Community Corrections Partnership Committee...County’s CCP plan and realignment information, fact...

1

Community Corrections Partnership Committee

Meeting Date and Time; November 3, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00PM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse

720 9th Street, 6th Floor, Department 46

MINUTES

1. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – no comments were received

2. Approval of October 20, 2011 minutes Motion to approve the minutes Paulino Duran, 2nd by Sam Somers. The minutes were approved.

3. Update from Revocation Workgroup

Mike Bays stated that the final process has been approved for PRCS warrants. Revocations will be heard in Department 63, Judge Larry Brown, will handle all proceedings. A petition will be filed with a report and once filed a hearing will be set within 5 days. Probation will be looking at intermediate sanctions as they have to document why or why not to support the petition for revocation. There was discussion that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) puts in their database PRCS, however, we have been using the term PROs (Post Release Offenders) and they are the same thing. This may create confusion using PROs instead of PRCS which is the acronym used statewide. Motion made by Jaime Lewis, 2nd by Paulino to make the change in our realignment plan to call them PRCS. Fred Campbell will correct the plan and provide an updated version. Lynn Wynn will make sure the updated plan is posted on the Board’s website.

4. Discussion on results of Board of Supervisors presentation on November 1, 2011 for approval of the 2011-12 Realignment Plan

Everyone was glad the Board passed the realignment plan so things can get started. There will be a need to gather the data, monitor the programs, and get a gap analysis in order to develop the next realignment plan for 2012-13. Bruce Wagstaff stated that the Board and the County will be pursuing as part of their legislative platform to seek changes to the CCP that would give the Board of Supervisors a greater role in the process. There may be a constitutional problem as the legislators wrote it with the intent that the CCP would control the process. Don Meyer stated that the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is not supportive of undoing the structure that is already in place.

5. Open Committee Discussion CSAC has joined with the Sheriff’s Association and the Probation Officers Association to file a ballot measure to constitutionally protect the public safety realignment funds – CSAC has created a website for information on the initiative.

Bruce stated that the Community Outreach and Education workgroup had their first meeting and proposed the following recommendations:

2

1. Establish internet website on County server to be repository and central place for Sacramento County’s CCP plan and realignment information, fact sheet, progress reports, CCP membership and bylaws, etc. Timeline: 12/31 – Kerri to follow up

2. Develop a fact sheet containing bulleted list of our CCP plan components and impacts for County supervisors, legislators, stakeholders, media, etc. – Lynn & Kerri will follow up

3. Discuss public/community outreach needs and solicit ideas from Board of Supervisors/staff – Bruce will follow up

4. Invite representative from Probation and Sheriff to be on outreach work group - Lynn will

follow up. Given discussion at workshop and 11-1 hearing, moving away from large public forum. Need standard reliable way to respond, FAQ on association websites Motion to approve recommendations by Paulino Duran; 2nd by Jaime Lewis

6. Next Meeting: to be determined 7. Adjourn

Anyone may address the committee regarding any item within the committee’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, the committee may not take any action on this agenda except as authorized by Government Code Section 54954.3. The Chair will set time limits depending on the number of topics. Meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for interpreting services, assistive living devices or other considerations should be directed through the Community Corrections Partnership staff by calling (916) 874-9844 no later than three working days before the meeting.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP

MEMBERSHIP LIST For 2012

Member Name Title

Chief Probation Officer Don Meyer Chief Probation Officer Superior Court Laurie Earl Presiding Judge Superior Court Ed Pollard Interim Court Executive Officer County Supervisor or Chief Administrative Officer

Vacant

District Attorney Cindy Besemer Chief Deputy District Attorney District Attorney Steve Grippi Asst Chief Deputy District Attorney Public Defender Paulino Duran Public Defender Public Defender Steve Lewis Chief Assistant Public Defender Conflict Criminal Defenders Fern Laethem Executive Director Conflict Criminal Defenders Theresa Huff Deputy Director Sheriff Jaime Lewis Chief of Corrections Sheriff Mike Butler Asst Chief of Corrections Chief of Police Rick Braziel Chief of Police, Sacramento Police Department Chief of Police Sam Somers Deputy Chief, Sacramento Police Department Dept of Social Services Bruce Wagstaff Administrator, Countywide Service Agency Dept of Behavioral Health Ann Edwards Director, Dept of Health and Human Services Division of Alcohol and Drug Ann Edwards Director, Dept of Health and Human Services Employment Bill Walker Sacramento Employment and Training Agency County Office of Education Tim Taylor Assistant Superintendent, Sacramento County Office of Education Community Based Organization – Rehabilitative Services

Vacant

Victim Representative Kerry Martin Victim Witness Program Coordinator District Attorney’s Office

STAFF: Criminal Justice Cabinet Lynn Wynn Principal Administrative Analyst Superior Court Trish Meraz Director, Criminal Court Operations Consultant Fred Campbell Criminal Justice Research Foundation

1


Meeting Date and Time; October 13, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00PM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES

1. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Dan Thomas, from ManAlive, provided information on their program. They are one of eleven certified batterer treatment programs in the state and they work with probation and parole to promote public safety. Their mission is to work with men to be more accountable and aware of their actions of violence to partners and the community. ManAlive Sacramento currently has 117 participants attending the 8 week public classes in South Sacramento and Citrus Heights. He requested the CCP support ManAlive’s presence to remain in jail facilities. Mary Ann Bennett, Director of County Behavioral Health Division, met with probation and they went over the impacts of the AB 109 population on the alcohol/drug and mental health systems in the county. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is not providing any funding for mental health treatment or prescription drugs, other than the 30 day supply of drugs the prisoner will receive when released and no funding for substance abuse treatment. Her division’s experience with Proposition 36 clients has determined that these offenders do not mix well with other clientele being served by the county. She learned from CDCR that AB 109 offenders’ coping mechanisms are different. Many AB 109 offenders being released will be very ill, will need psychotropic medications and wrap around services. They won’t be able to mix them with other clients due to concerns they could be harmed. She will be monitoring the impacts to her division for three months and will come back in January 2012 for funding if money is available. If there is money left over this fiscal year or more funding next year, this has to be a priority. We don’t have capacity for extra population in the behavioral health system. Ann Edwards stated that many of the AB 109 clients will not be eligible for SSI or Medi-Cal and will go into our underfunded healthcare system. Erin Vega stated he was impressed with technical expertise and persuasive arguments by the CCP members. He urged the CCP to look at the root causes and treat the mental health and substance abuse issues. Recidivism rates can be reduced when you deal with root causes, more incarceration is not the way to go. Topo Padilla stated we need to hold offenders accountable for appearing in court. Pretrial release should not be used for wholesale releases. He urged the CCP to address local bail schedules and probation bonds, which they are doing in other counties. Allen Asch stated there is another cost of putting people in jail. It separates people from jobs, family and community connections that they need to be successful. We don’t need the Roger Bauman facility opened now, save it as a last resort.

2. Approval of October 6, 2011 minutes

Motion to approve: Paulino Duran. 2nd by Bruce Wagstaff. The minutes were approved.

2

3. Executive Committee Discussion and Vote on Proposed Realignment Plan

ACTION ITEM: Roll Call Vote on Remaining Realignment Plan Proposals continued from October 6, 2011:

The Executive Committee proceeded with the vote with results as follows: 1) PROPOSAL: RE-OPENING OF ROGER BAUMAN FACILITY (RBF) AT RIO

COSUMNES CORRECTIONAL CENTER $5,984,734 + $201,779 IN START UP COSTS – 4 to 3 VOTE TO APPROVE

VOTING MEMBER YES NO Probation Chief Don Meyer X Sheriff Scott Jones X Chief Deputy District Attorney Cindy Besemer for District Attorney Jan Scully X

Public Defender Paulino Duran X Social Services Representative Bruce Wagstaff, Countywide Services Agency Administrator

X

Assistant Presiding Judge Laurie Earl X Chief Rick Braziel, Sacramento Police Department X

2) PROPOSAL: ROGER BAUMAN FACILITY INMATE SERVICES $500,000 –

UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE


Public Defender Paulino Duran X Social Services Representative Bruce Wagstaff, Countywide Services Agency Administrator X


3) PROPOSAL: SHIFT $121,027 FROM CCP ALLOCATION TO COVER

OVERAGES IN PROGRAM PROPOSALS ($25,860) AND ONE TIME START UP COSTS ($95,167) AND PLACE REMAINING FUNDS ($47,973) IN CONTINGENCY/RESERVES - UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE




3

4. Discuss next steps and formation of subcommittees

The CCP discussed the need for subcommittees and to collect data which will be worked on at the next meeting. Assembly Member Pan stated that data tracking and evaluation was important. He wants to be a good advocate for counties for funding and he needs data to support that and to weigh in more heavily with the legislature. Chief Braziel stated that the Sacramento Police Department has been participating with the Council of State Governments, along with Los Angeles, San Francisco and Redlands by taking three years of arrest data, CDCR and Probation data, to study recidivism and where people are likely to reoffend. They are meeting again at the end of month to see if they can get more money to keep it going for another year. All data they are looking at now is before AB 109 and with continued funding, they could collect data post AB109 implementation and be able to compare. He has talked with the Governor about this study which will provide data from three major agencies and one mid-size that will show if AB 109 is working or not, the implications, and four different versions on how the money is being spent. He can report back quarterly to show trends, patterns and success within Sacramento and on an annual basis what others are doing, which will help us see gaps. The data can also be broken down further to see other trends and patterns.

5. Next Meeting: October 20, 2011 8:30 – 10:00, Courthouse, Dept 46 – Jaime will chair

The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.

1


Meeting Date and Time; October 6, 2011, 8:30AM – 12:00PM Place: Sheriff’s Office, 711 G Street

1st Floor Conference Room

MINUTES 1. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items

Sheila Boltz urged the CCP to reconsider the need for additional jail beds and shift money to provide rehabilitative services. She supports the expansion of the Sheriff’s home detention program and Probation’s Adult Day Reporting Center. Topo Padilla expressed his concerns regarding the use of funding toward a pretrial release program because he feels it will not provide the solutions needed. There is currently a system in place at no cost to the taxpayers. He would like to see the money spent on rehabilitative services. He stated the bail industry can and will help the justice partners and the criminal justice system to ensure defendants appear in court. Mike Carrington talked about his experience implementing reforms in the criminal justice system. There are many tools that can be used in the assessment process. He felt the assessment process was deficient in its ability to get out of the interview what is really wrong with the offender and what is driving their recidivistic tendencies. He suggested that the CCP factor in methodology to get that into the case management plan or the assessment won’t have value. Need to have transformative programs that stop the churning pattern or it won’t change criminal behavior. He encouraged utilizing private/public partners including faith based support.

2. Approval of Sept 29, 2011 minutes

Motion by Cindy Besemer, 2nd by Fern Laethem. The minutes were approved.

3. Update from Parole Revocation Workgroup Cindy Besemer stated the group was almost done. They have developed a procedure and the forms needed now, which may change when the Administrative Office of the Court rules come out.

4. Ascend – Recommendation on Realignment Plan Christine Galves stated that even though money is tight, the CCP needs to fund rehabilitative services. Their program is working. She requested $201,786 for their program to have enough people to gather statistically relevant data.

5. Committee Discussion and Presentation of Realignment Plan

Fred Campbell pointed out one correction on the spreadsheet – the Adult Day Reporting Center should list 1,200 as being served, not 900. Fred went over each proposal on the spreadsheet and explained the changes. The CCP discussed each proposal to clear up questions and concerns before the Executive Committee voted.

2

6. Executive Committee Discussion and Vote on Proposed Realignment Plan

ACTION ITEM: Roll Call Vote on Realignment Plan Executive Committee member Chief Rick Braziel, Sacramento Police Department, was unable to attend due to a family emergency. The CCP proceeded with the vote with results as follows: 1) PROPOSAL: EXPANSION OF SSD HOME DETENTION AND ELECTRONIC

MONITORING PROGRAM $1,945,888 + $329,248 FOR START UP COSTS – UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE

VOTING MEMBER YES NO Probation Chief Don Meyer X Chief Jaime Lewis for Sheriff Scott Jones X Chief Deputy District Attorney Cindy Besemer for District Attorney Jan Scully X


Assistant Presiding Judge Laurie Earl X Chief Rick Braziel, Sacramento Police Department N/A

2) PROPOSAL: SSD PRETRIAL AND SUPERVISED OR RELEASE PROGRAM $555,184 + $27,250 FOR START UP COSTS – UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE




3) PROPOSAL: ADULT DAY REPORTING CENTER $4,180,332 + $464,090 IN

START UP COSTS - UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE




3

4) PROPOSAL: RE-OPENING OF ROGER BAUMAN FACILITY (RBF) AT RIO COSUMNES CORRECTIONAL CENTER $5,984,734 + $201,779 IN START UP COSTS – TIE VOTE


Public Defender Paulino Duran X Social Services Representative Bruce Wagstaff, Countywide Services Agency Administrator

X


5) PROPOSAL: ROGER BAUMAN FACILITY SERVICES $500,000 - Not voted on since it is tied in with #4 RBF proposal that resulted in a tie vote.

Executive Committee vote on proposals #4 and #5 (Roger Bauman Facility proposals) will be continued to the next CCP meeting scheduled for October 13, 2011, 8:30 – 10:00 am, Downtown Courthouse, Dept. 46.

7. Open Committee Discussion

There was discussion on the need to identify next steps and to have subcommittees to continue working on different items such as public education and outreach, community provider outreach, mental health issues, and the collection of data for statistics and outcome measures. Chief Meyer stated the Board of Supervisors realignment plan approval is scheduled for November 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm as a timed item. Fred will produce the realignment plan and the Probation Department will write the board letter. All Executive Committee voting members should attend.


1


Meeting Date and Time; September 29, 2011, 8:30AM – 12:00PM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse



Chief Meyer discussed the handout entitled “ABX 17 Section 27”. Topo Padilla discussed the handout related to proposed statewide legislation for bonded probation.

2. Approval of September 22, 2011 minutes Motion by Cindy Besemer, Second by Bruce Wagstaff. The minutes were approved.

3. Update from Parole Revocation Workgroup Cindy Besemer stated the group was still working on procedures and they hope to have it done by their next meeting on October 3.

4. The Impact of AB 109 on Issues Involving Victims of Crime Kerry Martin discussed the handout previously distributed and explained that there were many unintended consequences of AB 109 that exacerbated several victim issues around the collection of restitution and noticing requirements. The Sheriff’s Department is already working with the District Attorney’s Office on some of the issues. She requested that when the realignment plan goes to the Board of Supervisors that it include some acknowledgement of the effects to victims of crime and that we are working on it.

5. Legal and Competitive Selection Issues Around Contract Services At the September 22 meeting, the CCP requested follow up with County Counsel about issues related to County Charter 71J and the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. County Counsel issued a legal opinion that has had an impact on the proposal from Strategies for Change. The opinion does not apply to Probation or the Sheriff’s Department because they are county departments and it is county money being directed to county departments so no contracting is involved. Members expressed concerns on the effect of this opinion and the unanticipated consequence. Judge Earl stated that the Court may be in a similar position for their Pretrial Release Program proposal so they are withdrawing it. The Court and District Attorney’s Office concurs with the opinion. Chief Lewis provided a handout that lists Sheriff’s inmate programs in place now that will bridge the gap temporarily. They will be looking to provide services in the spirit of AB 109 and will go through the RFP process.

6. Complete discussion on proposals • Community based services – item dropped

2

7. Open committee discussion Cindy Besemer stated they received an opinion last week from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office related to Marsy’s Law which may prohibit home detention except for the last 120 days of a sentence. Her office is reviewing the opinion and conducting further inquiries. They will report their findings to the CCP members as soon as possible. Members briefly discussed County Parole as another option but it needs to be looked into further. After a lengthy discussion around the pending proposals and the need to finalize a realignment plan, a small workgroup will meet later today to see if they can develop a plan that will work within the $13.1M budget and present it to the CCP at the October 6 meeting. Lynn was asked to schedule another meeting for the week of October 10 and to set a date for a quarterly review in early 2012 for the CCP to provide updates on how the programs are working. The CCP is scheduled to take the realignment plan to the Board of Supervisors on November 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

1


Meeting Date and Time; September 22, 2011, 8:30AM – 12:00PM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse



Several members discussed the realignment conference they attended on September 14 at the Sacramento Convention Center which included over 500 people from throughout the state. They stressed the need to understand evidence based practices information and to take a step back and make decisions based on data and research. Mike Carrington, who has 39 years of experience in corrections at the State and Federal level stated that issues have not been addressed on core causes that drives the offender population and recidivism. Need to address these issues to see change. He encouraged the use of public and private resources in the realignment plan.

2. Approval of Sept 16, 2011 minutes

The minutes were approved as amended. Bruce Wagstaff; 2nd Paulino Duran.

3. Update from Parole Revocation Workgroup Judge Earl stated the workgroup has been meeting weekly. The Court has submitted a draft process for how the petition for revocation for post release community supervision could work through the court system. The working group meets again next week to discuss further.

4. Bail Industry Solutions Topo Padilla gave a presentation and provided Sacramento County statistics on warrants, failure to appear and bail. He is a local business person and has been a bail agent for 28 years in Sacramento County. He currently is the President of the Golden State Bail Association and the California Bail Association.

5. Review of Jail Profile Analysis

Fred Campbell gave an overview of the Jail Profile Analysis. This is a one-day snapshot of all inmates incarcerated in jail on August 21, 2011. It provides characteristics of the population to provide insights for pretrial and sentenced inmates by grouping offenders, based on common characteristics, to help determine candidates that may be eligible for pretrial release or custody programming that will reduce the in custody population.

6. Discussion on Proposals for Public Safety Realignment Plan – (copies previously distributed)

• Re-opening of Roger Bauman Facility at Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center

Chief Lewis stated that it could be opened within two weeks.

2

• Adult Day Reporting Center for Post Release Community Supervision Suzanne Collins stated with three Adult Day Reporting Centers Probation (ACRC) would be able to handle the projected increase in capacity. The third site could be up and running within three months so they will adjust their budget to show costs for six months.

• Supervised OR/Pretrial Release – Probation and Court Proposals

Trish Meraz stated the Court’s proposal could be up and running with 3-4 weeks. Based on average bookings, depending on the population and eligibility, staff could interview all of them. The Sheriff’s Department would be able to provide the supervision component within their existing home detention program for the first nine months. Chief Meyer stated that Probation would be willing to drop their proposal for now and be re-considered in Year Two. Cindy Besemer brought up the Victims’ Bill of Rights where the victim has requested to be notified immediately upon the defendant’s release. When the defendant is released pretrial on supervised OR, they are considered in custody but they are not incarcerated at the jail, how would the victim be notified? Chief Lewis stated his staff would work on setting up a system for victim notification.

• Sheriff’s Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program Chief Lewis stated this program increases bed space capacity from traditional incarceration to alternative custody. Caseload average is 30 offenders to 1 officer. Could be expanded to 40 per officer if needed. Each offender is seen at least once a week. State caseload is 20 to1 for parole.

• Community Based Services – mental health, substance abuse, job training and education services through Strategies for Change, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Sacramento County Office of Education, Elk Grove Adult and Community Education and Sacramento Employment and Training Agency

Cynthia Keeth stated that this proposal includes evidence based practices on what works best for this population. Services would start in jail by providing intensive case management services and cognitive behavioral treatment before they get released.

Mary Ann Bennett stated that several proposals are recommending funding to outside agencies and suggested that county counsel be consulted related to 71J and contracting out. Lynn will follow up with Michelle Bach.

• Ascend Life Skills Program

Christine Galves stated that a concern had been raised about Ascend not being evidence based. They have partnered with two PhD researchers at Sacramento State University who are experts in criminal programs. They do not use a canned curriculum and have developed a curriculum based on other evidence based programs. They are open to make changes to their program if needed and they want to be part of the solution. They do not have outcome data yet but they are testing clients before and after and should have results within nine months.

3

• Regional Parole Impact Team Eric Forbeck from the Sacramento Police Department stated their proposal is to create a regional Parole Impact Team (PIT) pilot program, at no cost, to manage the high risk offenders and use PIT as an enforcement tool.

7. Next Meeting: September 29, 2011 8:30 – 12:00 Courthouse, Dept 46 – For CCP to discuss

and vote on Realignment Plan proposals


1


Meeting Date and Time; September 16, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse



Ms. Boltz stated she was delighted to read about the Adult Day Reporting Center which provides a combination of supervision and rehabilitation utilizing evidence based practices.

2. Approval of September 1 and September 8, 2011 minutes

Bruce Wagstaff made a motion to approve the minutes, 2nd by Cindy Besemer. The minutes were approved.

3. Update on Funding Received and Costs of Proposals to date

Lynn Wynn gave an overview of the document she prepared that outlines the proposals and funding received so far. Regarding the CCP one-time costs, Chief Meyer stated that all CCP members need to track the time they are spending in order to document the costs and submit that to Lynn. Lynn was asked to create a time tracking form that everyone can use. She will check with the Department of Finance on what documentation is required. There was discussion that the CCP members need to review all the proposals in order to decide on a realignment plan with the funding provided. Members should also consider what priorities should be considered for the 2nd year. We are expecting two to three times as much funding in year two, so we should have more resources to add or expand services. The CCP will need to continue to meet to conduct reviews on the realignment programs to ensure effectiveness and efficiencies are achieved once implemented.

4. Update on Core Programs

Fred Campbell stated that the jail profile analysis was done and it is currently being reviewed by the Sheriff’s Department. He will have results at the next meeting.

• Pretrial Release – Court proposal

Trish Meraz gave an overview of the Court’s proposal for a Pretrial program. The Court would partner with the Sheriff’s Department (SSD) for the Supervised OR component. The court operated a Pretrial program for 25 years and it needed some improvements such as an evidence based assessment tool. They have chosen the Virginia model, which has reminders built in and it can be automated through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) in the future. It has data tracking and continuous review for effectiveness. Previously the Court did not track Failure to Appear (FTA) rates and this proposal includes that. The goal is to release as many qualified people as possible. It will be operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a three shift operation. They considered doing two shifts, but after review of arrest patterns, it was determined that a great deal of people are arrested on the graveyard shift. The Pretrial unit would handle 125 arrests per day on average. This proposal looks to eliminate redundant services with SSD. It includes training judges on effective risk assessment tools. The Court wants to reinstate the program no matter who staffs it.

2

5. Other Proposals

• Regional Parole Impact Team

Eric Forbeck from the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) gave an overview of their Parole Impact Team (PIT) which has been in existence since 1999. He has talked with other justice partners about establishing a Regional Parole Impact Team. It would be a taskforce of officers, attorneys, and parole agents using existing resources without adding costs. It would be a proactive enforcement tool in place for dealing with high risk parolees. At this time, he is not requesting funding at this time but wants to do a pilot program with the hope that if it is demonstrated as a successful tool for the region funding in the future would be considered.

• Ascend Life Skills Program

Toni Carbone gave an overview of the Ascend Life Skills Program which draws from the community for resources and support in order for offenders to give back. They have partnered with Sacramento State University, Dr. Singer and Dr. Maguire, who specialize in corrections, to help Ascend develop an evidence based curriculum and outcome measures. They can handle a daily minimum capacity of 30 or a maximum of 60, targeting the moderate to high risk offenders. The program can be used in lieu of jail, in addition to electronic monitoring, to provide a transition between service gaps, and can begin as jail in-reach classes to inmates before they are released and transitioned to an activity-based program completed post release.

• Community Based Services – mental health, substance abuse, job training and education

services Cynthia Keeth, with Strategies for Change (SFC) gave an overview of a community based services proposal. Through SFC, a non-profit organization, it would provide mental health, substance abuse, job training and education services in jail. This would provide a continuum of services for those released from jail who also have Probation services through the Adult Day Reporting Center (ADRC). It can be used for offenders in custody or out, such as on home detention. She worked with Ann Edwards, Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, who chose not to put a proposal together due to the county cost of employees is higher. The County would provide the psychiatrist. It would be a one stop shop providing case management services. SFC is the only non-profit with a trainer of this curriculum, which will allow them to sustain the program staff through continued training. The program helps with food, housing, and education. SFC will partner with Elk Grove Unified School District who is already working in jail providing education services. This funding would expand their services by adding staff, and SFC would assist the offender while on Electronic Monitoring. SFC would subcontract with the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA) which provides career centers plus additional resources. SETA would provide vocational services and would help employers with tax credits and bonding. They have a job referral system with employers that will hire ex-offenders. There may be overlaps between what SSD and Probation are providing, so that will need to be looked at.


There was general committee discussion on sentencing and how that will affect how this new offender population will be handled.

7. Next Meeting: September 22, 2011 8:30 – 12:00 Courthouse, Dept 46.



Meeting Date and Time; September 8, 2011, 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES

1. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items

Allen Asch from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) distributed their report which had previously been sent via link to the CCP members. He stated that this realignment is the biggest change since the 70’s and he’s worried that more jail beds will be added instead of alternatives to incarceration to reduce recidivism. Jail is the least effective way to be successful at getting out if the cycle. He encouraged the CCP to utilize evidence based solutions that reduce recidivism.


• Pretrial Release/Supervised OR – Probation proposal

Suzanne Collins gave an overview of the Probation proposal which utilizes a validated intake assessment instrument from Virginia. It’s easy, it’s automated and tracks data but it would need to be “normed” to our county. 61% of jail population is pretrial. Program starts with interview with offender in jail and a determination is made on qualification for a pretrial release. In order to process 135 bookings per day, they can’t look at them all but the can screen them out and process 80 assessments. This would require the Pretrial Unit to work seven days a week for 12 hour shifts. A determination would be made to release them on straight OR, conditioned OR or supervised OR. Electronic monitoring could be added or utilizing the kiosk is a possibility. They are also receptive to a hybrid approach with SSD/Court/Probation staff to reduce costs.

3. Update from Parole Revocation Workgroup Judge Earl stated the group is continuing to meet to develop a process. Much will depend on the judicial council rules that are currently under review after comments were received. She doesn’t expect those to be out until close to October 1.

4. Contracting back to State discussion

• Cal Fire – the committee discussed this option and does not see it as affordable at this

time and could be reconsidered in the future. It was suggested that we would be paying CDCR to be the middleman between the county and Cal-Fire, so why don’t counties run their own fire camps and deal direct with Cal Fire. Chief Meyer stated the Boys Ranch could be a fire training camp. It has 125 beds and had a fire crew there before. If this group is interested we could look at that. Running fire camps are not cheap but we have capacity.


Fern Laethem stated that we need to get this information down to the troops. All justice partners and their staff need to understand what’s going on and what programs are available in order for things to move efficiently through the system. She also mentioned that on September 16th a group is coming from Delancey Street – a premier program on alcohol and drug abuse treatment, from 12-1 in the Board of Supervisors chambers.

6. Next Meeting: September 16, 2011 8:30 – 10:00, Courthouse, Dept 46 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 am.

1


Meeting Date and Time; September 1, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES DRAFT

1. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Ms. Sheila Boltz stated she worked in the mental health field and is now retired. She is excited about this opportunity that will provide more rehabilitation and community re-entry focus for ex-offenders. She expressed concern about the Roger Bauman proposal as it is a custodial program with a lot of money tied to housing of inmates, money that could be used toward evidence based program for rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. She urged the CCP to focus on re-entry and rehabilitation. Bruce Wagstaff thanked her for her comments and stated we need more discussion on this. Chief Meyer stated no proposal has been voted on and more are coming to the CCP. Sheriff Scott Jones stated that he may speaking out in opposition to AB 109. He agreed that local control and evidence based practices are the best thing for the community and he supports the concept. He is concerned that there is not sufficient secure funding or constitutional protections to do what is contemplated. He has met with CDCR Secretary Matt Cate and Governor Brown to express his concerns. He would like to see the October 1st date pushed out so that more time can be taken to do it right.

2. Approval of August 18, 2011 minutes

The minutes were approved as amended. Motion – Fern Laethem; 2nd Ann Edwards.


• Post Release Community Supervision – Adult Day reporting Center

Suzanne Collins discussed the Probation Department’s proposal to open a third Adult Day Reporting Center (ADRC) in the north area for Post Release Community Supervision. They currently have one ADRC open at their Florin-Perkins office and are planning to open a second one in October in the South area. All clients can be served at any location. The purpose is to provide a continuum of services, sanctions, rewards and incentives through a four phased program. All clients will have a needs assessment completed to determine their risks and needs in order to develop a case plan. They have recently learned that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) will not be providing the COMPAS assessment tool they use as originally promised. The assessment takes 1-2 hours to conduct and depending on the score, the client will be funneled into one of three areas – intensive supervision, community supervision or on site supervision. It utilizes an evidence based curriculum with cognitive behavior therapy. If substance abuse treatment is needed a client can be referred to their Drug Court program if eligible. The ADRC will handle the high risk-high need clients for 9-12 months who are then tapered off. They can also be referred to one of their three specialty units for sex offenders, gangs and DUI, which are already in existence, if they don’t qualify for ADRC.

2

Sam Somers agreed with the concept and mentioned that the Sacramento Police Department already supervises a lot of these with CDCR with parole intensive teams so he would like to see a more regional approach to this. Fred Campbell stated that Probation will be delivering these services from three sites which has the capacity for 600 offenders. Intensive supervision units can handle 350 each. Currently they have 100. Probation should be able to handle all of them. Chief Lewis suggested that it may be prudent to deliver services in jail before they get out such as in the Roger Bauman facility intake and reentry center. It will shorten the amount of time they would have to spend in the program. Suzanne agreed that there is crossover time when they are going to be receiving services between SSD and Probation.

4. Update from the Evidence Based Sentencing Training (Aug 18-19, Charlotte NC)

Attendees to this training were Chief Meyer, Paulino Duran, Judge Allen Sumner, Caroline Park (DA’s office), and Keith Bays (Probation). The concept was new to some at the training and they had good discussions on different types of programs. They liked our Violation of Probation Court model. There was a fair amount of resistance from other groups on this evidence based sentencing concept. Paulino stated that many at the training were at the beginning of the journey where we are further ahead. They still have a long way to go on to accepting the concepts.

5. Open Committee Discussion Chief Meyer stated that there will be a Board of Supervisors update on realignment on September 13 at 2:30 pm. Paulino discussed the acronym “PRCS” and the pronunciation he has heard that sounds derogatory. Our goal is to try to rehabilitate people so he stated we should not use it because it undermines what we are trying to do. Chief Meyer said others are calling it PROS which stands for Post Release Offenders. The committee discussed the need for a successful launch which includes other services. Need group to work on this - Lynn will set that up. There is a CDCR Training scheduled for September 8 – Lynn will send out flyer The committee agreed that we should begin meeting weekly in September. Lynn will look for other dates and conference room availability.

6. Next Meeting: September 8, 2011 8:30 – 10:00 Courthouse, Dept 46 7. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 am.

1


Meeting Date and Time; August 18, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES

1. Welcome and Introductions were conducted. Vice–chair Jaime Lewis ran the meeting due to Chief Meyer being out of town

2. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – none received.

3. Approval of August 4, 2011 minutes (copy distributed with agenda) Motion to approve the minutes – Mary Ann Bennett; 2nd Cindy Besemer. The minutes were approved. 4. Update on Core Programs (pretrial release, supervised OR, Sheriff Home Detention, Post

Release Community Supervision)

Fred Campbell discussed the Pre Trial Release Program. The Agencies are collecting information on existing programs statewide in order to draft a discussion paper for the committee. The discussion paper will be completed after the profile of the inmate population is completed. The 700-800 page automated report was completed today for his review and analysis. Supervised O.R. will be incorporated into the PreTrial review/analysis. L.A. and Placer County have programs for review. Probation sent staff to Placer County to collect information for the report. A discussion of whether ankle monitoring would be considered in-custody for time credits or effect to MediCal eligibility for those on ankle monitoring was held. The expansion of the Sheriff Department’s Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program from last meeting was briefly discussed. There may be modifications to the discussion document. after further development of the Sheriff’s operations procedures. Probation is also exploring HD models. Suzanne Collins indicated that they are still working on the Post Release Community Supervision model and will report at the next meeting. A similar discussion paper will be prepared for the committee’s review. All of these documents and the key program elements involved will be included in the County Plan. Fred Campbell distributed a Draft Discussion Paper for discussion on the Sheriff’s department reopening the Roger Bauman Facility (RBF) at RCCC. The paper outlined three key components; Overview of RCCC Site plan, a description of RBF housing and support areas, and a staffing plan and shift schedule. Members expressed concern about not having enough money ($6.5 Mil), especially combined with the last proposal for Home Detention ($2.5 mil). Chief Lewis indicated that RBF is the only bed space that is not being used and would be ideal for a “reception” center and possibly “reentry” center for those being released. The current configuration is linear versus pods which requires more staffing. There is space that could be reconfigured to house staff for intake and pre-release programs. Since there are no services listed in the proposal, the group should look into existing service contracts to see if any could be leveraged at the Roger Bauman site. Chief Lewis also indicated that the Sheriff intends to apply for AB900 funds for services but that it requires a 10% match and the land may not be encumbered. Further discussion on the use of this facility will be addressed at future meetings.

5. Update on Revocation Process workgroup

Trish Meraz provided an update from the first Revocation Process workgroup that occurred on August 11th. Judge Earl identified Judge Lawrence Brown as the court’s designee to the

2

workgroup. He was not present but would be at future meetings. The workgroup discussed that the hearings start in October 2011 for those released on PRCS non sex, violent or life offenders and in July 2013 for all. The location of the hearings has not been decided. There is a desire by the Sheriff for it to be at RCCC but a desire by other participants for the hearings to be downtown. The Sheriff described the inmate movement process and Trish described the PC and Parole Revocation hearing process from recent observations. The members of the workgroup discussed current invitations to comment on Rules of Court (CRC) amendments and whether the Parole hearings in the court will apply to Valdivia since technically; those released on PRCS are not on Parole. PRCS does not allow prison, they are sent to county jail if found in violation of their PRCS. This has a local impact. Record keeping was an issue that needed to be addressed for the Parole Hearing process. Trish and Probation to meet and discuss with Parole to identify the current process and identify a solution. For defense representation, Lynn will ask McGeorge School about their billing process. A discussion about PC 969b records that are necessary for the DA in trials was discussed. Trish and Cindy to work on a solution. The next Parole Hearing Workgroup is scheduled for August 30th at either 10-noon or 12:00-1:30 depending on Judge Brown’s availability at the DA’s office as Dept. 46 was not available. Following this update, Fern Laetham encouraged the committee to look into contracting with the current CDCR staffing that perform these administrative functions. The group raised potential 71J issues, that the CDCR will no longer be involved with these individuals, they close their files once the inmate is released on PRCS. We needed to create local administrative functions in our own systems to process and manage these individuals locally. There was an agreement that we keep it as simple as it is currently and not create any undue processes.

6. Open Committee

Mary Ann Bennett shared information on an upcoming conference on September 21st, all day. The conference is for Corrections Realignment teams to attend. The group will identify necessary members to attend this for their agency. Mary Ann will forward the conference materials to Trish for distribution to the agencies sending members. Each justice agency will email Trish Meraz and Lynn Wynn the names of the members who will attend.

7. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 am 8. The next meeting is scheduled for September 1, 2011 8:30-10:00 in Department 46


1


Meeting Date and Time; August 4, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES

1. Welcome and Introductions were conducted. 2. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – none received.

3. Information Items

• meeting with Kelli M. Evans, Associate Director, ACLU Chief Meyer stated that he met with Kelli Evans from the ACLU as a follow up to the letter sent to the CCP. • Training for Evidence Based Practices to Reduce Recidivism: What Works and What

Doesn’t Chief Meyer informed the CCP of the upcoming training by Ed Latessa.

4. Approval of July 21, 2011 minutes (copy distributed with agenda) The following amendments were made to the July 21 draft minutes:

• #8 – SB 678 plan – change date of board hearing from August 2 to August 9, 2011 • #9 – corrected language relating to county parole. Also handed out a copy of the

penal code section related to this topic. Motion to approve the minutes as amended: Bruce Wagstaff; 2nd Paulino Duran. The minutes were approved. 5. Update on Core Programs (pretrial release, supervised OR, Sheriff Home Detention, Post

Release Community Supervision)

Fred Campbell distributed a Draft Discussion Paper: Expansion of the Sheriff Department’s Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. It has not been reviewed or approved by the Sheriff yet. Fred has been meeting with staff and vendors to come up with a proposal that SSD can support in terms of how a home detention electronic monitoring program would be structured and implemented as part of AB109. There will be key operational changes and a number of issues are starting to surface such as the availability of mental health and alcohol and drug treatment, education, and job training and readiness. Members expressed concern about not having enough money, program capacity or time to get these programs set up. Every one of the core programs will have these issues which will affect the structure of the plan and operational procedures. We will need to have ancillary services for all core programs to take advantage of. Members were asked to review the document and provide comments back to Fred.

2

6. Update on Revocation Process workgroup Lynn Wynn stated the she, Trish Meraz and Jaime Collins had gone to Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) to watch probable cause and parole revocation hearings to get a feel for how things worked operationally. In addition, all members of the work group have been identified. Last week, the Judicial Council came out with proposed rules and forms for public review and comment by August 17.

7. Update on Fiscal Structure for Funding of Programs

Lynn stated that she has set up a meeting with the County Executive’s Office and the Department of Finance to discuss how the fiscal structure will be set up in order to receive and disburse the monies from the state. Our first check for $200,000 for the CCP has already been received.

8. Discussion of Other Programs/Services

• Mental Health/Alcohol and Drug • Education • Job Training and readiness • Other

The committee all agreed that these types of services are very important, however, there are current limitations on resources and capacity within the county structure for mental health and substance abuse treatment services. There is not a large amount of funding for the core programs and some of the costs to support these types of services may have to occur in year two. We also need to be aware that this population may have learning disabilities. We need to couple education with employment – one without the other is not sufficient. Community based organizations and non-profits are other sources we should look at.

9. Discussion of Draft Timeline of Events The committee reviewed the draft timeline and did not make any changes or additions. We may want to use September 13 to present a conceptual plan to the Board of Supervisors.


Motion to use August 11 for revocation group meeting from 8:30 – 10:00: Bruce Wagstaff; 2nd Cindy Besemer. The motion was approved. Keep August 18th schedule CCP meeting and have vice–chair Jaime Lewis run the meeting due to Chief Meyer being out of town. Court will staff the meeting while Lynn is on vacation.

11. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 am


1


Meeting Date and Time; July 21, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse


MINUTES

1. Welcome and Introductions were conducted. 2. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – none received.

3. Correspondence Received:

• Letter from American Civil Liberties Union

4. Approval of June 30, 2011 minutes – Motion: Paulino Duran; 2nd: Sam Somers. The minutes

were approved.

5. Brown Act training update

Chief Meyer stated that the CCP had Michelle Bach from County Counsel provide training on July 14. Lynn stated that she had learned that the Open Meetings Act (Brown Act) was a state funded mandate. The CCP can be reimbursed for time related to the preparation and posting of agendas. Claims are done each fiscal year, so the CCP will be able to make a claim for FY 11-12 which will be done in September 2012. Lynn will be responsible for this task.

6. Designation of Social Services Member of Voting/Executive Committee

On July 19, 2011, the Board of Supervisors appointed Bruce Wagstaff, Countywide Services Agency Administrator as the Social Services member of the Voting/Executive Committee.

7. Discussion and Adoption of Proposed By-Laws for CCP Meetings The following amendments to the draft bylaws were suggested:

• Add Conflict Criminal Defender to membership of CCP • Correct adopted date (on last page) to July 21, 2011 from June 21, 2011

Discussion was held on the Vice-Chair position. Motion by Sam Somers to appoint Chief Jaime Lewis as the Vice-Chair. 2nd: Cindy Besemer. Chief Lewis was approved as Vice- Chair. Motion to approve the bylaws as amended by Paulino Duran; 2nd: Fern Laethem. The bylaws were approved. 8. Discussion and Approval of SB 678 Funding Plan to Expand and Develop New Evidence

Based Programs for the Adult Offender Population to Reduce Recidivism Chief Meyer stated that the CCP functions as an advisory council to the Probation Department

for SB 678 funding and its uses. This item will be on the Board of Supervisors agenda for August 9, 2011 for approval. Chief Meyer went through each program as outlined in the SB 678 funding plan for $7.7M that will add 44 FTE’s. Discussion and input was provided from CCP members.

2

9. Discussion on AB 117 – clean up legislation for AB 109

Chief Meyer stated that county parole can be activated at half time but with the new half time credits, it renders county parole moot.unless the threshold is lowered to less than half time. This is curently a local rule of the courts so that will need to be addressed if we are going to use it. Chief Meyer stated that the finalized realignment plan took out the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) but that it created a $214M gap for the State who needs to recoup costs so they are looking to local funding which means Probation will be charged $125,000 for every commitment to DJJ. This means that Probation would have to lay off one person for every commitment to DJJ. They have no control over who goes there especially juveniles tried as adults. We currently don’t have a local place to house them since the Boys Ranch closed. Chief Lewis stated the Sheriff’s Department is working with CDCR for return to custody DJJ inmates for up to 10 beds.

10. Discussion on California Department of Corrections Monthly Estimates

Fred Campbell stated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has issued their projected estimates at full implementation of Average Daily Population (ADP) for low level offenders and Post Release Community Supervision. Since then counties and others have been pressing for additional projections that show monthly workload that counties can expect. Fred distributed a document that provides a 24 month estimate. Sacramento County numbers were 1,819 annually or about 76 per month between the two groups. This is based on CDCR’s examination of their historical intakes across the state which includes major fluctuations from month to month. This gives us a much clearer indication of what the phased impact will be. Fred estimates that we will be adding about 159 cases per month to the system which is a significant new workload. It will impact the volume of offenders in programs and felony caseloads. Fern Laethem stated based on information from the McGeorge Parole Advocacy Program that we are looking at 5,000 hearings annually. It was suggested that a workgroup be formed to work on the revocation process. Motion by Fern Laethem to have a revocation workgroup; 2nd: Judge Earl. Revocation workgroup approved. Lynn and Trish were tasked with setting up a revocation process workgroup.

11. Discussion on Available First Year (one time only) Funding

Chief Meyer stated that the following one times monies were being allocated from the state: $927,000 for start up costs and $200,000 for CCP costs. The CCP will make recommendations to the voting/executive committee on how the funds should be spent.

12. Discussion and Approval of Preliminary Design of Core Programs Topic Paper:

• Pretrial Release • Supervised OR • Sheriff’s Department Home Detention/Electronic Monitoring • Post Release Community Supervision – Expansion of Adult Day Reporting Center Fred stated that in conversations with Probation and the Sheriff’s Department, in light of first discussion paper on jail capacity, it has become evident with workload numbers that at least initially four core programs as indicated need to be looked at to start off with. These will create needed additional capacity in the jail system. He needs to work with the departments to come up with a preliminary design that lays out operationally what they

3

would look like, staffing, costs and population that could be served. He has been working with the Sheriff’s Department on producing a profile of our jail population to know our pretrial and sentenced populations at the main jail and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) as well as felony and misdemeanor populations. It will take about 30 days to collect the data from the departments and put together recommendations. He would report back at the September 1, 2011 CCP meeting. Motion by Sam Somers to authorize consultant to gather data and produce report; 2nd: Fern Laethem. Motion approved.

13. Discussion of Draft Timeline of Events Lynn discussed the draft timeline of events. She was asked to add the reserved board date and other new things discussed today to the list. Lynn will update the list and bring back to next meeting.

14. Open Committee Discussion - none

15. Next Meeting: August 4, 2011 8:30 – 10:00 Courthouse, Dept 46

NOTE: August 18 meeting will be cancelled due to unavailability of key members. Members

expressed a desire to find another date to hold the meeting. Lynn will look and report back at next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30

1


Meeting Date and Time; June 30, 2011, 8:30AM – 10:00AM Place: District Attorney’s Office

901 G Street, 4th floor conference room

MINUTES

1. Welcome and Introductions were conducted. 2. Public Comment – none received.

3. Approval of June 16, 2011 minutes

The minutes were approved.

4. Brown Act Update County counsel has opined that the Community Corrections Partnership is governed by the Brown Act. Training for committee members will be held on July 14, 2011 from 10 – 11am, downtown courthouse, Dept 46.

5. AB-109 Realignment Legislation Update

The Governor will be signing the state budget today which includes trailer bills that will

fund public safety realignment. Funding is provided for the first year only and there are no Constitutional Amendment guarantees. Realignment becomes effective October 1, 2011. Sacramento should get about $13M, 3.7% of total allocation for nine months. $200,000 is also included as additional money for training/support of the CCP. The voting membership has also changed. Still expect more cleanup and fixes. The Department of Finance estimates regarding population in target offender groups has not changed and we do not expect any updates. There is also $12.7 statewide for DA/PD for revocation hearings in addition to the Court’s statewide allocation. It is estimated that we will have 2,450 offenders per year for three years, with it starting out smaller at first, then spiking, then trailing off. The provision that counties can contract with state to house prisoners is still available. Also the Division of Juvenile Justice realignment shift is deferred until 2013.

6. Handout – Project Binder and Reference Program Planning Information

Binders were delivered to members to hold all the reference information gathered and to help keep it organized. Binders were delivered to members.

7. Discussion Paper: Summary Overview of County Crime Rates, Arrests, Jail Capacity and

Inmate Population Trends Fred distributed the discussion paper on jail data which covers five basic topics. He looked at what is happening with general county population growth, summarized what we know about our crime rate trends, collected and analyzed current and historical countywide arrest information, summarized information on our existing jail capacity and

2

related inmate population trends that the Sheriff’s Department is dealing with on a daily basis. It is summarized in narrative form to capture basic generalizations and conclusions and has a summary table or chart that graphically/visually captures current information and where we have historical trends. Jail statistics show drugs and alcohol arrests equal 45% so we should focus there which will probably be a lot of the non, non, non population. Alcohol is #1 drug of choice and equals 1 out of every 4 arrests. SPD has preventive evidence based programs that are working, such as hot spot crimes which puts a cop out on location randomly. They have seen a 25% reduction in crime with this program. They also have a cease fire program with juveniles working with Probation.

8. Next Custody Component Discussion Paper Topics

The next discussion paper will provide information on existing pretrial and sentence alternatives, what are their operational policies, who is being served, what’s the impact on bed space, and an inventory of existing in custody programs. 9. Open Committee Discussion

Need backwards timeline from Board of Supervisor action to determine when we need to get things done. Lynn will create draft timeline for next meeting. What can we build off of? There are off the shelf Evidence Based Programs but the issue is fidelity and the data to back it up. Need stuff on the prevention side that could be sustainable – Sam will send reports on their new programs. If others have ideas/program information send it to Lynn, let’s try to check them out and weed them out. Tim said he can talk to Community Based Organizations and adult schools. While they are in custody SCOE has worked with SETA to get them ready for work. Cynthia has some model programs for county jail. She suggested we also reach out to community people that we can tap into. Trish will work with Don, Cindy, Fern, Paulino, and Jaime on pre-trial program design It was suggested that we may need a post release community supervision subcommittee Encourage membership to come and have an alternate, both should come to meeting so everyone is current.

10. Next meeting is July 21 at 8:30 in Dept 46. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 am

1

Community Corrections Partnership Committee Meeting Date and Time; June 16, 2011, 8:00AM – 9:30AM

Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse 720 9th Street, 6th Floor, Department 46

MINUTES Attendees: Chief Don Meyer, Tim Taylor, Karen Flynn, Teresa Huff, Fern Laethem, Jaime Lewis, Bruce Wagstaff, Dennis Jones, Cindy Besemer, Kerry Martin, William Walker, Sam Somers, Cynthia Keeth, Judge Sumner, Mary Ann Bennett, Fred Campbell and Lynn Wynn 1. Review and approve minutes from June 9, 2011 meeting The minutes were approved 2. Establish Committee Meeting Schedule (frequency, time and day of week) – calendar handout distributed Meeting frequency was discussed and the committee agreed to have meetings bi-weekly from 8:30 – 10:00 am. Lynn will update the schedule and send out to the group. 3. Board of Supervisors Legislative Update - presentation on realignment June 21 at 2pm

Chief Meyer stated that the Board of Supervisors had requested a presentation on the public safety realignment as part of the June 21, 2011 Legislative Update at 2:00 pm. Lynn will prepare a power point presentation and speakers will be Chief Meyer, Sheriff Jones, Cindy Besemer and Paulino Duran.

4. Partnership Committee Composition and Roles / Responsibilities

Chief Meyer stated that we are to prepare the draft plan that goes to the voting committee. It will then be reviewed by the Criminal Justice Cabinet. The realignment plan requires a 4/5 vote by the Board of Supervisors to reject the plan, which would get referred back to the Community Corrections Partnership. Fred referred to the Penal Code Section 1230 handout and informed the group that there have been proposed amendments to Section 1230.1 regarding the membership of the executive voting body. Proposed amendments include adding the District Attorney, Public Defender, the Presiding Judge or his/her designee and the Board of Supervisors will designate one department representative from either the Head of Social Services, Head of Mental Health or Head of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs. It also proposes to remove the County Supervisor or Chief Administrative Officer. Bruce will check if the social service/mental health/AOD appointment needs a board letter.

5. Development of Draft Public Safety Realignment Plan and Approval Process See item #4

6. Status Update on State Budget Realignment Funding and Other Related Implementing Legislation Chief Meyer stated the state budget is on idle right now. A lot of unknowns, however, we are ahead of most counties.

2

7. General Discussion on Planning Approach, Data Collection, and Recommendation Development Process the Partnership Committee Will Follow

Fred stated that he has been looking at the legislative requirements and he has developed a conceptual planning approach which has four basic components: 1) Custody – bed capacity, in custody programming, discharge planning, etc. 2) Community supervision – use and expansion of existing interventions and services to new target population 3) Judicial component 4) Phased implementation schedule and timelines The final product has to address the full system. Fred will look at options, summarizing impacts to departments and organizational structure. Planning, review of data and fiscal areas will be looked at in each component. He will initially meet with the staff from the Sheriff’s Department to get baseline info, such as average daily population (ADP), historical data, mix of pretrial population, length of stay, etc. He will prepare summary planning information to assess impacts and options, and the impact of AB 109. At a point further along, the CCP will determine basic needs and options will start to develop. We will use the Department of Finance numbers as preliminary estimates, recognizing that there are some qualifications and limitations and things will change. Fred’s job is to collect the data, analyze it, provide preliminary options, and work with the affected agencies.

1

Community Corrections Partnership Committee Meeting Date and Time; June 9, 2011, 8:00AM – 9:15AM

Place: Sacramento County Downtown Courthouse 720 9th Street, 6th Floor, Department 46

MINUTES Attendees: Don Meyer, Chair, Judge Laurie Earl, Judge Allen Sumner, Dennis Jones, Bruce Wagstaff, Paulino Duran. Rhonda Engellener, Mary Ann Bennett, Jaime Lewis, Karen Maxwell, Kerry Martin, Sue Stickel, William Walker, Sam Somers, Cynthia Keeth, Fred Campbell, Trish Meraz and Lynn Wynn 1. Agenda Building (additions or deletions) - None 2. Overview of AB-109 Offender Realignment Legislation (Attachment #1) Chief Meyer provided an overview of AB 109. Early estimates based on Sacramento getting approximately 4% of the statewide allocation he estimates we would get $45-50M which is not enough money. The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) has to decide given the restriction of money what we can do to implement AB 109. We need to decide on a definition of public safety and how to handle the approximately 2,400 people being shifted to local community corrections. This is also back door sentencing reform, meaning people will no longer be eligible for prison will now stay locally. If they commit new crimes or get a parole violation, they do not go back to prison. The non-non-non population will remain under the new post community supervision. AB 109 has an effective date of July 1, 2011, however, implementation does not begin until it is funded. Counties will then have responsibility immediately. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is already working on its transition plan. The CCP’s recommendations will go up to the Executive Committee who will have voting powers, they will decide what’s okay or not. The CCP will have to sell it to that group and they will take it to the Board of Supervisors for approval. District Attorney, Public Defender and Courts received additional money in the Governor’s May Budget Revision: $200/hr for PD/DA, $41M statewide for courts to handle the parole revocation hearings. Dennis Jones stated that there was $41M in the judicial budget for the first year with ongoing funding of $23-25M statewide for the 800,000 hearings and includes 14 judicial officers to handle them. Annually we will have about 900 of this population per year of new commitments. SSD Chief Lewis raised a concern that people would be sentenced to time greater than three years with no time cap which would result in longer sentences. Judge Sumner stated a judge could stack consecutive sentences to get longer sentences. Another example was someone commits a low level offense and with prior prison commitments, the charging enhancements would add additional time to the sentence. It was pointed out that Sacramento has the 3rd largest number of probationers behind Kern and Los Angeles counties. We do something different here that we may have to look at and see if we can reduce that population. We also have inmates serving longer sentences here than others in the state. Chief Somers pointed out that Sacramento has the 2nd highest number of parolees. Chief Meyer stated we need to figure out how can we reduce the jail population by doing something safe so this population does not commit more crimes which results in more victims when they are out. Most jails that are overcrowded do not have a good pretrial program. Chief Lewis stated our return to custody (from the state) population will go away so there will be room for this new population. Prior to signing of AB 109, state sheriff and others had conversations with the state and CDCR to contract back for bed space which may be another option for us.

2

Fred Campbell stated that there is a clear inherent assumption in the legislation that counties will have a hybrid model in place over time that are evidence based which are proven, focused, and will have a positive impact on recidivism. Our plan will have four components:

--custody, community supervision, intervention programming, and judicial components -- Alternatives to incarceration and diversion programming -- Evidence-based programs and practices (EBP) -- Phased Implementation Schedule and Timelines

We currently do not have a good handle on what those recommendations will look like. We need to develop a baseline assessment so each department can understand what is going on at the county jail, composition of the population, and where we are with the uses of alternatives to incarceration. Over 30 years, we have had 30 different programs and case processing policies in response to overcrowding so we need to find out what the status is of those programs. We will need to approach the formulation of the plan to the Board of Supervisors with base information. We will need to do the same with supervision. In the last five years, evidence based practices (EBP) has emerged, which Probation has been doing, but there is more to be done. The CCP will need to arrive at consensus for recommendations. Chief Lewis stated that they have a robust home detention program with a high success rate for completion but low numbers for those that quality so it is not realistic to use. If this comes with state funding, does the defendant still have to pay? The Court will be assuming responsibility for Morrisey hearings (parole revocations) but there are no processes currently in place. We also do not know if the District Attorney will be a part of that. It is a major issue for the courts and SSD transportation – possibly we could do something similar to the Violation of Probation Court model. Chief Lewis asked if the court was open to doing revocation hearings at some other location than the courthouse, like the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC)? Judge Earl stated that they would prefer to do them at the jail. Chief Meyer stated that the state has a real problem with people churning in and out of prisons. We cannot do it the same way. We will need programs that address the issues but we cannot violate them for everything. Auto theft, property theft and drug offenders are low level risk but highest to recidivate. Need community based organizations as well as working with them in jail and then getting them in the right program right away or they will be back in custody. We need to change how they behave and think. Chief Lewis pointed out that parole uses flash incarceration for violations of parole which results in an immediate sentence on the day of the offense/event where they go right to jail – swift and certain for a shorter period of time. Drug court uses it and has success with it. It is appealing to the Sheriff’s Office for shorter durations but the funding associated with return to custody is only 30 days. Chief Meyer stated there are currently no adult programs in probation, they were only supervising 35% and are now only supervising 4%. With realignment we will end up with a population with no interventions/support. There is nothing locally to help them unless we can come up with new ideas. Cynthia Keeth from Strategies for Change stated she has found from talking with her staff at the Adult Day Reporting Center that the biggest barrier for the probationers is they cannot find jobs. They want to do better but we need to find a way for them to earn money to generate revenue and help them too. There are models out there that we can look into. William Walker from the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA) stated they have a pre-release program contract with CDCR but not many of their clients are from Sacramento – out of 50 only 1 or 2 are from Sacramento. This program gets them ready for employment. Housing is another issue so they give them supportive services. They feel they need housing first before you can deal with employment.

3

Chief Meyer stated that we have to get to them before they get out of jail. Start the process at sentencing. Judges will need pre-sentence reports that they do not get now which should have a risk and needs assessment done. Kerry Martin stated that currently, when they are in prison, if there’s order of restitution directly to the victim or the victims compensation board, CDCR has a program that takes 40% of what they earn while in prison and what is in their trust to account to pay off the restitution, victims compensation board, fines, fees, etc. If they now shift to local custody, that’s a loss of revenue. Those penalty assessments fund the victim witness program. Could be a lot of money statewide that is not going to be collected or disbursed. By law, victim restitution is number one in the repayment list. Karen Maxwell asked if Chief Meyer had any recommendations? He stated that VOP Court could be enhanced as well as adding a second day reporting center maybe even three. We need to have other locations in the county where the people are. We need different types of supervision to get them to a place where they want to do something else besides jail. Treat them different but hold them accountable. Cynthia mentioned the CCAP and MIOCR programs (2nd one) as working well – those are no longer in existence. Chief Lewis concurred with the success of these programs. Chief Meyer stated that the high risk offenders are the hardest to work with and they are committing most of the crimes. If they want to change we can help them with that, otherwise jail is the solution. It requires 300 hours in programs to change behavior. Low risk offenders need services but not jail. 3. Partnership Committee Composition and Roles / Responsibilities – continued to next meeting 4. Development of Draft Public Safety Realignment Plan and Approval Process – continued to next meeting – continued to next meeting

5. Status Update on State Budget Realignment Funding and Other Related Implementing Legislation – continued to next meeting 6. General Discussion on Planning Approach, Data Collection, and Recommendation Development Process the Partnership Committee Will Follow – continued to next meeting 7. Establish Committee Meeting Schedule (frequency, time and day of week) Next meeting will be Thursday, June 16 at 8am – 9:30. Lynn will find a conference room.

Community Corrections Partnership Committee...County’s CCP plan and realignment information, fact...

Documents

Transcript of Community Corrections Partnership Committee...County’s CCP plan and realignment information, fact...