CSA, Ms. Hunter thanked each of them for the time and expertise they contributed as review panel members. After a thoughtful and critical review of the 16 proposals that ended October 27 th, the Review Panel recommends to the CSA board that the following five counties receive the Enhanced DMC-TAP grant: Contra Costa, San Diego, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Santa Cruz. Secondly, the table in Appendix A indicates a remaining balance of $29,140 due to the top-ranked proposals requesting less than the $150,000 available. As is consistent with past practice staff recommends this amount be offered to the next highest ranked proposal(s) as a one-year contract that addresses a portion of the applicant’s original proposed activities. With that, staff is recommending the CSA board approve the grant award recommendations as well as the process for dispersing the remaining funds available.

Ms. Biondi asked if this needed SAG review. Ms. Hunter stated that it was addressed and reviewed by SAG but the recommendations were not reviewed. It was her understanding that the CSA board was acting as SAG until SAG is established. Mr. Remington stated that if SAG was established with a quorum at this point, it would have reviewed the recommendations. He also stated that if a motion was to be moved forward then it is with the understanding that the full Board is acting in the SAG state as well as the Board.

Ms. Biondi asked how this would be evaluated. Ms. Hunter informed her that in the July, the Board approved the competitive RFP that included a process evaluation subsequent to the 1 st year of infrastructure activities. CSA staff will release an RFP for a process evaluator in the summer of 2007 the successful applicant will provide the process evaluation for the second and third year for each of the five projects.

Mr. Warner asked about previous awardees and if we had done previous evaluations and what was the outcome. Ms. Hunter informed him that we have just completed our first DMC-TAP, a fourteen month project, and currently do not have a formal evaluation. A final report is being developed and should be ready at the next board meeting. Mr. Warner asked that the report be an agenda item at the next meeting.

A motion to approve the grant award recommendations developed by the Enhanced DMC-TAP Review Panel as well as the process for dispersing the remaining funds available was made by Mr. Bernard Warner and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich and Mr. David Runnels.
The motion carried.

UPDATE ON CORRECTIONS PLANNING & PROGRAMS LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (AGENDA ITEM H)
Mr. Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director updated the board on the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program; Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) Program; and Title II Formula Grant Program as administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division.

The MIOCR is supported with state general fund dollars and is on an accelerated timeline. The ESC is currently working on the task of reading and rating the proposals. Staff has received 75 applications in response to the RFP, demonstrating the need; 39 adult proposals requesting just over $38 million, and 36 juvenile proposals requesting $36 million. Not all will be funded because there is only $22.2 million available for each.

Staff developed a unique training module for all the ESC members that will have application in other areas at CSA. Staff received great feedback from the raters, people are really happy with process.

Teleconference is currently scheduled for December 20, 2006 for a special session board meeting requesting the Board’s approval of the MIOCR grant award recommendations made by the members of ESC.

Mr. Yarber asked if there were any questions on the MIOCR. Mr. Penrod complimented CSA staff for doing an excellent job and stated that the workshops were very beneficial. Ms. Biondi asked if the Board will be voting on the recommendations at the teleconference. Mr. Yarber replied that yes the Board will be voting on the recommendations. He also acknowledged Ms. Helene Zentner, CSA staff for her adhering to the timeline. Mr. Remington thinks that this is going to be an extremely successful initiative, the amount of time and effort counties are putting into these proposals is tremendous but only wished more money was available.

The JABG Program initially started in 1998 funded at $28 million and is now at $4 million statewide.

The issue with reverted funds, the program has had a decrease in the statewide funding. With regards to the 2002 federal fiscal year funding in the amount of $15 million, 99.5% of the award has been expended, leaving a balance of $66,000 that will revert back to the federal government. Staff continues to work on the betterment of fiscal accounting practices and understanding of the complications involved in the distribution of interest earning federal dollars, both within CSA and the greater CDCR. The 99.5% of distribute is good in the accounting world, but we want to see 100% of funding expended leaving zero funds reverted back to the federal government.

Mr. Yarber asked if anyone had questions about the JABG Program. Ms. Biondi noted that JABG Program and Title II Formula Grant Program require SAG review and recommend to the Board. Mr. Yarber explained that this is correct for the Title II Formula Grant Program but reminded Ms. Biondi that back at the September CSA board meeting, exemption was given to use this Board for the JABG Program.

The Title II Formula Grant Program was presented in the September board meeting with the prospect of potentially paying raters to be involved in the process. Staff had anticipated a large volume of applicants in response to the RFP. Staff had planned for over 300 proposals to be submitted per a survey sent out by the Chief Probation Officers, 139 proposals were received. One of the factors as to why this number was so low was due to the MIOCR RFP and DMC RFP being out at the same time. In preparation for the greater response to the RFP, staff identified 24 review panel members and implemented a two-tiered rating system.

Mr. Yarber thanked the CSA board members, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the Ventura County Probation Department for providing their assistance. He also acknowledged Captain Jerry Williams of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for volunteering his services; Captain Williams is appreciative to the Board for the opportunity to participate in the process. Mr. Yarber also thanked one of our SAG members, Mr. Camerino Sanchez of the Santa Barbara Police Department for providing staff a location to meet and his time.

As the next step in regards to the Title II, the second tier panel is currently conducting the rating process, and will be forwarding recommendations to the Board at the January 2007 meeting.

Mr. Yarber asked if there were any questions for the Title II Formula Grant Program. Ms. Biondi asked if this was the gender specific one. Mr. Yarber stated that this includes five different programs; gender specific, mental health services, substances abuse treatment, after-care reentry, and gang prevention. Ms. Biondi asked if these could be community-based organizations. Mr. Yarber replied with a yes. Mr. Penrod asked how the federal funds receive each year are solicited, do we lobby for them. Mr. Yarber stated that we submit an application each year and that’s why it is important to have a SAG and Board approval. We will be submitting an application in March 2007.

JUVENILE PROBATION AND CAMPS FUNDING PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM I)
Mr. Aaron Long, Field Representative provided an overview of activity regarding the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding (JPCF) Program and its first annual statewide report.

On July 19, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation appropriating just over $168.7 million in state General Funds to support an array of county probation services targeting at-risk youth, juvenile offenders and their families (AB 139, Chapter 74). AB 139 also provided $32.7 million to counties that operate juvenile camps/ranches. The legislation directed CDCR to administer these funds and authorized the agency to establish agreements with county probation departments receiving funds. CDCR entrusted the CSA with this responsibility. For administrative purposes, this effort is called the JPCF Program.

The JPCF Program, in effect, replaces the Comprehensive Youth Services Act, which provided federal dollars to county probation departments, beginning in 1997-98, through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Probation departments used these TANF funds, which were administered by the California Department of Social Services, to support efforts spanning the juvenile justice continuum, from prevention through custody.

CSA staff, in collaboration with the Chief Probation Officers of California, developed a semi-annual progress report for the JPCF program. The first annual JPCF program report summarizes the data reported by the participating counties. The data reveals that JPCF funds supported a wide variety of probation programs in addition to core probation services for Fiscal Year 2005-06. The 57 counties involved in the program identified 145 separate programs and probation services supported by JPCF funds.

The JPCF program provided services to 148,854 at-risk youth throughout the State of California. Additionally, 72,811 family members residing with at-risk youth received services through the JPCF program. The first annual JPCF program report was included as Attachment A.

Mr. Long was available for questions. Mr. Warner asked if the money is allocated in a formula basis. Mr. Long referred him to Appendix A in the report attached, the legislation money is accurately specified by statue for each county. Mr. Warner asked if the money is then distributed on the discretion of the county with in those purpose areas defined. Mr. Long replied yes, within those 23 purpose areas. Mr. Warner asked if there was any discussion on evaluation or best practices of outcomes of federal money. Mr. Long stated that this is state general fund money, not federal money it replaced federal TANF dollars. Mr. Warner asked what the amount was based on. Mr. Long explained that the amount was based on what the prior year the TANF federal funds that were going to be phased out administered by the California Department of Social Services. The amounts per county are designated by statue. Mr. Remington informed Mr. Warner that the statue relates to when the money first went to counties as federal money through TANF program per the allocation at that time, the statue carried that formula over from a number of years ago. Many of these are core for probation programs as oppose to JJCAP.

Mr. Bacigalupo asked if staff come up with any recommendations internally, in regards to how counties were gathering data and identifying differently. Mr. Long referred him to Table 3 in the report, the relatively high number is related to the fact that some counties used JPCF funds to provide programs in their juvenile detention facilities, minors participating in custody-based programs are frequently release prior to the completion of a program, counties have been hesitant to designate a released minor as having “completed a program” merely because his or her period of confinement has ended. Mr. Long stated that key factor is that when you look at the data you have to realize that these dollars do support core probation services not just programs.

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

Since the last board meeting the deadline has passed of September 30 th, the last date the Governor had in the 2006 regular legislative session to sign or veto bills. In late September, after our last meeting the Governor signed into law two bills naming CSA. Both of these are touched on at previous meeting, yet prior to implementation strategies being a factor.

AB 18 – Sex Offenders – Addresses various requirements pertaining to sex offenders, much of it related to tracking. CSA is specifically concerned, as well as our local constituents, is where each probation department is to report to the CSA relevant statistics and information regarding the effectiveness of continuous electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Specifically mentioned in the legislation are the tracking of costs for monitoring, and also recidivism rates. CSA is to report this information to the Legislature and Governor every two years.

In terms of an initial implementation overview or staff’s considerations, CSA staff recognizes that we must accomplish this task without any administrative/support dollars attached to our role at this time. Given that, we must first determine where and how this new task best fits in CSA, as it is unlike anything else we do in terms of data gathering and reporting. Given some of these considerations, we will be looking at a process for getting the product we need and are charged with assembling, and how best to involve our constituents, or the appropriate players, as we gain ground in implementation.

SB 1128 - Sex Offender Punishment, Control and Containment Act of 2006 (Alquist) - This new law also includes many requirements in dealing with the sex offender population. Establishes the SARATSO Review Committee (State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders) whose purpose is to ensure that the SARATSO instrument reflects the most reliable, objective, and well-established protocols for predicting sex offender risk of recidivism. CDCR and each probation department are required to assess, using the SARATSO, every eligible person who is either incarcerated or on parole or probation. CSA is responsible for developing standards for the training of probation officers who will administer the SARATSO. For initial implementation strategy purposes, CSA staff sees an incremental approach as most appropriate here, first utilizing the outcome information from the SARATSO Review Committee, and then embarking on CSA’s specific responsibility of setting training standards for probation officers who will administer the SARATSO. Throughout this process, we again give consideration to the fact that our new tasks will be done without the administrative/support dollars for our role.

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

2007 CSA MEETING SCHEDULE (AGENDA ITEM K)
Mr. Scott Harris, Executive Director provided the proposing dates and locations for the CSA’s 2007 meetings. Board members had indicated that the third Wednesday of the month was not a good day to meet. After a survey to all the board members was taken, it was determine that the second Thursday of the month would be the best time to meet. The location of the meetings is up to the Board’s discretion. Historically, the meetings are held in Sacramento on an alternative basis and between southern and central California for the other months.

The locations for 2007 board meetings consist of Sacramento in January, May, September; in Fresno County at a juvenile hall for the March meeting, Orange County, where the Leadership Program will be held for July, and Napa County at their new juvenile hall in November. There has also been indicated that there might be some interest in going to San Mateo.

At the last meeting Secretary Tilton talked about an off-site. After research with the legal department it was determined that per the Bagley-Keene Act, we can not have an off-site. However the main purpose for the off-site, was for the Board to meet about direction, priorities or projects.

A motion to approve the proposed 2007 CSA meeting dates and locations was made by Mr. David Runnels and seconded by Mr. John Ingrassia and Mr. Cleo Adams.
The motion carried.

Law actually in reality is conviction. Conviction is universally of what a person thinks is right or best. The majority of convictions are small group of well-meaning people based on political ideological thinking have proven to be far from just and very often misguided.

The universal elementary moral principal – justice, is that you shall not have what belongs to another but be deprived of your own. The validity of this principal is self evident due to the fact all cases, whenever anyone violates this principal in ones treatment of others has the tendency to arouse hatred. Because the treatment of others so, you reduce their present state of well-being which in various degrees harms them. Being compelled to obey unjust laws and unjust social policies legalizes criminology.

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

Meeting reconvened at 11:38 a.m., no further business conducted.

An announcement was made informing everyone that the next CSA board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Sacramento.

Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Originally signed by
YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members
David Runnels, CDCR, Adult Offenders
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County
Gary Penrod, Sheriff, San Bernardino County
William Powers, County Supervisor
Calvin Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links

Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes November 15, 2006