Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08212012 - SD.3RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. APPROVE response to 2011/12 Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1210 entitled, "Voluntary Inmate Labor - A Lost Opportunity", attached, and direct the Clerk of the Board to send a copy of the response to the Superior Court no later than September 5, 2012. 2. DIRECT the Human Resources Director to continue to bargain with the union to achieve an agreement that expands the use of voluntary inmate labor to perform routine building maintenance and other work tasks that might not otherwise be funded. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impact as this is an information report. The proposed response, if implemented, has the potential to avoid future costs for some building maintenance and repair and to prevent further and more costly facility deterioration. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/21/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: JULIE ENEA (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 21, 2012 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: SD. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:August 21, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:RESPONSE TO 2011/12 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1210 ENTITLED, “VOLUNTARY INMATE LABOR – A LOST OPPORTUNITY” BACKGROUND: On June 8, 2012, the County received 2011/12 Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1210 entitled, "Voluntary Inmate Labor - A Lost Opportunity", attached, which was filed on May 31, 2012. Penal Code section 933 provides for final grand jury reports at any time during the grand jury’s term and requires the governing body of any agency whose operations are the subject of a report to comment on the grand jury's findings and recommendations to the presiding judge of the superior court within 90 days from the date the governing body receives the report, making the Board's response deadline for Report No. 1210 on September 6, 2012. The Sheriff, as an elected department head, is obligated to respond to the report within 60 days of receipt. The Sheriff's response, filed on June 26, 2012, is attached for information. The Board of Supervisors referred Report 1210 to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) with instruction to return to the Board not later than August 21 with a draft response for the Board's consideration. The PPC considered this matter at its regular meeting on August 6. Since the early 1980s, work alternative or work-for-credit programs have been utilized in county jails to provide work experience, inmate rehabilitation, and community restitution for the societal costs of criminal activity. Specifically, Penal Code section 4024.2 provides for a work release program, which our County has operated since 1983. Inmates accepted into the program provide public service labor at no cost to the County while relieving housing costs associated with incarceration. Assigned inmates report to work sites, perform tasks that might not otherwise be funded, and satisfy court judgments. The Penal Code provides examples of the types of labor that might be involved in a work release program: Manual labor to improve or maintain levees or public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, parks, and schools. Manual labor in support of nonprofit organizations Graffiti cleanup for local governmental entities Weed and rubbish abatement House repairs or yard services for senior citizens and senior centers In October 2011, the Legislature enacted the Public Safety Realignment Act, which transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Counties were charged with developing programs and strategies targeted at rehabilitating these lower-level offenders, keeping them from cycling back into the justice system, and restoring justice. The legislation established a local Community Corrections Partnership made up of county public safety officials and stakeholders to plan and guide the transition process. The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) decided to create a community advisory board (CAB) to provide a formal avenue for community input to the CCP. Both the CCP and the CAB have been meeting monthly since June 2011 to implement public safety realignment in this county. In addition to custody and probation supervision programs, the CCP and CAB have identified several areas beyond immediate shelter needs where services are needed to support the successful re-entry of offenders into the community. Key among those needed services is employment assistance. The need for increased employment opportunities for the ex-offender population is clear. The 2011 Safe Return Team survey of 101 ex-offenders recently released to Richmond found 78% were not employed, and Probation Department data from April 2012 showed that 83% of AB 109 clients are unemployed. Securing employment for formerly incarcerated individuals presents unique challenges, yet employment and a steady income are crucial in reducing recidivism. To this end, counties throughout the nation are developing partnerships in order to increase the employability of offenders when they are released from custody. Examples of inmate labor programs include grounds keeping, construction/repairs, animal care and training, recycling programs, farming, hydroponics, food preparation, printing and sign-making, welding, road kill removal, and assembling/building office furniture. As the Grand Jury points out in its report, the County’s utilization of voluntary inmate labor could be a “win” for the taxpayers, the inmates, and the County by providing at a nominal cost needed services that might otherwise not be funded, by improving the condition and appearance of public facilities, and by helping to develop work skills and basic work habits for inmates, which aligns with the County’s new obligations under the Public Safety Realignment Act. The Grand Jury summarized that the County has not pursued a Memorandum of Understanding with the union to permit the use of voluntary inmate labor to provide upkeep and refurbishment of County detention facilities. In fact, the County has been meeting with the union for many months in an attempt to forge an agreement on what jobs at local detention facilities may be performed by inmates. The County’s objectives are to obtain needed services that will not otherwise be provided/funded and provide work opportunities for inmates. It is not the County’s objective to displace working County employees. The attached proposed response to the Grand Jury's report was prepared by staff at the Committee's direction and is submitted for the Board's consideration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County's reponse to the Grand Jury will not be submitted. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Sp eaker: Matt Mason, Public Employees' Union Local One. ATTACHMENTS 2011-12 Civil Grand Jury Report 1210 Voluntary Inmate Labor - A Lost Opportunity County Response to 2011-12 Civil Grand Jury Report 1210 Voluntary Inmate Labor - A Lost Opportunity Sheriff Response to 2011-12 Civil Grand Jury Report 1210 Voluntary Inmate Labor - A Lost Opportunity CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO 2011/12 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1210 ENTITLED “VOLUNTARY INMATE LABOR – A LOST OPPORTUNITY” FINDINGS 1. Funding shortfalls are contributing to the deterioration of the detention facilities. Response: Agree. The condition of many county facilities, including the detention facilities, has deteriorated due to successive years of budget cutting and deferral of maintenance. 2. Voluntary inmate labor could be used for minor maintenance and repair activities. Response: Agree. However, with regard to work historically performed by County employees, voluntary inmate labor may be used only with agreement by the union. 3. Current practice validates expanding the use of voluntary inmate labor for routine duties. Response: Agree. Inmates have performed weed and litter abatement and maintained grounds and landscaping to the benefit of the County, the inmates, and the taxpayers. Moreover, the 2011 passage of the Public Safety Realignment Act obligates counties to offer in-custody work-for-credit programs to help build marketable job skills and develop basic work habits. Counties throughout the nation have long been instituting inmate work programs in order to increase the employability of offenders when they are released from custody. Examples of inmate labor programs include grounds keeping, construction/repairs, animal care and training, recycling programs, farming, hydroponics, food preparation, printing and sign-making, welding, road kill removal, and assembling/building office furniture. RECOMMENDATION 1. The County should meet with the union representing General Service employees regarding expanding the use of voluntary inmate labor to perform minor maintenance and repairs at the detention facilities. Response: Has been implemented. The County has been in negotiation with the Contra Costa Employees Union, Local #1, over several months in an effort to reach agreement on the appropriate use of voluntary inmate labor at County detention facilities. The County will continue to negotiate in good faith to achieve an agreement that will permit the use of voluntary inmate labor to perform routine grounds keeping and painting at County buildings. The County will also explore using inmate work crews to perform maintenance tasks at other County facilities that might otherwise not get done.