HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 12092013 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
December 9, 2013
11:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the November 14, 2013 meeting.
4. CONSIDER accepting a report from the Sheriff's Office regarding Inmate Welfare Fund
programs, inmate telecommunications and visitation policies and related funding at
County Adult Detention Facilities. (Assistant Sheriff Matthew Schuler, Sheriff's Office)
5. CONSIDER accepting a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment
and Human Services Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution
efforts within the County (Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy Gallagher, EHS
Director)
6. CONSIDER reviewing the draft calendar year 2013 Public Protection Committee Annual Report
on accomplishments and disposition of remaining referrals and forward to the Board of
Supervisors for review. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff)
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for ...to be determined.
8.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 2 of 37
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:12/09/2013
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its November 14, 2013
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the November 14, 2013 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - November 14, 2013 PPC Meeting
Page 3 of 37
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
***RECORD OF ACTION***
November 14, 2013
2:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: John Gioia, Chair
Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Attendees: Mark Peterson, District Attorney
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Kevin Corrigan, Senior Management Analyst
Guy Swanger, Police Chief - City of Concord
Steve Moawad, Supervising Deputy District Attorney
Kristina McCosker, Deputy District Attorney
Donna Maxwell, District II Staff
Todd Billeci, Director Probation Department
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the October 14, 2013 meeting.
Approved as presented.
4.RECOMMEND nominee for appointment to the Police Chief seat on the CY2014
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), pursuant to Penal Code § 1230(b)(2).
The Committee nominated Police Chief Guy Swanger from the City of Concord to
serve on the CY2014 Community Corrections Partnership and directed staff to list
this item on the December 3, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda as a short
discussion item.
5.ACCEPT a status report from the District Attorney on Public Assistance Fraud
investigation and prosecution efforts within the County.
The Committee requested that the District Attorney to return at the December 2013
Page 4 of 37
The Committee requested that the District Attorney to return at the December 2013
regular meeting to present this report and directed staff to request the presence of
the Employment and Human Services Director to attend the meeting as well. No
further action was taken on this item.
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 9, 2013 at 11:00am.
7.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 5 of 37
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:12/09/2013
Submitted For: David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner
Department:Office of the Sheriff
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Update on Inmate Welfare Programs, Inmate Telecom/Visitation Policies
offered at County Adult Detention Facilities
Presenter: Assistant Sheriff Matthew
Schuler
Contact: Assistant Sheriff Matthew Schuler,
925-335-4643
Referral History:
On July 16, 2013, the Board of Supervisors referred a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF)
and inmate visitation policies to the Public Protection Committee for review. The Inmate Welfare
Fund is authorized by Penal Code § 4025 for the “…benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates
confined within the jail.” The statute also mandates that an itemized accounting of IWF
expenditures must be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors.
On August 12, 2013, the Public Protection Committee received a report from the Sheriff’s Office
on, among other things, the inmate telecommunications system in adult detention facilities
located within the County. The Committee requested a follow up presentation from the Sheriff’s
Office at the September PPC meeting to discuss the contract with Praeses, LLC specifically for
reconciliation of inmate telecommunications services.
On September 9, 2013, the Committee received an update from the Sheriff's Office regarding
consulting services provided by Praesus, LLC to assist in developing an RFP for inmate
telecommunications services. During that meeting, the Committee requested a list of programs
provided by the Sheriff's Office in Adult Detention Facilities and source of funding.
On October 14, 2013, the Committee received a presentation from the Sheriff's Office on
programming offered at each of the three County Adult Detention Facilities and identified the
related funding source. The Committee requested that the Sheriff's Office return at a future date to
continue the discussion and provide information regarding the RFP to be released for a inmate
telecommunications provider.
Referral Update:
The Sheriff's Office will provide an update to the Committee regarding Inmate Welfare Fund
Page 6 of 37
The Sheriff's Office will provide an update to the Committee regarding Inmate Welfare Fund
programs, inmate telecommunications and visitation policies and related funding at County Adult
Detention Facilities.
Assistant Sheriff Matthew Schuler will be available to discuss the item and answer any questions
that the Committee may have.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT a report from the Sheriff's Office regarding Inmate Welfare Fund programs, inmate
telecommunications and visitation policies and related funding at County Adult Detention
Facilities.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
Inmate Programming with Funding Source
2011/12 Inmate Welfare Fund Annual Report
Penal Code Section 4025
Page 7 of 37
Page 8 of 37
Page 9 of 37
Inmate Welfare Fund
Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, and Fund Balance
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012
Receipts:
GTL Telephone Commissions $653,506
Canteen Commissions 654,539
WCDF Inmate Industries 90,379
MCDF Frame Shop 8,010
Investment Interest 1,259
Miscellaneous 24,529
Total Receipts
$1,432,223
Disbursements:
Entertainment
Purchase of TV’s/VCR’s/DVD’s/Accessories $16,247
Satellite TV Service 21,744
Inmate Work Crew Refreshments/Treats 17,581
Sub-Total $55,572
Recreation
Table/Board Games/Sports Equipment $ 4,878
Sub-Total $ 4,878
Education and Welfare
Bay Area Chaplains Contractual Services $124,634
Office of Education Contractual Services 440,089
Library Program 238,646
Inmate Legal Services 39,167
MCDF Landscape Program 39,283
WCDF Inmate Industries 186,094
BART and Bus Tickets 42,935
MCDF Frame Shop Program 22,952
Sub-Total $1,133,800
Personal Care/Hygiene
Page 10 of 37
Hair Clippers, Curling Irons, Hair Dryers,
Electric Razors, etc. $18,749
Sub-Total $18,749
Equipment Maintenance
Furniture, Electronic, etc. $ 8,357
Sub-Total $ 8,357
Other
Staff Salaries/Benefits $128,083
Staff Travel Expenses 1,026
Communication 950
Office Supplies 114
Safety Instruction OT 1,275
Public Performance License 2,190
Specialized Services & Supplies 6,493
Sub-Total $140,131
Total Disbursements
$1,361,487
Receipts less Disbursements $ 70,736
Cash Reserved for Operating Expenses $1,338,357
Total $1,409,093
Page 11 of 37
PENAL CODE - PEN
CHAPTER 1. County Jails [4000. - 4030.] ( Heading of Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1957, Ch. 50. )
4025. (a) The sheriff of each county may establish, maintain and operate a store in connection with the county jail and for
this purpose may purchase confectionery, tobacco and tobacco users’ supplies, postage and writing materials, and toilet
articles and supplies and sell these goods, articles, and supplies for cash to inmates in the jail.
(b) The sale prices of the articles offered for sale at the store shall be fixed by the sheriff. Any profit shall be deposited
in an inmate welfare fund to be kept in the treasury of the county.
(c) There shall also be deposited in the inmate welfare fund 10 percent of all gross sales of inmate hobbycraft.
(d) There shall be deposited in the inmate welfare fund any money, refund, rebate, or commission received from a
telephone company or pay telephone provider when the money, refund, rebate, or commission is attributable to the use
of pay telephones which are primarily used by inmates while incarcerated.
(e) The money and property deposited in the inmate welfare fund shall be expended by the sheriff primarily for the
benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of
the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may
include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, including,
but not limited to, education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed
appropriate by the sheriff. Inmate welfare funds shall not be used to pay required county expenses of confining inmates
in a local detention system, such as meals, clothing, housing, or medical services or expenses, except that inmate
welfare funds may be used to augment those required county expenses as determined by the sheriff to be in the best
interests of inmates. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the board of supervisors.
(f) The operation of a store within any other county adult detention facility which is not under the jurisdiction of the
sheriff shall be governed by the provisions of this section, except that the board of supervisors shall designate the
proper county official to exercise the duties otherwise allocated in this section to the sheriff.
(g) The operation of a store within any city adult detention facility shall be governed by the provisions of this section,
except that city officials shall assume the respective duties otherwise outlined in this section for county officials.
(h) The treasurer may, pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 53600), or Article 2 (commencing with Section
53630) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, deposit, invest, or reinvest any part of
the inmate welfare fund, in excess of that which the treasurer deems necessary for immediate use. The interest or
increment accruing on these funds shall be deposited in the inmate welfare fund.
(i) The sheriff may expend money from the inmate welfare fund to provide indigent inmates, prior to release from the
county jail or any other adult detention facility under the jurisdiction of the sheriff, with essential clothing and
transportation expenses within the county or, at the discretion of the sheriff, transportation to the inmate’s county of
residence, if the county is within the state or within 500 miles from the county of incarceration. This subdivision does
not authorize expenditure of money from the inmate welfare fund for the transfer of any inmate to the custody of any
other law enforcement official or jurisdiction.
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 251, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2008.)
PART 3. OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY [2000. - 10007.] ( Part 3 repealed and added
by Stats. 1941, Ch. 106. )
TITLE 4. COUNTY JAILS, FARMS AND CAMPS [4000. - 4351.] ( Heading of Title 4 amended by Stats.
1957, Ch. 50. )
Page 12 of 37
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:12/09/2013
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: CY2013 STATUS UPDATE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS
Presenter: Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy
Gallagher, EHS Director
Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)
335-1036
Referral History:
This referral began in September 2006, when the Employment and Human Services (EHS)
Department updated the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on its efforts to improve internal
security and loss prevention activities. The IOC had requested the department to report back in
nine months on any tools and procedures that have been developed and implemented to detect
changes in income eligibility for welfare benefits.
The EHS Director made follow-up reports to IOC in May and October 2007, describing what
policies, procedures, and practices are employed by the Department to ensure that public benefits
are provided only to those who continue to meet income eligibility requirements, explaining the
complaint and follow-through process, and providing statistical data for 2005/06, 2006/07, and for
the first quarter of 2007/08.
Upon creation of the PPC in January 2008, this matter was reassigned from the IOC to the PPC.
PPC received a status report on this referral in October 2008 and, again, in June 2010. The
Committee requested staff to report back on how the County’s program compares to a statewide
fraud rate, if such a rate exists. The Committee also requested a follow-up report on the IHSS
fraud program and the transition of welfare fraud collections from the Office of Revenue
Collection (now disbanded) to the Employment and Human Services Department.
On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a status report from the District Attorney and the
Employment and Human Services Director on the Welfare Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions
Program, addressing the specific questions of the PPC from the June 21 meeting. As the PPC
wishes to monitor performance of the welfare fraud program, it is recommended that this matter
be retained on referral with a follow-up report in one year. The last status report was accepted by
the PPC on November 5, 2012.
At the November 2013 meeting, the Committee requested that the EHS Director be present at the
December 2013 meeting to discuss public assistance fraud activities within that department.
Page 13 of 37
Referral Update:
The District Attorney's Office and Employment and Human Services department have submitted
individual reports this year and will present each to the Committee separately.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human Services
Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution efforts within the County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
District Attorney Report
District Attorney Report Attachment
Employment and Human Services Department Report
Page 14 of 37
Page | 1
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
Mark A. Peterson
District Attorney
OFFICE OF THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
900 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
TO: Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Mark Peterson, District Attorney
DATE: November 12, 2013
SUBJECT: Report on Public Assistance and In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Fraud
Investigations and Prosecutions
___________________________________________________________________________
The Public Protection Committee (PPC) of the Board of Supervisors has requested a yearly status report
from the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) and the District Attorney (DA) that
demonstrates their combined efforts to reduce public assistance fraud through early investigation,
quality assurance, and prosecution. This report is the DA portion of the response to that request. This
report provides a summary on staffing, referral and investigative processes, prosecutions, and statistical
summaries for fiscal year 2012/2013.
1. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD
DA Staffing
The Public Assistance Fraud Unit is housed within the Office of the District Attorney Special
Operations Division, where insurance fraud, environmental crimes, and both major and consumer fraud
are prosecuted both criminally and civilly.
Transferring into the Public Assistance Fraud Unit in April 2013, Deputy District Attorney
Kristina McCosker is a nine year veteran of the office. She is highly experienced and actively
involved in the evaluation and investigation of cases. This involvement ensures consistency between the
investigation and prosecution stages.
Senior Inspector Todd Almason joined the unit in December 2012. The Senior Inspector has over
thirty-three years of experience as a law enforcement officer and an investigator in criminal cases. His
previous experience includes eight years with the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services,
assigned to the Special Investigations Unit; and seventeen years with the Santa Clara County District
Attorney’s Office, over ten of which were in the Public Assistance Fraud Unit. He is able to bring his
experience and knowledge of Federal, State, and local public assistance laws and regulations to bear on
any case he is assigned. As the Senior Inspector, he regularly coordinates his investigations with the
Page 15 of 37
Page | 2
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
assigned Deputy District Attorney and communicates regularly with EHSD investigative and non-
investigative staff. He meets with and assists EHSD staff, as requested, with issues related to the
prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of public assistance fraud. He also initially screens
all fraud referrals received from EHSD.
Fraud Referrals
In addition to public assistance fraud hotlines at the California Department of Social Services (CDSS)
and EHSD, the public is encouraged to report public assistance fraud directly to the DA. Citizens can
report suspected public assistance fraud by calling any one of the following numbers or by emailing the
Deputy District Attorney:
Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office: (925) 957-8604
Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney: kmccosker@contracostada.org
In appropriate cases, the EHSD Fraud Prevention Division Manager forwards complaints to the
Eligibility Workers (EW) and the Eligibility Worker Supervisors (EWS) of record for their review and
potential Early Fraud Investigation referrals. Completed Early Fraud Investigations are reviewed by the
EHSD Fraud Prevention Division Manager and returned to the EW for necessary action. Completed
investigations that identify potential long term fraud are referred to the District Attorney’s Office for
further investigation.
DA Investigation and Prosecution
The cases selected for DA investigation, and cases referred from other sources, are prioritized based on a
number of factors that may include the amount of the suspected loss or fraud, the number of suspects
involved, the nature of the scheme involved, and whether the suspect has been previously suspected of
fraud or has other criminal activities on their record. In 2011, the threshold for filing potential public
assistance fraud cases was reduced from $5,000 to $3,000. While the threshold for filing potential
public assistance fraud cases generally remains at $3,000, it can be lower if the suspect has a history of
public assistance fraud or a significant criminal history. If criminal charges for Public Assistance
Fraud are filed, the charges are generally filed under the following code sections:
-Welfare & Institutions Code § 10980 – Unlawfully Obtaining Public Aid
-Penal Code § 487 – Grand Theft (for IHSS cases)
-Penal Code § 118 – Perjury
-Penal Code § 72 – Fraudulent Claims
Depending upon the nature of the case, the sophistication of the alleged fraud, and the criminal history
of the individual, the DA generally requests that charged defendants be sent a Notice to Appear in Court
or requests that the Court issue a warrant for their arrest. Defendants who have been convicted have
received sentences including the following:
-Time in prison or jail, ranging from a few days to several years (not all defendants receive
custodial time as this is generally dependent on the amount of the loss and prior criminal record.)
-Probation (for jail sentences) up to five years, or parole (for State prison sentences)
-Community Service hours ranging from 20 to 360 hours
Page 16 of 37
Page | 3
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
-Restitution and fines
-Work programs
Over the last year, the DA and the Income Employment Verification System Unit (IEVS) of EHSD have
continued their positive working relationship. The DA supplies prosecution and follow up investigation
for public assistance fraud cases referred primarily by EHSD. Additionally, the DA provides complete
investigation for more complex cases of suspected fraud and then refers those cases back to EHSD for
an overpayment calculation prior to prosecution. Both agencies remain committed to the integrity of
public assistance fraud programs.
One area of concern, however, is the delay between the fraud and the referral to our office. The DA
generally receives fraud referrals from EHSD eighteen months to two years after the fraud has been
committed. Cases investigated by the DA and referred to EHSD for an overpayment calculation take at
least six months to return to the DA for prosecution. These significant delays hinder our ability to
successfully investigate and prosecute public assistance fraud.
The Senior Inspector assigned to the Public Assistance Fraud Unit is also still waiting for EHSD to grant
him access to the CALWIN, Compass, and MEDS computer database systems. Past Senior Inspectors
assigned to Public Assistance Fraud have had access to these systems. The time devoted to investigation
by our office could be reduced if Inspector Almason was granted access to these systems.
Public Assistance Fraud Filing and Prosecution Statistics:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS CASH FOOD STAMPS TOTAL
Referrals Received 15 16 31
Investigations Completed 7 10 17
PROSECUTIONS
Cases Filed for Prosecution 5 6 11
Convictions 6 10 16
Public Assistance
Court Ordered Restitution $73,887.00
2. IHSS FRAUD INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
History
Contra Costa County has been ahead of the State in terms of IHSS (In Home Support Services)
prosecution. The State established the Quality Assurance Program in 2004, allowing for unannounced
home visits, targeted reviews, etc., for internal quality assurance. At the same time, the DA assigned to
prosecute public assistance fraud discovered that a man who was already under investigation for
defrauding CalWORKS and Food Stamps, now known as CalFRESH, was also defrauding IHSS. The
DA brought this fraud to the attention of EHSD and in Fiscal Year 2005/06,EHSD added IHSS
investigation to its Service Agreement with the DA. EHSD at that time received some funding from the
Page 17 of 37
Page | 4
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
Residual IHSS program for investigation. In January 2007, the DA began IHSS prosecutions not
associated with CalWORKS or Food Stamp fraud under the Service Agreement.
In 2009,Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Administration added funding for IHSS Investigation and
Prosecution. He added “78 County Staff” as an anti-fraud program which allowed for unannounced
home visits, reviewing criminal background check results, etc., in order to stem fraud. At the same time,
Federal and State funds became available for counties that had a state-approved IHSS anti-fraud plan on
file with DCSS. Initially, prosecution funds were attached to the anti-fraud plan program. However,
shortly thereafter, the State realized that if prosecution funds were included, the Federal matching funds
for investigation would not be available due to Federal regulations. As a result, the code used to make
claims to the state for reimbursement of prosecution expenses was deleted. While State funds have
historically not been available to fund IHSS fraud prosecution, EHSD has, in the past, recognized the
importance of prosecuting fraud within the program and committed funding to IHSS prosecution.
Funding for IHSS fraud investigation and prosecution has remained part of the Service Agreement
between EHSD and the DA through the 2012/13 Fiscal Year.
The decision by EHSD to fund DA investigation and prosecution of IHSS fraud regardless of outside
funding is a good one. In FY 2010/11,EHSD sent the DA 93 IHSS fraud referrals. The DA reviewed
all 93 referrals and opened active investigations on 18 of those referrals. In FY 2011/12, EHSD sent
the DA 312 IHSS fraud referrals and the DA opened 28 active fraud investigations. In FY 2012/13,DA
prosecution of IHSS cases led to $115,012.88 in restitution orders. In the two prior fiscal years, the DA
obtained $113,020.19 in restitution orders. Further, DA investigation and prosecution of these cases has
both a specific and a general deterrent effect. Defendants convicted of IHSS fraud, are generally
providers of care who lie about their hours or responsibilities. They are ineligible for future
participation in the program, thereby reducing fraud and ensuring recipients of care actually receive the
care to which they are entitled. The criminal prosecution of these defendants also serves to deter others
who might be tempted to defraud the program.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IHSS INVESTIGATIONS
1”Referrals Closed” refers to IHSS referrals reviewed by the DA Investigator for feasibility of prosecution. Depending on the
referral, some investigation may be done including running criminal histories, DMV records, appropriately conferring with
other agencies and departments, and even site visits, but a full investigation was not conducted.
2“Investigations Completed” refers to full investigations of referrals likely to become criminal prosecutions and include
record collection, search warrants, and interviews.
3Approximately five cases filed for prosecution in FY 2012-2013 were based on investigations completed in FY 2011-2012.
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
INVESTIGATIONS
Referrals Received 93 312 170
Referrals Closed1 83
Investigations Completed2 18 28 9
PROSECUTIONS
Cases Filed for Prosecution 4 6 93
Convictions 4 1 8
Court Ordered Restitution $88,775 $24,245.19 $115,012.88
Page 18 of 37
Page | 5
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
Recent Funding Changes and the 2013 IHSS Uniform Statewide Protocols
The Budget Act of 2011 eliminated State funding for IHSS investigation. However, 50% Federal
matching funds remain available for IHSS investigation. In order to be eligible for Federal matching
funds, the County’s Welfare Department and the DA must compose a joint investigation and prosecution
plan and have it approved by the CDSS. While the matching funds cannot be used for prosecution,
prosecution must still be part of the plan, demonstrating both agencies’ willingness to prosecute.
This year, the State implemented the IHSS Uniform Statewide Protocols (Protocol) for IHSS
investigation for the purported purpose of eliminating duplicate efforts by the State and Counties. Under
the new protocol, IHSS fraud cases over $500 are to be referred to the CA Department of Health Care
Services (DHCS) for investigation unless the County enters into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with DHCS to investigate IHSS fraud on its own. DHCS has assigned only one investigator to
Contra Costa County.
This investigator handles not only IHSS fraud, but Medi-Cal Provider Fraud, General Benefits Fraud,
including Early Fraud Detection, Drug Diversion, Social Security Income (SSI) Fraud, fraud in the
Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), the Alcohol Drug Program (Medi-Cal assisted drug and
alcohol treatment counseling facilities), and on occasion, Income Employment Verification System
cases. She used to work on a team of three investigators. While each investigator was responsible for
their own assigned counties, they could rely on each other for assistance. Unfortunately, one of her
teammates recently left DHCS. Her remaining partner handles all the above listed case types for San
Francisco and Stanislaus Counties as well as the Drug Diversion Cases in Alameda County. By all
accounts, the DHCS investigator is diligent and dedicated; however, even if an investigator is
re-added to the team, it is unrealistic to expect that DHCS has the resources to sufficiently investigate
IHSS fraud referrals from Contra Costa County.
Since July 8, 2013, when Contra Costa County EHSD began referring suspected IHSS fraud cases to
DHCS in compliance with the Protocol, DHCS has received only four IHSS fraud referrals from Contra
Costa County. EHSD initially referred those four cases to the DA for investigation, but following a July
8, 2013, request from EHSD that the DA immediately suspend any IHSS investigations, EHSD
instructed the DA to refer those cases to DHCS. In contrast to the four referrals in this four month
period, between July 2012 and November 2012, the DA received 156 IHSS fraud referrals. Between
December 2012 and June 2013, the DA received 14 IHSS fraud referrals.
It is unlikely that a sudden decline in IHSS fraud coincidentally followed the adoption of the new
Protocol. Instead, the reduction in fraud referrals may stem from the difficulty of determining the worth
of a case prior to an investigation. While a new form has been developed for EHSD to refer IHSS fraud
cases over $500 to DHCS, the form may not reach the root cause of the reduction in fraud referrals.
Consistent with the Protocol, instead of referring cases to DHCS for investigation, EHSD can enter into
a MOU with DHCS so that Contra Costa County can investigate all IHSS fraud cases, including those
over $500. EHSD has expressly declined to enter into such an MOU.
In prior years, however, EHSD has funded a part-time DA Inspector to conduct IHSS fraud
investigations. This position was eliminated from the EHSD-DA Service Agreement in FY 12/13. The
Page 19 of 37
Page | 6
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our residents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
exit report by Inspector Tim Burke recounting both the investigations he conducted and those with
which he assisted EHSD Early Fraud Investigators is attached. As the report details, during a one year
period, 70 individual cases were investigated, 4 individuals were charged criminally, and the total
program savings to the taxpayer was $177,000. This type of work and these results are no longer
occurring due to the lack of funding by EHSD of an IHSS investigator in the District Attorney’s Office.
The DA is concerned that the lack of a MOU with DHCS and the elimination of IHSS fraud
investigation and prosecution from the Service Agreement between EHSD and the DA will exacerbate
the problem of IHSS fraud in Contra Costa County.
Conclusion
The DA remains committed to its partnership with EHSD to reduce fraud in public assistance programs
so that the services and resources of these programs are safeguarded and properly utilized to assist those
who meet the eligibility requirements and have a true need. However, absent significant changes in the
situations outlined above, fraud will continue to exist in these programs and will in fact increase.
Page 20 of 37
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
District Attorney Administration (925) 957-8604
900 Ward Street, Fourth Floor Fax (925) 646-4683
Martinez, California 94553
Date: May 1, 2012
To: Mark Peterson
District Attorney
From: Investigator Tim Burke
Subject: IHSS Summary Report - May 2, 2011 through April 27, 2012
Background
Between May 2nd of 2011 and April 27th of 2012 I investigated, or assisted in the
investigation of over seventy (70) individuals. As an investigative tool in these cases I
utilized our nation-wide felon match program.
During this same time period I constructed and served two (2) search warrants.
Requests for Prosecution
I wrote and submitted 34 investigative cases. Deputy District Attorney Ed Dang filed
charges on five (5) of those cases.
EBRAHIMI, Madgid
IHSS # 960532
Charge: 487 PC
Loss: $80,577.05
Pending: 10/2012
RUSHING, Janice
IHSS # 747825
Charge: 487 PC
Loss: $3,023.50
Resolution: Plea accepted -72 PC, 2 years’ probation, restitution paid.
CHAMBERLAIN, Edna
IHSS # 749716
Charge: 487 PC
Loss: $24,245.19
Resolution: Diversion, restitution paid.
Page 21 of 37
JOHNSON, Cindy
IHSS #944905
Charge: 487 PC
Loss: $21,365.00
Pending: Warrant issued
FLORES, Ester
IHSS #842560
Charge: 118 PC, 487 PC
Loss: $9,939.00
Resolution: Plea accepted 10980c(2), 120 hours community service,
restitution schedule initiated.
Total Estimated Savings to the Program
I anticipate $105,000.00 in restitution recovery from cases investigated during the
aforementioned time period. In addition, there will be an annualized savings of over
$72,000.00 as the result of the deduction or termination of benefits. These statistics
result in a total savings of $177,000.00 for the program.
Page 22 of 37
Page 23 of 37
Page 24 of 37
Page 25 of 37
Page 26 of 37
Page 27 of 37
Page 28 of 37
Page 29 of 37
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:12/09/2013
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.:
Referral Name: DRAFT 2013 YEAR-END REPORT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
DISPOSITION OF REMAINING REFERRALS TO THE PUBLIC
PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee
Staff
Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
N/A
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE the draft 2013 Public Protection Committee Annual Report and forward to the Board
of Supervisors for review and approval.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
Draft 2013 Public Protection Committee Annual Report
Page 30 of 37
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors referred ten issues to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for
its review and consideration during 2013.
2. FIND that the 2013 PPC convened nine meetings, worked through and provided an opportunity for public input on
a number of significant issues.
3. RECOGNIZE the excellent work of the County department staff who provided the requisite information to the PPC
in a timely and professional manner, and members of the Contra Costa community and other public agencies who,
through their interest in improving the quality of life in Contra Costa County, provided valuable insight into our
discussions, and feedback that helped us to formulate our policy recommendations.
4. ACCEPT year-end productivity report and APPROVE recommended disposition of PPC referrals described at the
end of this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. This is an informational report only.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 12/17/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYES ____ NOES ____
ABSENT ____ ABSTAIN ____
RECUSE ____
Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)
335-1036
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: December 17, 2013
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
C. 78
To:Board of Supervisors
From:2012 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:December 17, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:2013 YEAR-END REPORT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINING REFERRALS TO
THE PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Page 31 of 37
BACKGROUND:
The Public Protection Committee (PPC) was established on January 8, 2008 to study criminal justice and public
protection issues and formulate recommendations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. During 2012, the
following issues were on referral to the PPC:
1. Opportunities to Improve Coordination of Response to Disasters and Other Public Emergencies.
Approximately three weeks following the November 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill, the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency
Services (OES) presented to the Board of Supervisors its assessment of the emergency response efforts, including
what worked well and didn’t work well, and what lessons were learned through those experiences. At the conclusion
of the Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia introduced five recommendations that were approved by the Board.
On February 5, 2008 the Board of Supervisors referred this matter to the PPC for continuing development and
oversight. PPC received a status report from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services Department in February
2009 and requested the Hazardous Materials Program Manager to report back to the PPC on the development of
mutual aid agreements from local oil refineries. Following a second briefing to the PPC by the Office of the Sheriff,
the PPC reported out to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2009 with recommendations for follow-up by the Sheriff
and Human Resources departments. The Health Services Department made a report to the PPC on April 19, 2010
regarding the resources and connections available to respond to hazardous materials emergencies and, again, on
October 18, 2010 regarding who determines which local official participates in incident command if an event is in
Contra Costa County. On December 5, 2011, Health Services reported to our Committee regarding training and
deployment of community volunteers.
In January 2008, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC the matter of improving public response to emergency
instructions and protocols through broader and better education, which had previously been on referral to the IOC.
The Board suggested that the PPC work with the Office of the Sheriff, the Health Services Department, and the
CAER (Community Awareness & Emergency Response) Program to determine what educational efforts are being
made and what additional efforts may be undertaken to improve public response and safety during an emergency. In
April 2011, the PPC met with CAER (Community Awareness Emergency Response) Executive Director Tony
Semenza and staff from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services to discuss what has been done to better inform
the public and what more can be done to improve public response to emergency warnings. CAER provided a thorough
report on its countywide community fairs, and programs targeted at the education system and non-English speaking
populations. The PPC asked CAER to provide a written outreach strategy that describes how new homeowners are
educated about emergency awareness. As the matter has not been brought back to the PPC since the April 2011
discussion, we recommend that this matter be terminated.
Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL
2. Welfare Fraud Investigation and Prosecution. In September 2006, the Employment and Human Services (EHS)
Department updated the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on its efforts to improve internal security and loss
prevention activities. The IOC had requested the department to report back in nine months on any tools and
procedures that have been developed and implemented to detect changes in income eligibility for welfare benefits.
The EHS Director made follow-up reports to IOC in May and October 2007, describing what policies, procedures,
and practices are employed by the Department to ensure that public benefits are provided only to those who continue
to meet income eligibility requirements, explaining the complaint and follow-through process, and providing
statistical data for 2005/06, 2006/07, and for the first quarter of 2007/08.
Upon creation of the PPC in January 2008, this matter was reassigned from the IOC to the PPC. PPC has received
status reports on this referral in October 2008, June and October 2010, November 2011, November 2012 and, most
recently, in December 2013. The Committee has reviewed the transition of welfare fraud collections from the former
Office of Revenue Collection to the Employment and Human Services Department; the fraud caseload and
percentage of fraud findings; fraud prosecutions and the number of convictions; and the amounts recovered.
As the PPC wishes to monitor performance of the welfare fraud program, it is recommended that this matter be
Page 32 of 37
retained on referral with a status report in one year.
Recommendation: REFER to 2014 PPC
3. Multi-Language Capability of the Telephone Emergency Notification System. This matter had been on referral
to the IOC since 2000 and was reassigned to the PPC in January 2008. The PPC met with Sheriff and Health Services
Department staff in March 2008 to receive an update on the County’s efforts to implement multilingual emergency
telephone messaging. The Committee learned that the Federal Communications Commission has before it two
rulemaking proceedings that may directly affect practices and technology for multilingual alerting and public
notification. Additionally, the federally-funded Bay Area “Super Urban Area Safety Initiative” (SUASI) has selected
a contractor undertake an assessment and develop a five-year strategic plan on notification of public emergencies,
with an emphasis on special needs populations. The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services reported to the PPC in
April 2009 that little has changed since the March 2008 report.
On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a report from the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services on the Community
Warning and Telephone Emergency Notification systems, and on developments at the federal level that impact those
systems and related technology. Sheriff staff concluded that multi-lingual public emergency messaging is too
complex to be implemented at the local level and should be initiated at the state and federal levels. New federal
protocols are now being established to provide the framework within which the technological industries and local
agencies can work to develop these capabilities.
In 2011, the Office of the Sheriff has advised staff that a recent conference on emergency notification systems
unveiled nothing extraordinary in terms of language translation. The SUASI project had just commenced and Sheriff
staff have been on the contact list for a workgroup that will be developing a gap analysis, needs assessment, and
five-year strategic plan. This matter has been on committee referral for more than ten years and technology has yet to
provide a feasible solution for multilingual public emergency messaging.
On September 18, 2012, following the Richmond Chevron refinery fire, the Board of Supervisors established an ad
hoc committee to discuss the Community Warning System and Industrial Safety Ordinance. Since that committee is
ad hoc in nature, we recommend that this issue remain on referral to the PPC.
Recommendation: REFER to 2014 PPC
4. County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services,
implementation of AB109 Public Safety Realignment, and appointment recommendations to the Community
Corrections Partnership . On August 25, 2009, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a presentation by the
Urban Strategies Council on how the County might support and coordinate County and local non-profit organization
resources to create a network of re-entry services for individuals who are leaving jail or prison and are re-integrating
in local communities. On September 14, 2009, the PPC invited the Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation Officer,
District Attorney, Public Defender, Health Services Director, and Employment and Human Services Director to hear
a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council. The PPC encouraged County departments to participate convene a
task force to work develop a network for prisoner re-entry services, which has been meeting independently from the
PPC.
The PPC received a status report from County departments in April 2010. The Employment and Human Services
department reported on its efforts to weave together a network of services, utilizing ARRA funding for the New Start
Program and on the role of One-Stop Centers in finding jobs for state parolees. Probation reported on the impacts of
the anticipated flood of state parolees into the county. The Sheriff reported on the costs for expanding local jail
capacity and possible expanded use of GPS (global positioning systems) use in monitoring state parolees released
back to our county. The Health Services Department reported on its Healthcare for the Homeless Program as a means
to get parolees into the healthcare system and on its development of cross-divisional teams on anti-violence. The
Public Defender reported on its Clean State Program, which has since been discontinued.
Supervisors Glover and Gioia indicated that their staff would continue to coordinate this local initiative when the
Urban Strategies Council exhausts its grant funding from the California Endowment. The PPC continued to monitor
Page 33 of 37
progress on the initiative and, on February 7, 2011, received a presentation of the completed strategic plan and
recommendations. In response to public testimony at the PPC meeting regarding concerns over the "Ban the Box"
element of the plan, the plan recommendations were modified to exclude from the "Ban the Box" requirement certain
identified sensitive positions in public safety and children’s services or as determined by the agency.
On March 22, 2011, representatives from the Urban Strategies Council presented the completed Contra Costa County
Re-entry Strategic Plan (100 pages), an Executive Summary (6 pages) of the plan, and a slide show to the Board of
Supervisors, which approved the strategic plan and implementation recommendations with one modification: rather
than adopt a 'Ban the Box' policy as recommended, which would have removed the question about criminal records
from county employment applications during the initial application, the Board agreed to consider adopting such a
policy at a future date. The Board directed the County Administrator to work with the offices of Supervisors Glover
and Gioia to identify the resources needed to implement the strategic plan and to report back to the Board with his
findings and recommendations.
Later in 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bills 109), which
transfers responsibility for supervising specific low-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) takes effect October 1, 2011 and
realigns three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation:
• Transfers the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex
offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for
these offenders;
• Transfers responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after
having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by
creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS);
• Transfers the housing responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail custody
AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of
Supervisors a plan for implementing the criminal justice realignment, which shall be deemed accepted by the Board
unless rejected by a 4/5th vote. The Executive Committee of the CCP is composed of the County Probation Officer
(Chair), Sheriff-Coroner, a Chief of Police (represented by the Richmond Police Chief), District Attorney, Public
Defender, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court or designee, and the Behavioral Health Director.
On October 4, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the CCP Realignment Implementation Plan, including
budget recommendations for fiscal year 2011/12. Throughout 2012, the PPC received regular status updated from
county staff on the implementation of public safety realignment, including recommendations from the CCP-Executive
Committee for 2012/13 budget planning. On January 15, 2013 the Board of Supervisors approved a 2012/13 budget
for continuing implementation of public safety realignment programming.
The Committee received several reentry/AB109 related presentations and updates throughout 2013, including
program updates on the Federal Second Chance Act grant, reviewed the AB109 Community Programs RFP results
and made recommendations, reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2013/14 AB109 Public Safety Realignment budget,
and made appointment recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the Community Corrections Partnership.
As public safety realignment is a work in progress and at the early stages of implementation, it is recommended that
this matter be referred to the 2014 PPC.
Recommendation: REFER to 2014 PPC
5. Countywide 9-1-1 Wireless Capability. On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a
letter from the Emergency Medical Care Committee regarding the transmission of 9-1-1 emergency calls from
cellular phones to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Our Committee met with representatives
from the Office of the Sheriff on April 4 to discuss the status of establishing Sheriff's Dispatch as the PSAP for
county unincorporated area wireless emergency calls.
Page 34 of 37
Sheriff Department staff advised that the County is not accepting wireless 9-1-1 calls at this time. Staff explained that
the GPS (global positioning system) technology exists to enable Sheriff's Dispatch to receive 9-1-1 system emergency
calls from cellular phones and to locate the emergency location within some degree of precision. However, due to
several years of tight budgets, Sheriff's Dispatch is not currently staffed at a level that is adequate to respond to the
call volume associated with the wireless 9-1-1 calls, which are currently routed to the appropriate PSAP by the
California Highway Patrol (CHP).
While our committee believes that transferring responsibility for handling wireless 9-1-1 calls from the CHP to
Sheriff's Dispatch would be more efficient and would improve response time, it is unlikely that the County will be in
a position, fiscally, to assume this responsibility in the next year. The PPC reported on April 12, 2011 to the Board of
Supervisors and requested the Office of the Sheriff to provide a status report to the PPC in the spring of 2012 to
advise if any outside funding becomes available to support such a transition of responsibility.
On April 2, 2012, the PPC (Supervisor Glover only; Supervisor Uilkema was absent) received a status report
prepared by the Office of the Sheriff on the process that has been initiated to make the partial or full transition of
9-1-1 dispatching from the CHP to the Sheriff a reality within funding constraints. The Sheriff reports that if fully
implemented, the call volume for Sheriff’s Dispatch is projected to nearly double (from 56,000 calls to about 100,000
calls annually). Since the County can expect no additional outside revenue or other resources to support the increased
call volume, the Sheriff is planning a phased implementation at a rate and call volume that current resources will
permit. The phased implementation beginning with smaller carriers will provide the necessary experience and
feedback to inform future implementation phases. New carriers will not be added unless the previous carrier can be
effectively managed.
On April 17, 2012, the PPC provided an update to the Board of Supervisors on this topic and recommended
continued monitoring of this referral. For this reason, we recommend referring to the 2014 PPC.
Recommendation: REFER to 2014 PPC but only schedule at the request of the Sheriff
6. Civil gang injunctions. This matter was referred to the PPC on May 12, 2011 at the request of the District
Attorney, who suggested under Public Comment at the April 4 PPC meeting that the Committee consider the use of
gang injunctions to help prevent gang violence. The District Attorney has advised committee staff that he is currently
focusing on implementing a Ceasefire Program with Richmond Police Department and has requested that this referral
be postponed until further notice.
Recommendation: REFER to the 2014 PPC, but schedule only upon the request of the District Attorney
7. Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in Unincorporated Contra Costa County.
On September 25, during a presentation on Emergency Preparedness within Contra Costa County, the Board of
Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a report on the county Gas Shut-Off valve ordinance
(Ordinance Code § 718-8 et seq.). Originally, the former Building Inspection Department was responsible for
regulation related to the Ordinance, now the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) provides
oversight through its Building Inspection Division. On November 5, 2012, the Conservation and Development
Department provided a review of the program. The Committee requested additional information from staff at the
February 2013 regular meeting.
The Department returned to the Committee in February 2013 and presented the requested information. The
Committee accepted the staff report and recommended no further action. For this reason, we recommend terminating
this referral.
Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL
8. Evaluation of Establishing a Taxicab Driver Permit Ordinance. On November 13, 2012, the Board of
Supervisors referred to the PPC an evaluation of the establishment of a Taxicab Driver Permit ordinance in the
unincorporated area of the County. The County currently does not have an ordinance to require a taxicab driver to
obtain a permit to operate in unincorporated areas. California Government Code Section 53075.5 states, in part, every
Page 35 of 37
city or county shall protect the public health, safety and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution in regard to
taxicab transportation service. This referral will enable the Public Protection Committee to evaluate the County’s
compliance with California Government Code Section 53075.5. This referral was transferred to the Transportation
Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) in early 2013.
Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL (Transferred to TWIC in 2013)
9. Updates on the status of the EMS and Fire studies conducted by Fitch & Associates, LLC. On December 11,
2012, the Board of Supervisors considered a proposal to authorize a reevaluation study of the County Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) Agency. As part of that discussion, the Board directed the County Administrator’s Office to
integrate an operations study of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The studies of both the EMS
Agency and Fire District were to be provided by Fitch & Associates, LLC. The Board requested regular updates to
the full Board of Supervisors and the Public Protection Committee.
The PPC received two staff reports regarding the studies in 2013; one in March, one in August. In September, the
Committee received a presentation from Fitch & Associates, LLC on the EMS study. All presentations from Fitch &
Associates regarding the Fire Services study have gone directly to the Board of Supervisors. The Fitch studies will be
completed in 2014 and are at a point where all updates are going directly to the Board of Supervisors. For this reason,
we recommend terminating this referral.
Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL
10. Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues. On July 16, 2013, the Board of Supervisors
referred a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) and inmate visitation policies to the Public Protection
Committee for review. The Inmate Welfare Fund is authorized by Penal Code § 4025 for the “…benefit, education,
and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail.” The statute also mandates that an itemized accounting of IWF
expenditures must be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors.
The Sheriff's Office has made several reports to the Committee throughout 2013 regarding funding of IWF programs,
visitation/communication policies and an upcoming RFP for inmate telecommunications services. The Committee is
still receiving information on these issues from the Sheriff's Office. For this reason, we recommend referring this
issue to the 2014 PPC.
Recommendation: REFER to the 2014 PPC
LIST OF REFERRALS TO BE TERMINATED
Evaluation of Establishing a Taxicab Permit Ordinance
Opportunities to improve coordination of response to disasters and other public emergencies
Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in unincorporated Contra Costa County
Updates on the status of the EMS and Fire studies conducted by Fitch & Associates, LLC
LIST OF ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO THE
2014 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Welfare fraud investigation and prosecution
Multilingual capabilities of the telephone emergency notification system
County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services and
implementation of AB109 public safety realignment
Directing 9-1-1 emergency calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (schedule at the request of
the Sheriff)
Civil gang injunctions (schedule at the request of the District Attorney)
Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The Board of Supervisors will not receive the annual report from the 2013 Public Protection Committee.
Page 36 of 37
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No impact.
Page 37 of 37