HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 10272014 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
October 27, 2014
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, 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 July 28, 2014 meeting. (Page 4)
4. CONSIDER accepting a report on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
and Community Recidivism Reduction Grant programs and PROVIDE direction to staff
as necessary. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 7)
5. CONSIDER accepting a report from the County Reentry Coordinator on the status of
discussions with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding
establishment of programming for certain parolees within Contra Costa County. (Donte
Blue, County Reentry Coordinator) (Page 71)
6. CONSIDER accepting a report on the review of the Alcoholic Beverage Commercial
Sales ordinance (commonly referred to as the "Deemed Approved Ordinance") and
PROVIDE direction to staff as necessary. (Bob Calkins, Conservation and Development
Department) (Page 95)
7. CONSIDER accepting a report from the Sheriff's Office regarding the Inmate
Telecommunications Request for Proposals process. (Assistant Sheriff Matthew Schuler,
Sheriff's Office) (Page 124)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM.
9.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
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):
Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language
in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may
appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees
AICP American Institute of Certified Planners
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BGO Better Government Ordinance
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIO Chief Information Officer
COLA Cost of living adjustment
ConFire Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District
CPA Certified Public Accountant
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
dba doing business as
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EPSDT State Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
treatment Program (Mental Health)
et al. et ali (and others)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
F&HS Family and Human Services Committee
First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission
(Proposition 10)
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HR Human Resources
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Inc. Incorporated
IOC Internal Operations Committee
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LLC Limited Liability Company
LLP Limited Liability Partnership
Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1
LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
M.D. Medical Doctor
M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist
MIS Management Information System
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology
O.D. Doctor of Optometry
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology
RDA Redevelopment Agency
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposal
RFQ Request For Qualifications
RN Registered Nurse
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TRE or TTE Trustee
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
vs. versus (against)
WAN Wide Area Network
WBE Women Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:10/27/2014
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - July 28, 2014
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
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 July 28, 2014 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the July 28, 2014 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
July 28, 2014 Record of Action
Page 4 of 179
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
July 28, 2014
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Theresa B. Speiker, Chief Assistant County Administrator
Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator - Committee Staff
Terrance Cheung, District I Chief of Staff
Lindy Lavender, District IV Staff
Ed Diokno, District V Staff
Donna Maxwell, District II Staff
Kathy Ito, KMI Consulting, Inc.
Gladys Scott Reid, Human Resources Department
Trevor Koski, Deputy County Counsel
Mary Grant, Sheriff's Office - Inmate Welfare Fund
Chystine Robbins, Sheriff's Office
1. Introductions
Convene - 1:03 PM
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda
(speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment.
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the June 23, 2014 meeting.
Approved as presented.
Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4. 1. ACCEPT report on the implementation of "Ban the Box" in Contra Costa County including
the use of revised application submission process as this approach is consistent with
neighboring counties, preparation of a Conviction Information for Applicants FAQ
document that will be made available to employees and the public on the County’s website Page 5 of 179
For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
and potential requirement for all finalists for County positions be fingerprinted with the
information being used solely to verify conviction information provided by the candidates.
2. PROVIDE direction to staff, as needed, on implementation of "Ban the Box" in Contra
Costa County.
Approved as presented.
The Committee directed staff to forward comments to the Internal Operations Committee
for further discussion and report to the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting date.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5. The next meeting is currently scheduled for August 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM.
The Committee directed staff to cancel the August meeting if there are no pending issues.
6. Adjourn
Adjourn - 1:38 PM
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.
Page 6 of 179
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:10/27/2014
Subject:Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Grant Programs
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.:
Referral Name: Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Grant Programs
Presenter: Tim Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Contact: Tim Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
The State Budget Act of 2014 (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2014) includes several new grant programs
in the area of public safety for oversight by local government. Contra Costa County has received
correspondence from the California Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
regarding two grant programs for which the County is eligible to participate: the Community
Recidivism Reduction Grant and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program. Each program has required that a Notice of Intent to Apply be filed with the BSCC -
Contra Costa County has filed both notices with the BSCC and is eligible to participate. A brief
description of each program is outlined below:
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant : The Budget Act of 2014 (Chapter 25, Statutes of
2014) allocates $8 million to the Board of State and Community Corrections for the Community
Recidivism Reduction Grant described in Penal Code section 1233.10. Counties are eligible to
receive funds if the Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with the county’s Community
Corrections Partnership, agrees to develop a competitive grant program intended to fund
community recidivism and crime reduction services. Each county must notify the BSCC of its
interest in participating in this grant program by sending a letter confirming interest by September
30, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved a letter of interest (Agenda
Item No. C.51, attached) agreeing to develop a competitive grant program intended to fund
community recidivism and crime reduction services. On October 3, 2014, the Community
Corrections Partnership voted unanimously to acknowledge the intent of the County to participate
in the grant program in coordination with the Board of Supervisors (Agenda Item No. 6).
Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S. Code §3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice
funding to state and local jurisdictions. The JAG Program provides critical funding necessary to
support state and local initiatives, to include: technical assistance, strategic planning, research and
evaluation (including forensics), data collection, training, personnel, equipment, forensic
laboratories, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems.
Page 7 of 179
Currently, the County has budgeted $341,994 over three departments (District Attorney as lead
agency ($136,630), Probation ($104,394) and Sheriff's Office ($100,970) for fiscal year FY
2014/15 for this funding source through the Regional Anti-Drug Program (RADA) grant
previously administered by the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). The State
Budget Act of 2014 transferred responsibility and oversight of the Federal JAG Program grant to
the BSCC with a new approach. The BSCC has released an RFP (attached) that describes the new
requirements for participation in this grant by counties, including the establishment of a local JAG
Steering Committee. Contra Costa County is considered a large county and is, therefore, eligible
for up to $1,045,625 per year for three years. This would be a potential increase in funding to the
County of close to $700,000; however, should the new proposal not maintain, at a minimum,
current funding levels to individual departments authorized under the former RADA grant
program, then that department(s) will have a structural deficit. At a bidder's conference held on
Friday, October 17th, the BSCC clarified that funding was available for five large counties (in
addition to Los Angeles County).
Referral Update:
Chief Probation Officer Phil Kader will provide a brief presentation on the Community
Recidivism Reduction Grant and Senior Deputy County Administrator Lara DeLaney will
provide a brief presentation on the Byrne JAG Steering Committee process.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT staff report on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and Community
Recidivism Reduction Grant programs; and,
2. PROVIDE direction to staff as necessary.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact. This action is only an informational report to the Committee and
request for direction.
Attachments
BSCC Community Recidivism Reduction Grant - Notification Letter
BSCC Community Recidivism Reduction Grant - Interest Letter
BSCC Community Recidivism Reduction Grant - FAQ
BSCC Byrne JAG Grant - RFP
BSCC Byrne JAG Grant - Interest Letter
FY2014 Regional Anti-Drug Abuse (RADA) Program Allocations Board Order
Page 8 of 179
Page 9 of 179
Page 10 of 179
Page 11 of 179
Page 12 of 179
Page 13 of 179
Page 14 of 179
Page 15 of 179
Page 16 of 179
Page 17 of 179
Page 18 of 179
Page 19 of 179
Page 20 of 179
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
COMMUNITY RECIDIVISM REDUCTION GRANT
1. What is the statutory authority for these funds?
The Budget Act of 2014 (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2014) allocates $8 million for the
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant as specified in Penal Code section 1233.10.
Click here to view the statute in full.
2. How much money has my county been allocated?
The amount awarded to each county is set in statute and based on the population of the
county. Click here to view a list of all county allocations.
3. What are the expectations regarding the letter of interest?
The letter (signed by the Board of Supervisors, Clerk of the Board, or the Chief
Administrative Officer) should specify that the Board of Supervisors has taken action to
accept funding from the state Recidivism Reduction Fund and agrees to distribute these funds
to service providers as specified in statute. It should also indicate that the Community
Corrections Partnership is in agreement.
4. Does the letter of interest have to outline all the requirements of the grant program?
No, the letter of interest does not have to outline all the requirements of the grant program
specified in the statute.
5. Does the Board of Supervisors meeting minutes need to be sent with the letter of intent?
The Board of Supervisors meeting minutes should be sent to the Board of State and
Community Corrections as a follow-up document to confirm the county’s intent to receive
the funds.
6. Does the Community Corrections Partnership need to vote to ask the Board of
Supervisors to send a letter of interest or can it be a letter?
This may vary by county; however, the letter of interest from the Board of Supervisors, Clerk
Page 21 of 179
Frequently Asked Questions
Page 2
of the Board, or the Chief Administrative Officer should indicate that the Community
Corrections Partnership is in agreement.
7. Is the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant a one-time funding opportunity?
Yes, this grant is a one-time allocation and it is provided to counties who agree to receive the
funds.
8. Can counties spend all the allocated funds in less than four years?
Counties have up to four years to spend the funds; however, if a county develops a
competitive grant program service providers awarded funds can spend it in fewer than four
years. Any fun ding that is not spent at the end of four years will be returned to the state
General Fund.
9. When do the funds need to be encumbered with a community recidivism reduction
service provider?
Per the statute, any funds not encumbered with a service provider one year after allocation is
made to the county will immediately revert to the state General Fund.
10. Will the funding be upfront once the letter of interest is sent to Board of State and
Community Corrections or is it reimbursable?
Counties that provide the required agreement documentation (letter of interest from the
Board of Supervisors, Clerk of the Board, or the Chief Administrative Officer stating that
they want to receive funding and minutes from the Board of Supervisors meeting authorizing
this action) will receive funding upfront. The Board of State and Community Corrections will
submit information to the State Controller’s Office indicating which counties have chosen to
participate. The State Controller’s Office will, in turn, distribute the funds to all participating
counties at one time.
11. What type of data will the counties have to send to the Board of State and Community
Corrections?
Per the statute, the contracting service providers must report to the Community Corrections
Partnership and/or Board of Supervisors on the number of individuals served and the types of
services rendered. The Community Corrections Partnership and/or Board of Supervisors
would then provide those findings to the Board of State and Community Corrections.
12. Can the counties use any of the grant money for administrative costs?
Yes. Up to five percent of the amount granted to a county can be withheld by the Board of
Supervisors or the Community Corrections Partnership for the payment of administrative
costs as specified in the statute.
Page 22 of 179
Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program
Fiscal Year 2014
Project Cycle: 3/1/15-12/31/17
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Eligible Applicants: California Counties
Released September 15, 2014
“Notice of Intent to Apply” due October 3, 2014
Proposals due November 24, 2014
In addition to the grant application, this Request for Proposals (RFP) packet includes important
information about funding provisions, grant eligibility, and proposal submission requirements.
Page 23 of 179
CONTACT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1
PROPOSAL DUE DATE ................................................................................................. 1
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY .................................................................................... 2
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCES ........................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4
Eligibility
Grant Cycle
Priority Program Purpose Areas
Prohibited Uses
FUNDING ........................................................................................................................ 7
Fund Source
Funding in California
Funding Thresholds
Matching Funds
Multi-County Partnerships
Supplanting
Leveraging of Funds
GRANT REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. 9
Stakeholder Collaboration
Letters of Agreement and Operational Agreements
Governing Board Resolution
Audit
Invoices
EVIDENCE-BASED, INNOVATIVE AND PROMISING STRATEGIES ........................ 11
DATA COLLECTION, REPORTING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS .............. 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 24 of 179
RFP PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 17
Proposal Submission
Technical Compliance Review
Proposal Evaluation Process
Key Dates
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ALL GRANT PROGRAMS ............................................ 19
JAG PROPOSAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................... 21
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................................... 22
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A – County Population Index
Appendix B – JAG Three-Year Strategy*
Appendix C – JAG Steering Committee Member Roster*
Appendix D – Sample Letter of Agreement*
Appendix E – Sample Operational Agreement*
Appendix F – Sample Governing Board Resolution
Appendix G – List of Other Grant Funding Sources *
Appendix H – Definition of Terms
Appendix I – Key Federal Assurances
*Required attachment
Page 25 of 179
1
CONTACT INFORMATION
This Request for Proposals (RFP) provides the information necessary to prepare a
proposal to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for FY 2014 grant
funds available through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program.
Be advised that the BSCC staff cannot assist the applicant with the actual preparation of
the proposal, but can answer technical questions. Any technical questions concerning
the RFP, the proposal process, or programmatic issues must be submitted in writing by
fax or email to:
Daryle McDaniel, Field Representative
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Phone: (916) 341-7392
Fax: (916) 327-3317
Email: daryle.mcdaniel@bscc.ca.gov
or
Colleen Curtin, Field Representative
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Phone: (916) 445-8066
Fax: (916) 327-3317
Email: colleen.curtin@bscc.ca.gov
PROPOSAL DUE DATE
One original and four copies of the proposal must be received (not just postmarked) by
the BSCC‟s Corrections Planning and Programs Division by 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
November 24, 2014, at:
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
600 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attn: Brian Wise, Program Analyst
Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. on November 24, 2014
will be deemed ineligible.
Page 26 of 179
2
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
Before submitting a proposal, prospective applicants should submit a “Notice of Intent to
Apply” by 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2014. This notice must be from a county official and
can come in the form of an email or letter submitted to Brian Wise, Program Analyst, at
either brian.wise@bscc.ca.gov or:
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
600 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attn: Brian Wise, Program Analyst
There is no specific template for the Notice of Intent to Apply; the notice should simply
include a brief statement indicating the county‟s intent to submit a proposal. (If sent by
email, please include “Name of County-JAG Notice of Intent” in the subject line.) If
more than one county will partner on a joint proposal, please note that within the Notice
of Intent to Apply and include the names of all involved counties.
Submission of a Notice of Intent to Apply will assist the BSCC in planning for the length
and scope of the proposal rating process. Failure to submit a Notice of Intent to Apply
is not grounds for disqualification. Further, prospective applicants that submit a Notice
of Intent to Apply and decide later not to apply will not be penalized.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCES
BSCC plans to hold three Bidders‟ Conferences, tentatively scheduled for the week of
October 13-17, 2014; one in southern California, one in central California, and one in
Sacramento. Exact dates, locations and times will be posted to the BSCC website
(www.bscc.ca.gov) by September 26, 2014. Please check back to the website for
details.
At these conferences, BSCC will provide clarification on the RFP and address any
questions that have been submitted in writing. Questions should be submitted by
October 8, 2014 to either of the contacts listed on page 1 of this RFP.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S. Code
§3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local
jurisdictions. The JAG Program provides critical funding necessary to support state and
local initiatives, to include: technical assistance, strategic planning, research and
evaluation (including forensics), data collection, training, personnel, equipment, forensic
laboratories, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems.
Page 27 of 179
3
The JAG Program supports seven Program Purpose Areas designated by federal
statute. These include:
(1) Law enforcement programs.
(2) Prosecution and court programs, including indigent defense.
(3) Prevention and education programs.
(4) Corrections and community corrections programs.
(5) Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
(6) Planning, evaluation and technology improvement programs.
(7) Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation).
Historically, funding for the JAG Program in California had been allocated directly to
counties through a non-competitive process. The majority of funds were passed
through to local law enforcement agencies to fund multi-jurisdictional task forces related
to narcotics suppression. In fact, in 2012, 98 percent of JAG funds were allocated to
Program Purpose Area (1) – Law enforcement programs.
On July 1, 2012, California state law transferred the administration of the Edward Byrne
Memorial JAG (JAG) Program from the California Emergency Management Agency
(now the California Office of Emergency Services) to the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC). With this transfer, BSCC became the State Administering Agency
(SAA) responsible for oversight of Byrne JAG funding in California.
Around this same time, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the federal agency that
administers the JAG Program, placed a greater emphasis on the role of comprehensive
strategic planning by the states. California embraced this change, recognizing that a
reassessment of funding priorities was overdue. After assuming responsibility for the
JAG Program, BSCC Board members expressed a desire to take a closer look at JAG
funding in California, to explore whether the State could or should be investing in any of
the other JAG Program Purpose Areas.
To that end, California conducted a comprehensive strategic planning process and
gathered input from all criminal justice stakeholders in order to develop a more
comprehensive Multi-Year State Strategy for the JAG Program. The BSCC formed an
Executive Steering Committee (ESC), comprised of high-level executives from small,
medium and large counties, representing the public, private and non-profit sectors. The
JAG ESC led the planning process, which included a web-based survey of 890
stakeholders, three public comment sessions throughout the state, discussions with
other criminal justice stakeholders, and an examination of other criminal justice financial
resources designed to address public safety and victim assistance concerns.
As a result of this planning process, the JAG ESC developed a Multi-Year State
Strategy, which subsequently received full Board approval. With this latest round of
JAG funding, California will implement this new strategy, representing a major change in
the way it administers the JAG Program. While maintaining law enforcement programs
as a priority, California‟s new strategy places an equal emphasis on prevention and
education programs, as well as on court, prosecution and defense strategies.
Page 28 of 179
4
The table below lays out California‟s Multi-Year Strategy for the Byrne JAG Program.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Eligibility
Only California‟s 58 counties are eligible to apply. As a part of the proposal
development process, a county must convene a JAG Steering Committee (see
“Stakeholder Collaboration,” below) to oversee the planning and implementation of
JAG-funded projects.
The county – in collaboration with the JAG Steering Committee – must identify
one county department or agency to serve as the applicant agency.
Two or more counties may partner to submit one joint proposal, following the
funding instructions under “Multi-County Partnerships” on page 8.
Each county may submit only one proposal, whether as part of a multi-county
partnership or on its own.
Multi-Year Strategy for the Byrne JAG Program
(1) Will honor responses from California stakeholders in the 2013 Byrne JAG
Stakeholder Survey, with priority given to the survey supported Program
Purpose Areas of:
a. Prevention and Education
b. Law Enforcement
c. Prosecution, Courts and Defense
(2) The needs of small, medium and large counties will be taken into account.
(3) Funding will be based on local flexibility, on the needs of the juvenile and
adult criminal justice communities and on input from a balanced array of
stakeholders.
(4) Applicants must demonstrate a collaborative strategy based on the
community engagement model that involves multiple stakeholders in the
project or problem addressed.
(5) Some emphasis will be given to the development of innovative and/or
promising strategies to reduce recidivism.
Page 29 of 179
5
Though the county is the applicant and administrator of JAG funds (through the
applicant agency), the lead agency for the project may be a separate public or
private entity.
Grant Cycle
Successful applicants will be funded for a 34-month cycle beginning on March 1, 2015
and ending on December 31, 2017. This application is for first year funds only.
Funding for years two and three will not be competitive, though grantees will have to
submit an application and show that they have made substantial progress against their
JAG strategy. Funding for years two and three will also be dependent on California‟s
JAG allocations for FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Priority Program Purpose Areas
As mentioned in the previous section, the BSCC undertook a comprehensive JAG
Stakeholder Survey and planning process in order to determine the focus of the JAG
Program in California. The BSCC received 890 survey responses from a broad array of
criminal justice stakeholders. Responses to the survey were grouped into seven
stakeholder categories: 1) Law Enforcement, 2) Corrections and Community
Corrections, 3) Administration and Policy, 4) Courts (including prosecution and
defense), 5) Victims, 6) Social Services (including community-based organizations,
mental health and public health agencies), and 7) Education and Juvenile Justice.
Based on the results of this survey, California developed a new multi-year strategy for
JAG funding. This strategy focuses on the three Program Purpose Areas deemed top
priorities by a majority of survey respondents, across all seven stakeholder categories.
Applicants must develop a proposal that addresses one or more of these three
JAG Program Purpose Areas:
Prevention and Education Programs
Law Enforcement Programs
Courts, Prosecution, Defense and Indigent Defense
Within each of these Program Purpose Areas, respondents to the JAG Stakeholder
Survey were also asked to rank in order of importance a list of “areas of need.”
Responses were again grouped into the seven stakeholder categories. The survey
report identified the top three Areas of Need for each of the seven stakeholder
categories. These are listed in the table on the following page. (Note that because
there were ties within all three of the Program Purpose Areas, there are more than three
Areas of Need listed for each.)
Applicants are restricted to the development of proposals that address one or more of
the three main Programs Purpose Areas (PPA), and within each PPA selected, one or
more of the Areas of Need, as listed in the table on the following page. Within these
PPAs and Areas of Need, applicants may implement one or more projects that best fit
the needs of the county, as determined by the JAG Steering Committee. Note: For
Page 30 of 179
6
purposes of scoring, no Program Purpose Area or Area of Need carries more weight
than another.
JAG Priority Program Purpose Areas and Priority Areas of Need
Prohibited Uses
No JAG funds may be expended outside of the three priority JAG PPAs. Even within
these PPAs, however, JAG funds cannot be used directly or indirectly for security
enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal
justice or public safety. Additionally, JAG funds may not be used directly or indirectly to
pay for any of the following items (per federal grant guidelines):
Indirect costs.
Vehicles, vessels, or aircraft (with the exception of police cruisers, police boats
and police helicopters).
Unmanned aerial vehicles/unmanned aircraft, aircraft system, or aerial vehicles.
Luxury items.
Real estate.
Construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions).
Any similar items.
JAG Program Purpose Area: Prevention and Education Programs
Areas of Need: Gang Initiatives
Juvenile Delinquency
Substance Abuse
School Violence
JAG Program Purpose Area: Law Enforcement Programs
Areas of Need: Gang Violence Reduction
Violent Crime Reduction Initiatives
Drug Enforcement
Gun Violence Reduction
JAG Program Purpose Area: Courts, Prosecution, Defense and
Indigent Defense
Areas of Need:
Problem Solving Courts (e.g., Mental Health,
Veterans, Drug, Reentry)
Gun/Gang Prosecution
Violent Crime Prosecution and Defense
Court-Based Restorative Justice Initiatives
Innovations in Indigent Defense
Page 31 of 179
7
FUNDING
Fund Source
The JAG Program is a federally-funded grant program, with funds allocated by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
Funding in California
For Fiscal Year 2014, the portion of California‟s JAG Allocation available for pass-
through is $17,756,951. A portion of those funds ($1,087,521) will be allocated directly
to the California Department of Justice, as per U.S. Code § 3755 (e)(2), to support local
units of government. The remaining $16,669,430 will be passed through the BSCC to
counties via this competitive process.
The grant period is for March 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. This application is
for first year funds only (March 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015), though applicants
must submit a budget for the entire grant period. The second and third year budgets
can be estimates, however there should be a plan to spend down all funds requested.
There will be a non-competitive application process at the start of the second and third
years, and at that time, successful applicants will have the opportunity to make
adjustments to their budgets.
Though funding for years two and three will not be competitive, as a part of the
application process, grantees must show that they have made substantial progress
against their JAG strategy. Funding for years two and three will also be dependent on
California‟s JAG allocations for FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Funding Thresholds
The JAG Executive Steering Committee has carefully considered its fiduciary
responsibilities associated with the federal JAG monies and the needs of small, medium
and large jurisdictions. To that end, funding has been distributed between the small,
medium and large counties and maximum funding thresholds have been determined
according to the total population within each county (see Appendix A for county
populations). Note: Because the population in Los Angeles County is more than three
times that of the next largest county in the state, the Board voted to double its funding
threshold, though it will still compete as a large county.
Applicants may apply for any dollar amount up to the funding threshold listed in the
table below, according to the category in which that county falls:
Small Counties Medium
Counties Large Counties* Los Angeles
County
Population
Threshold
Population
<200,000
Population
200,001-700,000
Population
700,001+ N/A
Funding
Threshold
up to $220,000
annually
up to $715,000
annually
up to
$1,045,625
annually
up to
$2,091,250
annually
*excluding Los Angeles County
Page 32 of 179
8
Applicants must apply for the same amount of funding for all three years (for example:
1st year: $200,000, 2nd year: $200,000 and 3rd year: $200,000; totaling $600,000 for a
three-year period). Grantees may be able to carry unspent funds into the next calendar
year, with BSCC staff approval, but it is extremely important that applicants plan and
budget carefully and apply only for the amount of funding they can reasonably spend
each year of the three-year grant period.
Matching Funds
The JAG Program has NO match requirement.
Multi-County Partnerships
As mentioned above, two or more counties may partner to submit one joint proposal.
One county must serve as lead on the proposal and there must be an applicant agency
from that county identified. In the case of a multi-county partnership, the following
funding restrictions apply:
Counties in the same category: Multi-county partnerships that consist of
counties from within the same category (small, medium or large) may apply for
up to the maximum funding threshold in that category, multiplied by the number
of counties partnering on the proposal.
For example:
o Four (4) small counties may apply for up to $880,000 [funding threshold
for small counties ($220,000) x 4 = $880,000];
o Three (3) medium counties may apply for up to $2,145,000 [funding
threshold for medium counties ($715,000) x 3 = $2,145,000];
o Two (2) large counties may apply for up to $2,091,250 [funding threshold
for large counties ($1,045,625) x 2 = $2,091,250].
Counties in different categories: To preserve the integrity of the funding
distribution formula, multi-county partnerships that consist of counties from within
different categories (small, medium or large) will default to the maximum funding
threshold of the largest category participating in the partnership, multiplied by the
number of counties from that category that are partnering on the proposal.
For example:
o One (1) small county partnering with one (1) medium county may apply for
up $715,000 (default to medium; one medium county; $715,000 x 1);
o One (1) small county partnering with two (2) medium counties may apply
for $1,430,000 (default to medium; two medium counties; $715,000 x 2);
o One (1) medium county partnering with (1) large county may apply for up
to $1,045,625 (default to large; one large county; $1,045,625 x 1).
Counties partnering with Los Angeles County: Multi-county partnerships that
include Los Angeles County may only apply for up to the maximum funding
threshold in that category, or $2,091,250.
Page 33 of 179
9
Supplanting
Supplanting is prohibited under JAG. Applicants cannot replace or supplant non-federal
funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. See the 2014 JAG Frequently
Asked Questions on BJA‟s web site for examples of supplanting
(https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf).
Leveraging of Grant Funds
Although supplanting is prohibited, the leveraging of federal funding is encouraged. For
example, an applicant may use JAG funds along with other federal funds, to fund
different portions of the same project. In instances where leveraging occurs, all federal
grant funds must be tracked and reported on separately and may not be used to fund
the same line items. Additionally, federal funds cannot be used as match for other
federal awards.
GRANT REQUIREMENTS
Stakeholder Collaboration
In order to apply for JAG funding, counties must form a JAG Steering Committee
comprised of stakeholders representing diverse disciplines who have experience and
expertise in the prospective problem areas to be addressed by the JAG proposal. This
will help meet the federal mandate that requires community engagement for the
deployment of JAG funds. The steering committee will determine the community needs
and develop a three-year JAG strategy in one-year increments, using the identified
priorities (see Appendix B for Three-Year JAG Strategy Overview).
The JAG Steering Committee will represent a significant cross-section of the juvenile
and criminal justice stakeholder communities within the applicant county. The JAG
Steering Committee will be diverse in its composition; to include a balanced
representation of both traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. Examples of
traditional stakeholders could include law enforcement, probation, courts, and other city
and county departments. Examples of non-traditional stakeholders could include
community-based and faith-based organizations, educators, social service providers,
job developers, advocacy groups, or citizens. The county will determine the total
number of members to serve on the JAG Steering Committee.
Stakeholders identified for membership on the JAG steering committee shall possess a
working knowledge of the problem areas being discussed within the identified JAG
priorities. The applicant must describe the process that took place to engage
membership for the JAG Steering Committee as well as any working relationships that
existed with members prior to the development of the steering committee. The JAG
steering committee will work collaboratively to identify the needs of the community as
they relate to the JAG priorities and to create and develop a comprehensive project plan
with the overall goal of reducing violent crime and recidivism within their county. The
applicant must describe how they ensured full and balanced participation and voting
Page 34 of 179
10
rights for all members of the committee throughout this process. The county may use
an existing group, or a subcommittee of an existing group, but must address all the
requirements listed in this section. Applicants must attach a member roster containing
the names, titles, organizational affiliations, and contact information for each JAG
steering committee member (see Appendix C).
Letters of Agreement and Operational Agreements
As part of the necessary collaboration that must occur for the JAG Program to be
successful, applicants must engage a wide range of stakeholders. There may be two
levels of participation within a JAG Program. The level of participation will determine
what type of documentation must be included with the proposal:
(1) Letter of Agreement (less formal)
For each partner agency that participates as a part of the JAG Steering
Committee, and/or partners that provide in-kind services, the applicant must
include a signed Letter of Agreement. This shall serve as an acknowledgement
of the partnership that will exist, wherein no funds will be exchanged. A sample
Letter of Agreement can be found in Appendix D.
(2) Operational Agreement (more formal)
For each subcontractor, consultant or service provider that will be paid for
services under the grant agreement – including community- or faith-based
organizations – the applicant must include a draft Operational Agreement. This
shall serve as a formal agreement between the two parties indicating that there
will be some type of contract or interagency agreement for services and
acknowledging the exchange of funds.
An Operational Agreement should include: (a) a description of the agencies
commitment to demonstrate a formal system of networking and coordination with
other agencies and the applicant; (b) the names of anticipated project staff; (c)
original signatures, titles, and the agency name for both parties; (d) effective
performance period dates; and (e) the amount of JAG funds designated to the
agencies. Signatures may be obtained after the proposal due date. A sample
Operational Agreement can be found in Appendix E.
Governing Board Resolution
Successful applicants are required to submit a Board of Supervisors‟ Resolution (see
Appendix F, Sample Board of Supervisors‟ Resolution), before the grant award can be
finalized and funds awarded. A signed resolution is not required at the time of proposal
submission, but applicants are advised that no invoices will be processed for
reimbursement until your agency’s Board Resolution has been received by the BSCC.
Audit
Grantees must submit an audit of expenditures (either grant-specific or as part of a
City/County single audit) within 120 days of the end of each 12-month grant period.
Reasonable and necessary extensions to the timeframe may be granted if requested.
Invoices
Page 35 of 179
11
Disbursement of grant funds occurs on a reimbursement basis for costs incurred during
a reporting period. Grantees must submit invoices to the BSCC on a quarterly basis,
within 45 days following the end of the reporting period via the on-line process.
Grantees must maintain adequate supporting documentation for all costs claimed on
invoices for reimbursement.
For additional information, refer to the BSCC‟s Grant Administration and Audit Guide ,
July 2012 at: http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Grant_Administration_Guide_July_2012.pdf
Outside Grant Funds
Applicants must complete the “List of Other Grant Funding Sources” form (see
Appendix G) and submit it with the proposal packet.
EVIDENCE-BASED, INNOVATIVE AND PROMISING STRATEGIES
Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)
The concept of evidence-based practice was developed outside of criminal justice and
is commonly used in other applied fields such as medicine, nursing, and social work.
Because there are numerous definitions of evidence-based practice, for the purpose of
this RFP, evidence-based practice consists of three basic principles:
1. Evidence that the intervention is likely to work, i.e., produce a desired benefit;
2. Evidence that the intervention is being carried out as intended; and
3. Evidence that allows an evaluation of whether the intervention worked.
In discussions of evidence-based practice in criminal justice, it is common to distinguish
between programs and strategies.
Programs are designed to change the behavior of individuals in the criminal justice
system and are measured by individual level outcomes. Programs aiming to reduce
substance use and antisocial behavior, for example, include Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy, Behavioral Programs; Social Skills Training; and Family Crisis Counseling.
Although strategies may include programs to change individual behavior, this term is
generally used for interventions to promote community level policy objectives. Such
strategies may be evaluated for effects on overall service delivery or use of jail beds
rather than in terms of recidivism alone.
Some interventions are “brand-name programs,” which have already been tested
and found effective in a variety of settings: for example, Nurse Family
Partnership, Functional Family Therapy, and Life Skills Training.
Brand name programs offer the advantages of detailed training and
implementation protocols available from the developer.
Page 36 of 179
12
Whether a brand name program is suited to the particular circumstances of an
agency or setting should be determined in advance, because effectiveness can
be compromised when brand name programs are altered.1
For these reasons, one cannot rely simply on the brand, but must apply the principles of
evidence-based practice to an agency‟s particular circumstances. Depending on that
review, applicants may wish to adopt a brand-name program, adapt non-branded
interventions developed elsewhere, or develop a new program or strategy (see
“Innovative and/or Promising Strategies,” below).
Showing that a program or strategy is likely to work in a local setting requires not only
evidence of effectiveness but evidence of relevance.2 Applicants should determine what
kind of evidence is available and the reasoning that indicates the proposed practice is
likely to succeed and will be effective in the local community and with the population
being served. In addition, applicants should identify any lessons learned that have been
applied in planning for the intervention in the local setting.
Innovative and/or Promising Strategies
The State Strategy for the JAG Program adopted by the BSCC states that “some
emphasis shall be given to innovative and/or promising strategies to reduce crime and
recidivism.” Based on this, applicants are encouraged to identify innovative or
promising strategies in their proposals for JAG funds.
“Innovative,” for purposes of this RFP, shall be broadly construed to include programs
or strategies that are “new” in the county or area where applied or represent expanded
or reconfigured programs targeting additional populations or needs in the applicant
county. Innovative programs or strategies described in the proposal must be linked to
one or more components of an evidence-based practice.
“Promising,” for purposes of this RFP, shall be broadly construed to include crime-
reduction and recidivism-reduction programs or strategies that have been implemented
elsewhere with evidence of success, but with evidence that is not yet strong enough to
conclude that the success was due to the program, or that it is highly likely to work if
carried out in the applicant‟s circumstances. The difference between evidence -based
and promising approaches is a difference in degree that depends on the number of
situations in which a program or strategy has been tested and the rigor of the evaluation
methods that were used. Applicants seeking to implement “promising” programs or
strategies should be able to describe the documentation, data and evidence available to
support the approach and why it is best suited to the needs and objectives described in
the proposal.
Evidence, which may vary in terms of its novelty or its strength, is relevant to the
assessment of a program‟s potential benefits, whether described as innovative,
promising, or evidence-based.
1Peter Greenwood, Ph.D. “Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence: Using Evidence-Based Practices,”
January 2010. 2 Nancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie, “Evidence-Based Policy A Practical Guide to Doing it Better,” Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Page 37 of 179
13
Requirements for All JAG Proposals
1. The applicant must show, in the grant proposal, that the proposed
intervention(s)3 (whether evidence-based, innovative or promising) are likely to
achieve benefits desired in the local setting. To do this, the applicant must:
Describe the intervention(s) being proposed for implementation;
Discuss any evidence (research, outcome evaluations, etc.) that indicates
the intervention or its components have been effective elsewhere;
Describe the population(s) for which each intervention has been shown to
be or is likely to be effective; and show that it is appropriate for the
proposed target population; and
Discuss what has been done to ensure that the support factors (e.g., inter-
agency partnerships, certified trainers, auxiliary services, suitable criteria
for participation, program materials, etc.) required or necessary for the
intervention can be mobilized in the local setting.
Documentation of effectiveness can take the form of research or literature
review, or reference to reviews of program effectiveness conducted by policy
shops, some of which are listed in the section below titled, “EBP Informational
Resources.” Descriptions of local needs and agency capacities, in light of the
factors that supported an intervention elsewhere, can be applied to an
assessment of relevance.
2. Applicants must also describe how they will track operations to assess whether
an intervention is being carried out as intended. This task is often referred to as
a process evaluation; formative evaluation is a related term also found in the
literature. (See “Local Evaluation Plan” within the Data Collection, Reporting and
Evaluation Requirements section, page 15.)
3. Finally, applicants must address their plans for outcome evaluation, i.e., how they
will assess what happened as a result of the intervention and whether it
produced its intended benefits. (See “Final Local Evaluation” within the Data
Collection, Reporting and Evaluation Requirements section, page 16.)
EBP Informational Resources
The list of websites provided below may be useful to applicants in the proposal
development process. This is not an exhaustive list; it is offered as an informational
resource only.
Board of State and Community Corrections
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_evidence-basedpractices(ebp).php
3 For purposes of this section, the term “intervention” includes both programs and/or strategies.
Page 38 of 179
14
Office of Justice Programs
http://www.CrimeSolutions.gov
Blueprints for Violence Prevention
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
National Registry of Evidence‐Based Programs and Practices
http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Center for Crime Prevention and Control
http://johnjayresearch.org/ccpc/
National Network for Safe Communities
http://www.nnscommunities.org
Promising Practices Network
http://www.promisingpractices.net/
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
“Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence: Using Evidence-Based
Practice.” A report prepared by Peter Greenwood, Ph.D., for the California
Governor‟s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy, 2010.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=255934
Find Youth Information
http://www.FindYouthInfo.gov/
National Reentry Resource Center
http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/
National Institute of Corrections
http://nicic.gov/Library/
California Institute for Behavioral Health Solutions
http://www.cimh.org/evidence-based-practices-0
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (“Top Tier”)
http://coalition4evidence.org/
National Criminal Justice Association
http://www.ncja.org/
Page 39 of 179
15
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Program Guide
http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/
Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University, Director Mark Lipsey
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/research/pri/publications.php
Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice
“Implementing Proven Programs for Juvenile Offenders: Assessing States‟
Progress.” A report prepared by Peter Greenwood, Ph.D., 2011.
http://www.advancingebp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AEBP-
assessment.pdf
DATA COLLECTION, REPORTING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
All grantees are required to submit a (1) Local Evaluation Plan to the BSCC by June
30, 2015, (2) Quarterly Progress Reports, and (3) a Final Local Evaluation by March
31, 2018.
Applicants are required to set aside a minimum of 5 to 10 percent of the grant funds for
the development of the Local Evaluation Plan, data collection efforts, and submission of
the Final Local Evaluation. Depending on the complexity and size of a proposed
project(s), some applicants may benefit from using a local college, university or
consultant to help develop and execute the Final Local Evaluation.
(1) Local Evaluation Plan
The purpose of the Local Evaluation Plan is to ensure that programs funded by
the BSCC can be evaluated. Applicants will be expected to submit a detailed
description of how the applicant will assess the effectiveness of the proposed
program, including all individual project components. The Local Evaluation Plan
can be submitted in either a narrative or bulleted format. The Plan should
describe the research design that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
the project component(s), with the project goals (i.e. the expected benefits to
participants or the community) and the project objectives (i.e. specific
measurable accomplishments intended to advance project goals) clearly stated.
In addition, applicants should address two components: the process evaluation
and the outcome evaluation, outlined in more detail below:
a) Process Evaluation: The purpose of the process evaluation is to identify
how the program activities will be carried out. A process evaluation should
describe the types of data that will be collected and typically includes, but
is not limited to, such measures as:
Estimated number of participants in each component of the planned
program.
A plan for tracking participants‟ progress in the program(s); e.g.
start dates, attendance logs, dropouts, successful completions, etc.
Page 40 of 179
16
A plan to document the services provided to each participant.
A plan to document the activities performed by staff who conducted
the program.
Since each JAG project is unique in its approach and the intended results
may vary, not all measures in the process evaluation, as stated above,
may apply. For example, if an applicant plans to use a portion of the JAG
funds towards Information System upgrades, a different set of measures
may be used to explain how the program activities will be carried out.
b) Outcome Evaluation: The purpose of the outcome evaluation is to identify
how the applicant will determine if the program “worked” in terms of
achieving the goals set for the program. The outcome evaluation should
list the outcome measures that will be tracked and describe the method by
which the impact of the program on the outcome measures will be
determined.
(2) Quarterly Progress Reports
The purpose of a Quarterly Progress Report is to provide BSCC with an update
on the process evaluation, as stated in the (1) Local Evaluation Plan. Grantees
must have the ability to collect the specified program activity data (e.g. number of
participants, events, etc.) and report it to the BSCC on quarterly progress reports
during the term of the grant performance period. The report form and instructions
will be available to grantees on the BSCC‟s website. Progress Rep orts will be
due no later than 15 days following the end of each quarter.
(3) Final Local Evaluation
The purpose of the Final Local Evaluation is to determine whether or not the
overall program (including each project component) was effective in meeting the
goals laid out in the (1) Local Evaluation Plan. To do this, the grantee must
assess and document the effectiveness of the activities that were implemented
within each individual project component. These activities should have been
documented in the previously submitted (1) Local Evaluation Plan.
The Final Local Evaluation must also describe the research design, as laid out in
the (1) Local Evaluation Plan. Most importantly, the Final Local Evaluation will
describe the final outcomes of the program (for each individual project
component), including a determination of the degree of effectiveness and/or
ineffectiveness. For example, if the goal of a program was to reduce gang-related
crime in a specific area, an applicant should specify the following:
a) A strategy for determining whether or not incidents of gang-related crime
were fewer at the end of the program as compared to before it began.
b) A rationale for inferring that the reduction in gang-related crime was
directly related to the program and not to other factors unrelated to the
program.
Page 41 of 179
17
RFP PROCESS
Proposal Submission
As stated above, proposals must be received (not just postmarked) at the BSCC office
in Sacramento no later than 5:00 PM on November 24, 2014. Applicants must submit
one original and four copies of the proposal (i.e., Applicant Information Form, Proposal
Narrative, Proposal Budget and all other required attachments). Proposals may be
mailed or hand delivered to the attention of Brian Wise, Program Analyst at:
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
600 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attn: Brian Wise, Program Analyst
Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. on November 24, 2014
will be deemed ineligible.
Technical Compliance Review
BSCC staff will review each proposal to determine if it meets the RFP requirements. In
order to avoid having otherwise worthy proposals eliminated from consideration due to
relatively minor and easily corrected errors/omissions, applicants will have an
opportunity to respond to deficiencies identified during this review process, which will
take place November 25, 2014 through December 12, 2014, and to make non-
substantive changes that bring the proposal into technical compliance.
Proposal Evaluation Process
Members of the JAG Executive Steering Committee (a diverse group of local criminal
justice stakeholders, from both the public and private sectors) will evaluate the merits of
each proposal in accordance with the prescribed rating criteria (as listed below). It
should be noted that small counties will compete against other small counties, medium
against medium, and large against large. To preserve the integrity of the funding
distribution formula, multi-county partnerships that consist of counties from within
different categories (small, medium or large) for rating purposes will default to the
largest category participating in the partnership. Los Angeles County will compete in
the “Large County” category.
Following the rating process, the Executive Steering Committee will convene for a Final
Rater Review where they will develop funding recommendations for consideration by
the BSCC Board.
Applicants will be notified in writing of the committee‟s funding recommendations. It is
currently anticipated that the BSCC Board will act on the recommendations at their
meeting in February 2015. Applicants are not to contact members of the Executive
Steering Committee or the BSCC Board about their proposal.
Page 42 of 179
18
The rating factors that will be used and the maximum points allocated to each factor are
shown in the table below. Omission or lack of clarity for any section is likely to result in
a reduction of allowable points.
Important note: Proposals must receive a minimum of 250 points (i.e., 50 percent of
the 500 total possible points) in the combined raters‟ averaged scores to be considered
for funding.
Key Dates
Key dates in the RFP and grant implementation process are shown in the table below:
ACTIVITY TIMELINE
Release Request for Proposals (RFP) September 15, 2014
Bidders‟ Conferences Tentatively
October 13-17, 2014
Notice of Intent to Apply Due to BSCC October 3, 2014
Grant Proposal Due to BSCC (received by 5:00 p.m.) November 24, 2014
BSCC Technical Review November 25, 2014–
December 19, 2014
Rating Process & Development of Funding Recommendations January 5-30, 2015
BSCC Board Considers Funding Recommendations February 2015
New Grants Begin March 1, 2015
New Grantee Orientation (Mandatory) TBD (March 2015)
Local Evaluation Plan Due to BSCC June 30, 2015
Reapplication Process for Year Two TBD (December 2015)
Reapplication Process for Year Three TBD (December 2016)
PROPOSAL EVALUATION RATING FACTORS
Rating Factor Maximum
Points
Project Need 50
Project Description, Goals and Objectives 125
Collaboration 100
Evidence-Based, Innovative and/or Promising Strategies 75
Data Collection and Evaluation 50
Capability and Qualifications to Provide Services 75
Proposal Budget: Cost Effectiveness and Budget Review 25
TOTAL POINTS 500
Page 43 of 179
19
ACTIVITY TIMELINE
Grant End Date December 31, 2017
Final Local Evaluation Due to BSCC March 31, 2018
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ALL GRANT PROGRAMS
The following information is provided to all prospective BSCC grantees. The applicant
is not required to address this section within its JAG proposal, but should spend time in
consideration of how this information may impact grant activities.
Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity
Research shows that youth of color are significantly overrepresented in the juvenile
justice system in California. In 2011, Black youth were four times as likely to be
arrested as White youth, nearly seven times more likely to be securely detained, and six
times as likely to be committed to a correctional facility. Latino youth are nearly twice as
likely to be arrested and securely detained and almost three times as likely to be
committed to a correctional facility. These disparities are the result of numerous
interrelated factors; some of which exist within the structures of the current juvenile
justice system, and some of which are influenced by unconscious biases. Whatever the
cause, BSCC believes that the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal
justice system can be addressed through meaningful dialogue, increased awareness,
evaluation feedback and policy reforms intended to reduce structural inequality.
To that end, California is committed as a state to examining service delivery within the
criminal justice system for perceived inequities and actual disparities that might exist at
the state and local level. In fact, California is required to demonstrate a good faith effort
to address the federal initiative known as Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity
(formerly Disproportionate Minority Contact, or DMC), which refers to the
disproportionate rate at which youth of color come into contact with the juvenile justice
system (at all points, from arrest through confinement), relative to their numbers in the
general population. In an effort to comply with this requirement, the BSCC has
undertaken a number of activities to ensure that California addresses this concern, to
include trainings, access to and support of structured decision-making tools, and
funding opportunities.
JAG recipients will be invited to attend a one day Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity
(R.E.D.) training for project directors and other interested staff which will be provided
during the grant term. The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity states, “equity is
important because it shapes legitimacy within the community.” In preparation for this
training, we have included questions below that you may want to consider in relation to
equity within your proposed program. These questions focus on the primary domain of
Community, in which equity issues can be most significantly impacted and responded
to, and which will be the focus of the training offered by the BSCC, in support of grantee
success.
Page 44 of 179
20
How are you measuring your effectiveness with underserved communities?
How does your organization deal with issues of linguistic diversity?
What is the nature of your organization’s relationship to the community relative to
the proposed program?
Does the proposed program reflect the specific needs of the diverse communities
served?
JAG funding may be used to reimburse agencies for travel related expenditures such as
mileage, meals, lodging if required, and other per diem costs. Applicants should include
these costs in the budget section of their proposal. Registration information regarding
the date, time and location of the regional trainings will be sent to all project directors.
Additional information about R.E.D. can be found on the BSCC‟s website at
www.bscc.ca.gov or applicants may contact California‟s R.E.D. Coordinator, Shalinee
Hunter, at (916)322-8081 or shalinee.hunter@bscc.ca.gov.
Page 45 of 179
21
JAG PROPOSAL CHECKLIST
A complete JAG Proposal must contain the following (to be submitted in the
order listed):
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
Applicant Information Form (Section I)
Proposal Narrative (Sections II–VIII)
Proposal Budget (Section IX)
A. Budget Line-Items (one for each of the three years)
B. Budget Line Item Detail (i.e. Budget Narrative)
JAG Three-Year Strategy (Appendix B)
JAG Steering Committee Member Roster (Appendix C)
Letters of Agreement for JAG Steering Committee Members
and Other Partners Listed on the Grant (Appendix D)
Draft Operational Agreements (Appendix E) for Partners
Receiving Grant Funds
List of Other Grant Funding Sources (Appendix G)
Notes:
The Governing Board Resolution is due prior to Grant Award
Agreement, not at time of proposal submission (Appendix F).
No other attachments will be considered for rating purposes.
Page 46 of 179
22
SECTION I: How to complete the Applicant Information Form (on next page)
1.1. Unit of Local Government: Complete the required information (including federal
identification number) for the county agency submitting the proposal.
1.2. JAG Program Title: List the title of the overall program.
1.3. JAG Program Purpose Areas: Of the three eligible Program Purpose Areas, list which
one(s) were selected.
1.4. Amount of Funds Requested: List only the amount of grant funds requested for the
first 10 months of the grant period only (March 1, 2015-Dec. 31, 2015). Unless applying
as part of a multi-county partnership, the amount may not exceed $220,000 for counties
designated as “small;” $715,000 for “medium;” $1,045,625 for “large;” or $2,091,250 for
Los Angeles. (Funding parameters for multi-county partnerships are outlined on p. 8).
1.5. Summary of Proposal: Provide a brief description (3-5 sentences) of the overall JAG
program, to be supported by the grant funds requested. Note: This information may be
posted to the BSCC‟s website for informational purposes.
1.6. Applicant Agency: Complete the required sections for the county agency/department,
including the name of the Project Director.
1.7. Day-to-Day Contact Person: Provide the required information for the individual with
whom BSCC staff will work on a daily basis during the grant period.
1.8. Designated Financial Officer: Provide the required information for the individual who
will approve invoices before the county submits them to the BSCC and be responsible
for the overall fiscal management of the grant. Reimbursement checks are mailed to the
Designated Financial Officer. Please be sure to include the payment mailing address.
1.9. Applicant Agreement: The person signing here must be authorized by the County
Board of Supervisors to enter into grant award agreement on behalf of the county.
SECTIONS II – VII: Proposal Narrative
Sections II through VII make up the Proposal Narrative. The Proposal Narrative must
be submitted in Arial 12 point font, with one-inch margins on all four sides. The
narrative may be single or double spaced, but cannot exceed 20 pages in length.
Note: These 20 pages do not include the “Applicant Information Form” (Section I), the
“Proposal Budget” (Section IX), or other required attachments (see Appendices).
SECTION VIII: Proposal Budget
Section VIII, Parts A and B, make up the Proposal Budget. Please see instructions
beginning on page 27.
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
Page 47 of 179
23
Board of State and Community Corrections
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM
CFDA #16.738
SECTION I: APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
1.1. UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FEDERAL EMPLOYER ID NUMBER)
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
1.2. PROJECT TITLE 1.3. JAG PROGRAM PURPOSE AREA(S) 1.4. AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED
$ (first year only)
1.5.. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
1.6. APPLICANT AGENCY (MUST BE A COUNTY DEPARTMENT/AGENCY)
NAME OF DEPARTMENT/AGENCY NAME AND TITLE OF DEPARTMENT/AGENCY HEAD
NAME AND TITLE OF PROJECT DIRECTOR TELEPHONE NUMBER
STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE FAX NUMBER
MAILING ADDRESS (if different) CITY STATE ZIP CODE E-MAIL ADDRESS
1.7. DAY-TO-DAY CONTACT PERSON
NAME AND TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER
STREET ADDRESS FAX NUMBER
CITY STATE ZIP CODE E-MAIL ADDRESS
1.8. DESIGNATED FINANCIAL OFFICER
NAME AND TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER
STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE FAX NUMBER
PAYMENT MAILING ADDRESS (if different) CITY STATE ZIP CODE E-MAIL ADDRESS
1.9. APPLICANT AGREEMENT
By signing this application, I certify that I am vested by the Applicant’s governing board with the authority to enter into contract with the
BSCC. I certify that all funds received pursuant to this Grant Agreement will be spent exclusively on the purposes specified in this
Application and Proposal. I further assure that the Applicant will administer the grant program in accordance with the Grant Agreement as
well as any and all applicable state and federal laws, audit requirements, and state and/or federal program guidelines.
NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER (PERSON WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN)
APPLICANT‟S SIGNATURE (blue ink only) DATE
Page 48 of 179
24
Address the following in narrative form:
2.1. Demonstrate a clear and convincing project need.
2.2. Demonstrate the need(s) is related to any or all of the three priority Program
Purpose Areas and corresponding Areas of Need.
2.3. Demonstrate a compelling justification for the grant funds.
2.4. Demonstrate the relationship between need(s) and grant goals with supporting
local data.
2.5. Demonstrate why current need is not met with existing resources.
Address the following in narrative form:
3.1. Describe the 3-year project strategy in narrative form. In addition, complete
“Three-Year JAG Strategy” (see Appendix B).
3.2. Describe how the proposed project will address the needs described in the Project
Need Section.
3.3. Describe how the proposed project links to one or more of the three priority JAG
Program Purpose Areas and corresponding Areas of Need.
3.4. List project partners that will provide services (agencies, contractors, stakeholders,
private and/or public), include a description of the services to be provided; the
partners' credentials; involved personnel; justification for choice; and the value the
partners add to the proposed project.
3.5. List the project goals and measurable objectives that will be implemented to
achieve goals (include baseline data to help determine goals and objectives).
3.6. Describe staff allocations and assignments for the separate project components.
3.7. Define the target population (e.g., gender, age, offense history, criminogenic
factors) including why and how it was selected.
3.8. Describe the process for determining which services a participant will receive (if
applicable).
3.9. Provide a timeline of major project activities for the entire project period that is
reasonable given the nature and scope of the project.
3.10. Describe management structure and decision-making process for the project.
3.11. Describe management's approach to ensuring program components are being
monitored, assessed and adjusted as necessary.
3.12. Provide documentation of the organization‟s readiness to start project(s) beginning
March 1, 2015.
SECTION II: PROJECT NEED (50 Points)
SECTION III: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (125 Points)
Page 49 of 179
25
SECTION IV: COLLABORATION (100 Points)
Address the following in narrative form (see RFP, page 9, Stakeholder
Collaboration):
4.1. Provide a roster for the JAG Steering Committee, to include names, titles and
organizational affiliations. Include a Letter of Agreement for each member.
4.2. Describe the process used to identify, recruit and engage steering committee
members.
4.3. Describe each member selected for the JAG Steering Committee, including their
experience and expertise as related to the Project Need.
4.4. Demonstrate that there is full and balanced representation from both t raditional and
non-traditional stakeholder groups as related to the Project Need.
4.5. Describe prior working relationships with members, if any.
4.6. Describe process used to identify the problem area(s) and develop the strategy.
4.7. Describe how full participation and voting rights were ensured for all members
throughout the process.
4.8. Describe the applicant's history of collaboration, if any.
4.9. Steps to establish and maintain collaboration as it relates to supporting this
proposed project.
4.10. Describe the steering committee's ongoing role throughout the project .
SECTION V: EVIDENCE-BASED, PROMISING AND INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
(75 Points)
Address the following in narrative form (see RFP, Evidence-Based, Promising and
Innovative Strategies, page 11-14):
5.1. Describe the intervention(s) being proposed for implementation, including whether
the intervention is evidence-based, innovative or promising (according to the
definitions provided on pages 11-12).
5.2. Discuss any evidence (e.g., research, outcome evaluations, etc.) or support (for
“promising” or “innovative”) that indicates the proposed intervention or one or more
of its components have been effective elsewhere.
5.3. Discuss how the outcomes achieved elsewhere support using the proposed
practice(s) in the applicant‟s jurisdiction to achieve the goals and objectives
described in the proposal.
5.4. Describe the population(s) for which each intervention has been shown to be
effective; show that the intervention is appropriate for the proposed target
population.
5.5. Describe what has been done to ensure that the support factors required or
necessary for the intervention can be mobilized in the local setting.
Page 50 of 179
26
SECTION VI: DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION (50 Points)
Address the following in narrative form (see RFP, page 15, Data Collection,
Reporting and Evaluation Requirements):
Local Evaluation Plan
6.1. Clearly state the program goals (i.e. the expected benefits to the participants and
or the community).
6.2. Clearly state the program objectives (i.e. specific measurable accomplishments
intended to advance program goals).
6.3. Provide a detailed plan for assessing the effectiveness of the overall JAG Strategy,
including all individual program components.
6.4. Describe the research design that will be used to complete the evaluation .
.
Process Evaluation
6.5. Provide the estimated number of participants in each individual program
component.
6.6. Describe the plan for tracking participants in terms of progress in the program, for
example start dates, attendance logs, dropouts, successful completions, etc.
6.7. Describe the plan to document the services provided to each participant.
6.8. Describe the plan to document the activities performed by staff who conducted the
program.
Outcome Evaluation
6.9. Identify method of determining if the program "worked" in terms of achieving the
program set goals.
6.10. List outcome variables that will be tracked.
6.11. List the outcomes that will be tracked.
6.12. List criteria for determining participant success/failure in the project.
SECTION VII: CAPABILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS TO PROVIDE SERVICES
(75 Points)
Address the following in narrative form:
7.1. Describe applicant's ability to conduct the proposed project(s).
7.2. Describe applicant's/partners' experience and capability to conduct the project(s).
7.3. Describe the experience and qualifications of key project staff to provide and
manage services.
Page 51 of 179
27
SECTION VIII: PROPOSAL BUDGET
(COST EFFECTIVENESS AND BUDGET REVIEW) (25 Points)
Project costs must be directly related to the objectives and activities of the project. The
budget section must cover the entire three-year grant period (recognizing that the
budgets for years two and three will be estimates, subject to change based on
unforeseen developments and available federal grant funds).
The following items will be rated as a part of this section (addressed by the
Applicant in Parts A and B below):
8.1. Provide a description of the factors considered and the reasons behind the budget
allocations and the extent to which this budget will allow the applicant to achieve its
stated goals.
8.2. List the cost per each project component(s).
8.3. List each staff person assigned to the program, including title, responsibilities and
percentage of time allocated to program.
8.4. Provide the number of individuals that will receive services, if applicable.
8.5. List the cost per participant in the project(s) (per capita), if applicable .
8.6. Provide the direct and indirect costs.
8.7. Describe the project's cost effectiveness.
8.8. Provide complete and detailed budget information in each section.
8.9. Letters of Agreement are included for partners providing in-kind services; draft
Operational Agreements are included for all contracted (paid) service providers.
A. Budget Line Item Totals
Complete the following table for the grant funds being requested. Complete one table
for each of the three years. Report amounts in whole dollars. While recognizing that
counties may use different line items in the budget process, these are the categories
used by the BSCC on its invoices. Please check your calculations as figures in the
table to not auto-calculate.
All funds shall be used consistent with the requirements of the BSCC‟s Grant
Administration and Audit Guide, July 2012:
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Grant_Administration_Guide_July_2012.pdf
Page 52 of 179
28
LINE ITEM GRANT FUNDS
1. Salaries and Benefits $
2. Services and Supplies $
3. Professional Services (Sub-Contractors/Consultants) $
4. Community-Based Organization (CBO) Contracts $
5. Data Collection, Reporting and Evaluation Efforts
(minimum 5-10% of grant funds) $
6. Fixed Assets/Equipment $
7. Other (Including Training, Travel, etc.) $
TOTAL $
B. Budget Line Item Detail (i.e. Budget Narrative)
Provide a narrative detail in each category below to sufficiently explain how the
requested grant funds and local match will be used (based on the budget tables
submitted). Match funds may be expended in any line item and must be identified in
their respective cash or in-kind dollar amounts.
The „other‟ category funds should be budgeted for travel purposes for one mandatory
grantee briefing meeting (to be held in Sacramento, date TBA) as well as any other
travel. Please note that out-of-state travel must be approved by BSCC.
The Budget Narrative must be submitted in Arial 12 point font, with one-inch margins on
all four sides. The narrative may be single or double spaced, but cannot exceed five (5)
pages in length.
1. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: Provide the number of staff and percentage of time,
classification/title, hourly rates of all project staff and benefits.
2. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: (e.g., office supplies, training costs; itemize the
services/supplies).
Page 53 of 179
29
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: (e.g., contracts with expert consultants or other
governmental entities).
4. COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION (CBO) CONTRACTS: Provide name of
CBO(s), itemize nature of services that will be received and show funds allocated.
Show hours and billing rates of all CBO staff.
5. DATA COLLECTION, REPORTING AND EVALUATION EFFORTS: Applicant must
dedicate a minimum of 5-10 percent of the total grant funds requested (for all three
years) toward Data Collection and Evaluation efforts (e.g. costs associated with
collection of required data and evaluation plan). This cost can be spread across the
three years of the project in a way that makes sense to the applicant (i.e., does not
have to be 10/10/10.)
6. FIXED ASSETS/EQUIPMENT: (e.g., computers, and other office equipment
necessary to perform project activities)
7. OTHER: (e.g., travel and training expenses)
Page 54 of 179
30
APPENDIX A
County Population Index
Source: CA Department of Finance, Population Estimates, January 2014
Large Counties (700,001+)
Medium Counties (200,001-700,000)
Alameda 1,573,254
Butte 222,316
Contra Costa 1,087,008
Marin 255,846
Fresno 964,040
Merced 264,922
Kern 873,092
Monterey 425,756
Los Angeles County 10,041,797 Placer 366,115
Orange 3,113,991
San Luis Obispo 272,357
Riverside 2,279,967
Santa Barbara 433,398
Sacramento 1,454,406
Santa Cruz 271,595
San Bernardino 2,085,669
Solano 424,233
San Diego 3,194,362
Sonoma 490,486
San Francisco 836,620
Stanislaus 526,042
San Joaquin 710,731
Tulare 459,446
San Mateo 745,193
Yolo 206,381
Santa Clara 1,868,558
Ventura 842,967
Small Counties (<200,000)
Alpine 1,079
Amador 36,151
Calaveras 44,650
Colusa 21,660
Del Norte 28,131
El Dorado 181,058
Glenn 28,353
Humboldt 134,648
Imperial 180,672
Inyo 18,590
Kings 150,181
Lake 64,699
Lassen 32,581
Madera 153,897
Mariposa 18,467
Shasta 179,412
Mendocino 89,029
Sierra 3,089
Modoc 9,197
Siskiyou 45,231
Mono 14,143
Sutter 95,733
Napa 139,255
Tehama 63,717
Nevada 97,225
Trinity 13,389
Plumas 19,140
Tuolumne 53,604
San Benito 57,517
Yuba 73,682
Page 55 of 179
31
APPENDIX B
Three-Year JAG Strategy
Instructions: This form is a required attachment to the JAG Proposal. It is intended to serve as a supplement to the Proposal Narrative, providing an at-a-glance summary of the overall program
strategy. BSCC staff will use this form when conducting site visits and in compiling information for reports. The grantee may be asked to use it as a part of the quarterly progress report. To
complete the form: Fill in the name of the applicant county (or counties). Select a JAG Program Purpose Area (PPA) from the drop-down box. For each PPA selected, select a corresponding Area
of Need from the drop-down box. (Program Purpose Areas and Areas of Need can be found on page 6 of the RFP.) In the table, list each unique project component or activity planned to address
that Area of Need. Also list the agency responsible for implementation, the expected outcome(s), how progress will be tracked (i.e. methodology for data collection), and timeline information (e.g.,
expected date of implementation, benchmarks for data collection, etc.).
Three-Year JAG Strategy for County of
Year One: March 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
Page 56 of 179
32
Three-Year JAG Strategy for County of
Year Two: January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
Page 57 of 179
33
Three-Year JAG Strategy for County of
Year Three: January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
JAG Program Purpose Area: Choose an item.
Area of Need: Choose an item.
Project Component / Activity Agency / Organization
Responsible
Expected Outcome (Measurable) How Progress will be Tracked
(i.e. data collection)
Timeline / Benchmarks
Page 58 of 179
34
APPENDIX C
JAG Steering Committee Member Roster
JAG Steering Committee – County of
Name Title Agency/Organization Phone Number Email Address
Page 59 of 179
35
APPENDIX D
Sample Letter of Agreement
*Sample only*
To be used for agencies/organizations listed as members of the JAG Steering Committee
and/or that will provide in-kind services via partnership
(no funds exchanged)
Date
[Partners Name]
[Partners Address]
[Recipients Name]
[City of]
[Address]
Dear [City Official]
This letter is letter of agreement between [Partners Name] and [County of] that
explains the support and services provided for the proposed JAG project,
including (membership on the JAG Steering Committee, a partnership to
include…, etc.).
[Explain JAG Steering Committee membership, services or support, dates,
timelines, etc.],
Regards,
Signature
Page 60 of 179
36
APPENDIX E
Sample Operational Agreement
*Sample only*
To be used for subcontractors, consultants and/or community-based organizations
identified in the budget pages
(funds exchanged)
Draft only – signatures not required at time of proposal submission
This Operational Agreement stands as evidence that the (Applicant Agency) and the
(Partner Agency) intend to work together toward the goals outlined in the JAG Three-
Year Strategy. Both agencies believe that implementation of the (Name of JAG
Program), as described within this proposal, will further these goals. Each agency
agrees to participate in the JAG Program, if selected for funding, as outlined herein.
The (Applicant Agency) project will closely coordinate JAG services and activities with
the (Partner Agency) through:
Project staff being readily available to (Partner Agency) for service provision
through describe arrangements with the Agency.
Regularly scheduled meetings (how often) between (persons/positions) to discuss
strategies, timetables and implementation of mandated services. Specifically:
o (List specific activities that will be undertaken between the two agencies or
other specifics of the agreement.)
o xxx
o xxx
Effective grant performance period dates.
Amount of JAG state funds designated to the Partner Agency.
We the undersigned, as authorized representatives of (Applicant Agency) and (Partner
Agency) do hereby approve this document.
_______________________________________________ _________________
Name and Title Date
Agency Name
_______________________________________________ _________________
Name and Title Date
Agency Name
Page 61 of 179
37
APPENDIX F
Sample Board Resolution
Before grant funds can be awarded, counties must submit a resolution from the
Board of Supervisors that includes, at a minimum, the assurances outlined in the
following sample.
WHEREAS the (insert name of applicant county) desires to participate in the
Enhanced R.E.D. Grant Project supported by federal Formula Grant funds and
administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as
BSCC).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the (insert title of designated
official) is authorized on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to submit the grant proposal
for this funding and sign the Grant Agreement with the BSCC, including any
amendments thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that federal grant funds received hereunder shall
not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the county agrees to abide by the statutes
and regulations governing the federal Formula Grants Program as well as the terms and
conditions of the Grant Agreement as set forth by the BSCC.
Passed, approved, and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of (insert name of
county) in a meeting thereof held on (insert date) by the following:
Ayes:
Notes:
Absent:
Signature: Date:
Typed Name and Title:
ATTEST: Signature: Date:
Typed Name and Title:
Page 62 of 179
38
APPENDIX G
List of Other Grant Funding Sources
Please complete this form, listing all other criminal justice grant funds (state and/or federal)
that the applicant agency will receive during the 2015 calendar year.
State or Federal
Administering
Agency
Name of Grant
Program Funding Amount Brief Project Description
Page 63 of 179
39
APPENDIX H
Definition of Terms
Collaboration
The basic manner in which different and potentially competing agencies will work
together to complete the grant proposal process. Counties must rely on the
collaborative process – in the form of the JAG Steering Committee – to determine the
distribution of how funding will be allocated between programs and strategy that serve
one or more of the JAG priorities.
Steering Committee
A working group of professional individuals from diverse disciplines who use critical
thinking skills and compromise to work toward common goals.
Goal versus Objective
Goals and objectives are terms in common use, sometimes used interchangeably
because both refer to the intended results of program activities. Goals are longer-term
than objectives, more broadly stated, and govern the specific objectives to which
program activities are directed.
In proposals, goals are defined by broad statements of what the program intends to
accomplish, representing long-term intended outcome of the program4.
Examples of goal statements4:
• To reduce the number of serious and chronic juvenile offenders.
• To divert nonviolent juvenile offenders from state juvenile correctional
institutions.
Objectives are defined by statements of specific, measurable aims of program
activities5. Objectives detail the tasks that must be completed to achieve goals6.
Descriptions of objectives in the proposals should include three elements4:
1) Direction – the expected change or accomplishment (e.g., improve, maintain);
2) Timeframe – when the objective will be achieved; and
3) Target population – who is affected by the objective.
4 Justice Research and Statistics Association, Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center. (2003, June). Juvenile justice program
evaluation: An overview (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.jrsa.org/njjec/publications/program-evaluation.pdf. 5 New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. A guide to Developing Goals and Objectives for Your Program. Retrieved
from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ofpa/goalwrite.htm. 6 National Center for Justice Planning. Overview of Strategic Planning. Where do we want to be? Goals and Objectives. Retrieved
from http://ncjp.org/strategic-planning/overview/where-do-we-want-be/goals-objectives.
Page 64 of 179
40
Examples of program objectives4:
• By the end of the program, young, drug-addicted juveniles will recognize the
long-term consequences of drug use.
• By program completion, juvenile offenders will have carried out all of the
terms of mediation agreements with their victims
Process Evaluation versus Outcome Evaluation
Process Evaluation4
The purpose of the process evaluation is to assess how program activities are
being carried out in accordance with goals and objectives. Process measures are
designed to answer the question: “What is the program actually doi ng and is this
what we planned it to do?”
Examples of process measures include:
• the number of juveniles who received counseling services, which may be
compared to the number expected to receive services;
• the average caseload per probation officer, which may be compared to
the average caseload expected;
• the number of interagency agreements entered into by the program, which
may be compared to the number planned.
Outcome Evaluation4
The purpose of the outcome evaluation is to whether the program “worked” in
terms of achieving its goals and objectives. Outcome measures are designed to
answer the question: “What results did the program produce?” Examples of
outcome measures include:
• changes in the reading and math scores of juveniles who completed the
program;
• changes in self-reported drug and alcohol use;
• the number of juveniles who have subsequent contacts with police after
leaving the program.
In an evidence-based practice approach, outcome evaluations must include not
only the measures but analysis of the extent to which the measured results can
be attributed to the program rather than to coincidence or alternative
explanations.
4Justice Research and Statistics Association, Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center. (2003, June). Juvenile justice program evaluation:
An overview (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.jrsa.org/njjec/publications/program-evaluation.pdf.
Page 65 of 179
41
APPENDIX I
Key Federal Assurances
Applicable state and federal laws and guidelines will be covered in greater detail in
subsequent contract language. For purposes of this Request for Proposals, the
Applicant will agree to abide by the following federal laws and guidelines.
Overview of Civil Rights Obligations
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant is a federal grant program,
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). As such, it falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. DOJ‟s Office of Civil Rights. The Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) is the State Administering Agency for JAG funding in the State of
California. BSCC has the following civil rights obligations:
BSCC must ensure compliance with applicable civil rights laws within the agency.
BSCC must ensure compliance with applicable civil rights laws by all grantees
(“sub-recipients”), vendors, and contractors.
Federally-protected classes include:
• Race
• Color
• National Origin
• Sex
• Religion
• Disability
• Age
• Sexual Orientation
• Gender Identity
Cross-cutting Federal civil rights laws:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Title II of the American With Disabilities Act of 1990
• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Additional JAG Sub-Recipient Certifications
Formulation of an Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEOP)
Establishment of a Civil Rights Coordinator
Development and Implementation of Formal Grievance Procedures
Compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Page 66 of 179
42
Compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments
Compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Sub-recipients with 50 or more employees that receive $25,000 or more in DOJ
funding are required to:
• Designate a Disability Coordinator
• Adopt Disability Grievance Procedures
• Provide Notice of Non-Discrimination Based on Disability
Title II of the ADA requires that public entities with 50 or more employees that
receive federal funding (regardless of the amount):
• Designate a Disability Coordinator
• Adopt Disability Grievance Procedures
Page 67 of 179
Page 68 of 179
RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the District Attorney, or designee, to submit an application and execute a grant award
agreement and any extensions or amendments thereof, pursuant to State guidelines, with the Board of State and
Community Corrections in the amount of $341,994 for funding of the Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Program for the
period October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Revenue of $341,994 Countywide; $136,630 to the District Attorney for prosecution services, $100,970 to the Office
of the Sheriff for forensic services, and $104,394 to the Probation Department for supervision services. 100% State;
Budgeted. Pursuant to State guidelines, the Program is governed by a Steering Committee composed of the District
Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation Officer, and the County Alcohol and Other Drugs Administrator, which
allocates funding among participating departments.
BACKGROUND:
The Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Program has been in effect since fiscal year 1995/96 and funds three components
including the District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner and Probation
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 12/03/2013 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: Cherie 957-2234
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 3, 2013
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Chris Heck, Deputy
cc:
C. 58
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Mark Peterson, District Attorney
Date:December 3, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Approval to Submit Application and Execute Grant Award Agreement for Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Program Grant
Page 69 of 179
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
Department. As in prior funding cycles, the State requires that a single application be submitted for each County;
therefore, the District Attorney is submitting an application on behalf of Contra Costa County. The program will
continue to concentrate on a prioritized and integrated drug enforcement effort coordinated through State-led
Narcotics Enforcement Teams operating in the County. Grant activities focus on mid and high-level narcotics
dealers and manufacturers, violent and repeat offenders, and drug trafficking gangs and organizations, to interdict
the importation, manufacture and distribution systems which have, in recent years, become more sophisticated in
their methods of operations. Grant conditions require that the County accept responsibility for any liability arising
out of the performance of the grant award, including civil actions for damages, and supplantation is prohibited.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2013/438
Page 70 of 179
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:10/27/2014
Subject:Report on Discussions with California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Regarding Programming for Parolees in Contra Costa County
Submitted For: Philip F. Kader, County Probation Officer
Department:Probation
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Report on Discussions with California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Regarding Programming for Parolees in Contra Costa County
Presenter: Donte Blue, County Reentry
Coordinator
Contact: Donte Blue, County Reentry
Coordinator
Referral History:
The Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 has been one of the most innovative attempts to
address recidivism to date. Believing local jurisdictions were better situated to implement
effective rehabilitative programming, the State realigned the traditional prison population by
redirecting those without a history of violent, serious, or sexual offenses to the custody and
supervision of local officials. Contra Costa responded to the demands of realignment by
developing a comprehensive and collaborative reentry program that utilizes the services of
community-based organizations and public agencies to remove barriers to reintegration and
thereby reduce recidivism. Through this public-private partnership, formerly incarcerated citizens
in the East and Central parts of the County are able to access needed services through a
Networked System of Care. In West Contra Costa County, a plan to develop a “first-stop”
Reentry Resource Center is currently being implemented, and the Center’s doors are expected to
be open by the early part of 2015. Consistent with this approach, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has also recently made increased programming its
preferred method reducing recidivism.
In 2013, the CDCR Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) traded in their monitoring and
enforcement supervision methods of old for an improved California Parole Supervision and
Reintegration Model. This new model seeks to improve the safety of the public through
recidivism reduction. This is accomplished by first assessing a parolee’s criminogenic needs, and
then meeting these needs through the use of community-based programing and evidence-based
practices. Across the state, the CDCR Division of Rehabilitative Programing (DRP) has
contracted with local entities in an effort to build regional rehabilitative programs. Taking the
form of a Day Reporting Center or a Community-Based Coalition, these community-based
programs give parolees access to a host of rehabilitative services that are sometimes inclusive of
individuals on probation. An example of some of the programs include:
Group and Individual Therapy Page 71 of 179
Group and Individual Therapy
Domestic Violence counseling
Drug Treatment
Transitional Housing
Anger Management
Literacy & GED preparation
Job Readiness
Life skills training
Money Management
Referral Update:
Wanting to bring services to the parolees of Contra Costa, and having a preference for locating
these services in an actual physical location, the DRP and DAPO saw the development of the
Reentry Center in West County as an opportune time to open up dialogue with the County to
gauge interest in possibly collocating parolee services at the Center. Over the past several months,
these preliminary conversations confirmed enough interest in the proposal existed to move
towards considering the feasibility of the project. Because Rubicon Programs is the County
contractor acting responsible for the day to day operations of the Reentry Center, the County has
sought and confirmed Rubicon’s interest in the State’s proposal. The County’s next meeting with
CDCR is scheduled for November 12, 2014. This meeting should provide insight on the State’s
programmatic expectations, and the expected scope and size of the proposed project. With a better
understanding of the program the to be collocated at the West County Reentry Center, the County
will be in a better position to determine if the collocation of these programs are in the County’s
best interests, or if the needs of the State’s program as proposed will be best met in a location
separate from the Reentry Center.
County Reentry Coordinator Donte Blue will present this report to the Committee and be
available for questions.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT report from the County Reentry Coordinator on the status of discussions with the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) regarding establishment of
programming for certain parolees within Contra Costa County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
Contra Costa County Reentry Strategic Plan - Report Summary
Page 72 of 179
March 30, 2011
Contra Costa County
Reentry Strategic Plan
A vision of successful community reintegration
Developed by the Contra Costa Reentry Planning Initiative
Compiled by Urban Strategies Council and Ijichi Perkins & Associates
Page 73 of 179
Table of Contents
Report Summary ..............................................................................................................................ii
Statement of Need .......................................................................................................................ii
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ vii
Report Overview ........................................................................................................................ vii
Part I: Vision and Purpose .......................................................................................................... vii
Defining Reentry and Reintegration ...................................................................................... vii
Vision, Mission and Values Statement ................................................................................. viii
Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... ix
Part II: Policy and System Recommendations ............................................................................. x
Reentry System Policy Recommendations to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors ........... x
Discussion of Reentry System Policy Recommendations ........................................................... xi
Part III: Program Recommendations .......................................................................................... xi i
System-Wide Recommendations .......................................................................................... xiii
Part IV: Implementation Plan................................................................................................... xvii
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REENTRY STRATEGIC PLAN .................................................................... 1
Statement of Need .......................................................................................................................... 1
Contra Costa County Reentry Planning Initiative ........................................................................... 7
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 7
REENTRY PLANNING INITIATIVE START-UP (August – December 2009) .................................... 9
PLANNING TASK FORCE AND WORKGROUPS (January – July 2010) .......................................... 9
ADOPTION OF STRATEGIC PLAN (September – December 2010) ............................................ 12
Contra Costa Reentry and Reintegration Collaborative Strategic Plan ........................................ 13
Part I: Vision and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 13
Defining Reentry and Reintegration ......................................................................................... 13
Vision, Mission and Values Statement ..................................................................................... 14
VISION STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 14
MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................... 1 4
PRINCIPLES and VALUES ....................................................................................................... 1 4
Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 15
Part II: Reentry System ................................................................................................................. 16
Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 16
Committee Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 18
Programs and Services .............................................................................................................. 23
Data and Information ................................................................................................................ 24
Communications Strategy ......................................................................................................... 26
Part III: Program Recommendations ............................................................................................. 26
System-Wide Recommendations .......................................................................................... 27
Education and Computer Literacy ........................................................................................ 28
Financial Literacy and Services ............................................................................................. 2 9
Employment .......................................................................................................................... 29
Page 74 of 179
Mental Health ....................................................................................................................... 31
Substance Abuse ................................................................................................................... 32
Health .................................................................................................................................... 35
Mentoring/Community Engagement .................................................................................... 37
Housing ................................................................................................................................. 38
Legal Services ........................................................................................................................ 40
Part IV: Implementation Plan........................................................................................................ 44
Adoption of the Strategic Plan (Months1-5) ........................................................................ 44
Establish Proposed Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 46
Implementation of Programmatic Recommendations ......................................................... 50
Implementation Plan Timeline September 2010 – January 2011 ........................................ 66
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix 1: Parolees by Zip Code 07/02/10 ........................................................................ 68
Appendix 2: Adult Probationers by City 08/06/10 ............................................................... 69
Appendix 3: Juvenile Probationers by City 08/06/10 ........................................................... 70
Appendix 4: Reentry Task Force Composition ...................................................................... 71
Appendix 5: Health Care Services Reentry Flow Chart ......................................................... 72
Appendix 6: Contra Costa County Reentry Planning Initiative Participant List .................... 73
Appendix 7: Definitions of Recidivism .................................................................................. 78
Appendix 8: Reentry Networks in California......................................................................... 79
Appendix 9: Funding Sources for Reentry ............................................................................ 81
End Notes .............................................................................................................................. 81
Page 75 of 179
ii
Report Summary
Statement of Need
For the past four decades, the United States and the State of California have experienced a
period of mass incarceration with prison populations steadily expanding. Consequently, there
has been an accompanying mass release over this same period of time since over 90% of people
incarcerated are eventually released.i As shown in Table 13 below, 2009 data reveal there were
roughly 7,318 adults and juveniles under state or county criminal justice supervision in Contra
Costa County. Moreover, in 2008, Contra Costa County sent 494 adults to state prison and
1,927 adults were released for the first time (558) or released from a parole violation (1369).
Formerly incarcerated people are not evenly distributed throughout Contra Costa County and
tend to be concentrated in poor urban communities of color. In Contra Costa County, the cities
of Richmond, Pittsburg, Concord and Antioch have substantially higher densities of formerly
incarcerated people than other areas of the county. The maps below (Figures 1, 2, and 3)
provide pictures of how parolees and probationers are distributed across Contra Costa County
(accompanying tables can be found in the Appendices, beginning on page 66).
Table 1: 2009 Contra Costa County Reentry Population Summary Table
Parole Probation Total
Adult 1419 2719 4138
Juvenile 52ii 3128 3180
Total 1471 5847 7318
Upon release, the reentry population and the communities to which they return face a wide
array of challenges. Table 2 summarizes current research on the service needs of formerly
incarcerated adults and estimates the needs of the reentry population in Contra Costa County.
As this table indicates, the reentry population is in need of health care, housing, employment,
income, and a wide range of other services. Unfortunately, the communities to which they
return are often the communities least capable of meeting these reintegration needs.
Furthermore, CDCR and county jails do not provide many supports during the reentry process
and, consequently, over half (56%) of all people released from CDCR will return within 3 years
of their release. The flow of people between these communities and prison and jails
destabilizes the communities of return and creates substantial barriers to providing ongoing
health, employment, housing and educational services to a population in great need of these
services.
Page 76 of 179
iii Figure 1: Adult Parolee Population 07/02/10 Accompanying table found in Appendix 1: Parolees by Zip Code 07/02/10 Page 77 of 179
iv Figure 2: Adult Probation Population 08/06/10 Accompanying table found in Appendix 2: Adult Probationers by City 08/06/10 Page 78 of 179
v Figure 3: Juvenile Probation Population 08/06/10 Accompanying table found in Appendix 3: Juvenile Probationers by City 08/06/10Page 79 of 179
vi
Table 2: Adult Reentry Service Needs Estimates
Research Indicates: Among 4138 Adult Parolees
and Probationers We Estimate
That Approximately:
Substance Abuse
74% of parolees have a history of
substance abuse.1 Only 10% received
treatment while incarcerated.2
3062 treatment spaces are
needed
Employment
60% of parolees are not in the labor
market one year after release3
2482 job placements are
needed
Housing
Between 30% and 50% of parolees in
San Francisco and Los Angeles are
homeless4
Between 1241 and 2069
housing placements are
needed
Health Services
Around 16% of prisoners have a
Hepatitis C infection
662 primary care slots are
needed
Education
41% of parolees and 31% of
probationers lack a high school diploma
or GED5
1696 adult education spaces
are needed
Family Services
55% of soon-to-be-release prisoners
have children under the age of 186
2274 parolees and
probationers may need family
counseling, support or
reunification assistance
Recognizing these unprecedented levels of reentry, Contra Costa County has undertaken steps
to establish a reentry system to address the needs of the formerly incarcerated and the
communities to which they are returning. The Reentry Planning Initiative and this strategic plan
1 Mumola, C.J. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and
Federal Prisoners, 1997. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999.
2 Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997. Washington DC: US
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000.
3 Maruschak, L.M. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: HIV in Prisons 1997. Washington DC: US
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999.
4 California Department of Corrections. Prevention Parole Failure Program: An Evaluation. Sacramento:
California Department of Corrections, 1997.
5 Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997.
6 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: HIV in Prisons 1997.
Page 80 of 179
vii
are the first steps towards establishing such a system. Doing so requires building an
infrastructure that can foster the level of coordination and collaboration necessary for
supporting people as they reintegrate into our communities. By improving our reentry systems
we will simultaneously improve the health and safety of our communities and Contra Costa
County.
BACKGROUND
Interested in addressing the issues formerly incarcerated people face upon release, DeVone
Boggan, Director of the Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) and Supervisors Federal
Glover and John Gioia, Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the Public Protection Committee of
the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, collaborated to establish the Contra Costa County
Reentry Planning Initiative (Reentry Planning Initiative). The ONS secured funding from The
California Endowment and hired the Urban Strategies Council (Council) and Ijichi Perkins &
Associates (IPA) to facilitate a process to develop a Reentry Strategic Plan to improve
coordination and collaboration among reentry stakeholders and, ultimately, to improve
outcomes for the formerly incarcerated residents of Contra Costa County. During the period
from August 2009 through July 2010, the Initiative convened 14 meetings of approximately 200
stakeholders including county, city and state agencies, elected officials, service providers,
formerly incarcerated individuals, community-based organizations and residents from across
the county to gather input and advise on the strategic reentry plan.
This report and strategic plan are the products of a nine-month planning process involving
reentry stakeholders from across Contra Costa County. The strategic plan presents a vision of
reentry for Contra Costa County to make formerly incarcerated people more successful,
communities safer and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which people returning
from prison and jail are served. This Plan is considered a living document that will be regularly
updated to reflect the current issues, problems and opportunities within Contra Costa County.
Therefore, the strategic plan should be seen as a framework for addressing reentry throughout
the county.
Report Overview
Part I of the strategic plan describes the ideological framework and foundation for subsequent
portions of this document. The vision, principles and goals presented below offer a long-term
perspective on how reentry should operate within Contra Costa County. Accordingly, even as
progress is made towards implementing the system (described in Part II) and this strategic plan
is updated, the ideological framework describe in Part I will guide future developments. In
addition, the Planning Task Force determined that the coalition they are designing would be
called the Contra Costa County Reentry and Reintegration Collaborative (CCCRRC).
Page 81 of 179
viii
Part I: Vision and Purpose
Defining Reentry and Reintegration
Reentry and reintegration refer to both a philosophic approach to criminal justice and to a
process of community reintegration. As a philosophy “reentry” refers to an approach to the
criminal justice system (especially corrections) that works towards the successful reintegration
of an individual from the point of adjudication within the system. Therefore, as a process,
reentry begins at the time of adjudication and is completed when a person is successfully
reintegrated back within their community. By focusing on community reintegration, reentry
seeks to identify and meet the needs of the individual at each point of the process in a way that
supports success in the community. Furthermore, this definition of reentry emphasizes the
belief that a person who successfully completes the process is more capable of leading a
productive, crime-free life than when they entered the criminal justice system.
Reentry and Reintegration is defined as a process, beginning at the time of adjudication, which
plans for and provides the necessary services and supports to enable the formerly incarcerated
individual to reenter the community, achieve stability and successfully reintegrate back into
family and community life and to complete probation and parole without being re-incarcerated.
The CCCRRC believes that the reentry process is comprised of five stages:
1. Arrest and Adjudication: the period from arrest through adjudication.
2. Incarceration: the period of time when an individual is incarcerated within an
institution.
3. Pre-Release: the activities that occur inside the institution to prepare a person for
release once a date of release is known. Depending on the institution, the timeframe
for this stage may vary with some lasting no more than a few hours and others for
months.
4. Release/Reentry: the period of time beginning at release from the institution through
the time at which the individual is stabilized back into the community.
5. Reintegration: the period during which a person is reintegrated within their community
and is actively pursuing a path towards a healthy and productive life.
Vision, Mission and Values Statement
The following statements were developed and adopted by the CCCRRC during the Contra Costa
Reentry Planning Initiative.
Vision Statement
Individuals released from incarceration into communities in Contra Costa County will become
part of an integrated and supportive service network comprised of community-based
organizations, government and public agencies and the broader community. This network will
jointly create a pathway for the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated
individuals back into the community.
Page 82 of 179
ix
Mission Statement
The CCCRRC’s primary mission is to engage and support individ uals, families, and communities
in formerly incarcerated individuals to become active and impactful members of their
communities. The CCCRRC will accomplish this mission through the development and support
of necessary public policy, public safety, community awareness and services.
Reentry services are part of a continuum that begins at the point an individual enters the justice
system and continues through successful reintegration. Formerly incarcerated individuals and
others directly affected by the criminal justice system are involved with the CCCRRC, providing
input on prevention, service delivery, advocacy, and policy issues that encourage reintegration
into the community and recidivism reduction.
Principles and Values
The Contra Costa County Reentry and Reintegration Collaborative is guided by the following
principles and values:
CCCRRC seeks to provide increased awareness about the value of formerly incarcerated
individuals and their loved ones to their communities.
Individuals are more likely to experience success when they are part of a supportive,
integrated system.
Reentry and reintegration begin while the individual is incarcerated.
While leaving room for innovation, evidence-based practices are utilized when
developing programs and policies.
Collaboration, coordination, information, and communication are critical to the Contra
Costa County Reentry and Reintegration Collaborative’s success and sustainability.
The good of the community comes before one's self and/or organizational interests.
Goals and Objectives
Clear and concise goals and objectives are an integral part of the Contra Costa Reentry
Initiative. These goals and objectives focus the efforts of the Initiative, increase its credibility
with stakeholders, and provide critical tools for assessing the extent to which it is accomplishing
its mission.
In terms of framing performance goals, objectives and outcomes, the Initiative:
Uses a holistic, systemic, and inclusive approach that involves federal, state and local
government stakeholders, community organizations, advocates, the formerly
incarcerated as well as family and community members;
Adopts strategies that draw on evidenced-based approaches and practices;
Targets high-to moderate-risk probationers and parolees through the use of validated
assessment tools;
Page 83 of 179
x
Emphasizes geographic areas in which a disproportionate number of probationers and
parolees are drawn from and return to;
Incorporates assessment and case management tools targeting continuous reentry
planning, beginning at the point of admission to the criminal justice system, and working
through pre- and post-release;
Embraces a commitment to the continuous and appropriate delivery of drug treatment,
medical care, job training and placement, educational services, cognitive behavioral
therapy and/or other services essential to reentry; and,
Provides for independent evaluations of reentry programs using, when feasible, random
assignment and controlled studies to determine effectiveness of programs and services
offered.
In order for the Initiative to continuously improve its ability to meet the needs of individuals
reintegrating into the community, reduce recidivism, and maintain public safety, it addresses a
wide range of reentry-related issues including:
Increased job training, placement, and employment opportunities;
Increased educational opportunities;
Reduced violations of conditions of supervised release;
Increased payment of child support;
Increased housing opportunities;
Reduced drug and alcohol abuse through participation in substance abuse services;
Increased participation in physical and mental health services;
Increased financial literacy; and
Increased family and community engagement in reentry.
These issues are addressed through program and service recommendations in Part III
(beginning on page 26 of this plan).
Part II: Policy and System Recommendations
Based upon the research, discussions and deliberations of the Task Force and Work Groups, the
Planning Initiative has prepared two sets of recommendations. The first set of
recommendations is directed to the Board of Supervisors and address broad policy and systems
issues. A second set of Program Recommendations is directed to the proposed CCCRRC and
the community-at large and form the foundation for the work of the CCCRRC.
Reentry System Policy Recommendations to the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors
1. The Board should adopt the Contra Costa County Reentry Strategic Plan as the county’s
strategic plan for reentry.
2. The Board should adopt the CCCRRC as the countywide mechanism for coordination and
implementation of the reentry strategic plan.
Page 84 of 179
xi
3. The Board should designate a single county agency to house the CCCRRC and to provide
leadership and administrative support for its operations and to coordinate the support
of other county and governmental agencies, non-profit, faith-based and business
partners, and community residents in achievement of the goals and objectives set forth
in the reentry strategic plan.
Discussion of Reentry System Policy Recommendations
One of the primary goals of the Contra Costa County Reentry Planning Initiative is to design and
implement a countywide infrastructure that will operate an efficient and effective system of
community reentry and reintegration from incarceration. The diagram below depicts the
infrastructure developed by the participants of the Reentry Planning Initiative. Each committee
is described in greater detail on subsequent pages.
Figure 4: CCCRRC Infrastructure Diagram
Role: Policy makers,
approve strategic plan,
provide resources
Programs and
Services
Subcommittee
Data and
Information
Subcommittee
Coordinating
Council
Role: Communication,
coordination, strategic
plan (oversight of
development/updates)
, public system
interface, resource
development and
leveraging current
resources
Role: Strategic plan,
communication, clinical
resource, coordination,
document production
Staffing Decision Makers Table
Accountability
Role: Technical
assistance to
programs/services,
training and professional
development, resource
development
Role: Data collection,
assessment, evaluation,
information services,
reporting
Page 85 of 179
xii
The Contra Costa County Coordinating Council is the coordinating and communication hub of
the collaborative. Information passes through the Coordinating Council (either formally or
informally) as the lead body to ensure the collaborative remains informed of reentry activity
and supports in Contra Costa County. Representatives serving on the Coordinating Council are
advisors to key decision-makers. On an annual basis the Coordinating Council will present a
“State of Affairs” (plan and strategies) and a six-month review to the Decision Makers Table.
This committee will be charged with discussing a wide range of issues and will serve as an
advisory body to the Decision Maker Table. As the most representative body of the
Collaborative, the Coordinating Council will be responsible for establishing the operational
policies of the CCCRRC. In doing so, the Coordinating Council will create a system of
accountability among the various committees and all those involved with the CCCRRC.
The Programs and Services Subcommittee provides technical assistance for programs and
services, training and professional development, resource development for providers; identifies
information needs, inventories current services, best practices/research; prepares
gaps/needs/assets analysis and policy recommendations. This subcommittee will initially be
created from the existing East and West County provider groups. As the CCCRRC develops it
may be necessary to develop workgroups around specific services (e.g., employment, housing)
that will serve under the Programs and Services Subcommittee. These workgroups would bring
together stakeholders within these specific fields and could be established on an as-needed
basis (e.g., to develop a countywide application for funding) or become a permanent
component of the CCCRRC.
The Data and Information Subcommittee supports the rest of the CCCRRC’s effort by ensuring
that data and informational needs of the various committees, stakeholders and the community
are being met. They also serve an information management function by collecting the current
data on the reentry population in Contra Costa County and making those data available to the
CCCRRC. This subcommittee also will work with existing research and program evaluation
organizations to conduct regular assessments of existing programs. The Data and Information
Subcommittee will produce regular reports in order to share their research with municipal
leaders, media, and local community organizations.
The Decision Makers Table initiates legislation and policy and commits resources and other
support for the goals, objectives, and activities proposed by the Coordinating Council to
improve the lives of those affected by reentry services. The Decision Makers Table approves an
annual reentry plan and conducts a mid-year review to determine progress on the plan and to
identify policy and resource needs.
Part III: Program Recommendations
In addition to designing a recommended infrastructure to support an effective reentry system,
the Reentry Planning Initiative also produced a series of programmatic recommendations for
critical services. These recommendations were developed by staff from the relevant
county/city agencies, CBOs and other stakeholders engaged in the process. Each set of
Page 86 of 179
xiii
programmatic recommendations is specific to that service area; however, they also share a
common set of ideas about how the reentry system should operate. These common elements
have been pulled out from the specific service areas and are presented as “System-Wide
Recommendations” because they were identified as critical to achieving the service specific
recommendations outlined below. In this executive summary we provide a sketch of the
recommendations, to see the more detailed list go to page 26 of the Strategic Plan.
System-Wide Recommendations
Reentry Process Recommendations
1. Sentencing: Incorporate a risk and needs assessment requirement throughout the
criminal justice process beginning with sentencing.
2. Incarceration: Utilize incarceration as an opportunity for individuals to address
individual needs, increase human and social capital, and to begin establishing
connections with positive social networks:
o Begin service delivery by community-based providers immediately upon
incarceration with pre-release planning beginning a minimum of 120 days prior
to release whenever possible.
3. Pre-Release: Establish and formalize a pre-release planning process that identifies
service needs and, prior to release, connects prisoners with community-based service
providers.
4. Release: Develop a system for providing transitional services that connect the formerly
incarcerated with positive social networks that were established prior to release.
5. Reentry: Build/support a full continuum for the provision of particular services (e.g.,
employment, housing, health).
Service Delivery System Recommendations
1. Develop the service delivery system to ensure sufficient capacity and supply of services
to meet the needs of the formerly incarcerated population in Contra Costa County.
2. Establish professional development requirements for all service providers who receive
funding through the Richmond and Contra Costa County Workforce Investment Boards.
3. Provide training opportunities for Parole, Probation and Municipal Police Departments
that address best practices on how to work with the at-risk youth population.
Education and Computer Literacy Recommendations
1. Offer targeted remedial and supportive educational programs to boost basic skill
proficiency levels among formerly incarcerated individuals.
2. Provide and expand in-person computer skills training programs for formerly
incarcerated individuals both inside correctional/detention facilities and in the
community.
Page 87 of 179
xiv
3. Provide access to college level courses (during and after incarceration), financial aid, and
support services (EOPS, DSPS, tutoring, counseling, reentry programs).
4. Offer supportive programs to prepare formerly incarcerated individuals for the
necessary discipline and focus required for long-term commitment to educational goals
such as completion of the G.E.D.
Financial Literacy and Services
1. Provide basic financial literacy skills training to formerly incarcerated individuals who
leave custody and access services through the CCCRRC.
2. Provide formerly incarcerated individuals with access to financial support tools,
including public benefits, supportive services, and individual development accounts
(IDAs) to help individuals begin to stabilize their financial situations.
3. Conduct targeted outreach to the reentry population for free tax preparation assistance
to help them access Earned Income Tax Credit.
4. Offer credit-counseling/credit-repair.
5. Connect individuals with bank accounts to avoid check cashing outlets.
6. Provide budgeting classes/counseling.
Employment
1. Develop targeted services and programs to increase the employment rate of formerly
incarcerated individuals and address the impact of a criminal record on employment.
2. Expand the number and range of supported/subsidized work experience programs for
formerly incarcerated individuals.
3. Develop and enhance job-specific training and certification programs during
incarceration.
4. Develop and enhance paid training programs/transitional employment in multiple
sectors, targeting individuals recently released from incarceration.
5. Evaluate the county’s hiring procedures and adopt the specific Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) criteria that reflect minimum federal requirements.
6. Develop and implement a county “Ban the Box” policy to remove the question about
criminal records from county employment applications during the initial application
stage of the hiring process except for certain identified sensitive positions in public
safety and children’s services or as determined by the agency. Policies vary across
jurisdictions but have some of the following elements:
delete the criminal background question from initial application;
ensure that federal law, which requires that a conviction be “substantially related”
to job responsibilities, is enforced;
perform a background check once the candidate is selected or determined to be a
serious prospect;
identify all positions for which background checks will be conducted due to the
nexus between offenses and job duties, or as required by law;
Page 88 of 179
xv
consider the gravity of the offense, the age of the candidate at the time of the
offense, and how much time has elapsed since the conviction and the application;
the right of the applicant to be notified that they were disqualified because of
information in the background check and the right of the applicant to correct
information and appeal the decision. Candidates for jobs with conviction
restrictions can be notified of such restrictions in position announcements; and
apply the policy to county/city vendors and contractors. For examples of “Ban the
Box” policies, please visit the National Employment Law Project website:
http://www.nelp.org/index.php/content/content_issues/category/criminal_records
_and_employment/. For a “Q and A” on the policy, please visit:
http://www.crmintegrators.com/transformationnetwork/Advocacy/tabid/71/Defaul
t.aspx.
7. Outreach to businesses/employers to encourage use of available financial incentives for
hiring people with criminal records.
8. Create an efficient process for access to employment records during incarceration from
CDCR, county detention system and juvenile hall.
Mental Health
1. Identify parolees/probationers with mental health issues prior to release.
2. Develop a seamless transition into mental health services from county jail and state
prison that ensures an intake appointment within the first week of release.
3. Implement a process for obtaining/transferring complete medical records prior to
release.
4. Implement a process for developing a case conference/treatment plan with affected
departments/agencies prior to release.
5. Incorporate mental health status exam into sentencing determinations, especially for
youth.
6. If a youth is a mental health services consumer, connect him/her to the Contra Costa
County Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Transition Age Youth (TAY) program.
Substance Abuse
1. Improve the coordination of and access to substance abuse services for the reentry
population.
2. Coordinate the development of the pre-release substance abuse assessments.
3. Early identification of substance-abusing prisoners scheduled to return to Contra Costa
County, supporting early and active transition planning 3 months prior to release.
4. Develop an effective and regular system of communication between Addiction Recovery
Counselors (ARC) counselors and Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AODS).
5. Provide technical support to ARC counselors to ensure that prisoners suffering from
substance abuse or co-occurring disorders receive an integrated approach to treatment
during and after incarceration as determined by on AOD assessment.
Page 89 of 179
xvi
6. Ensure that ARC counselors incorporate conditions of parole into clients' transition
plans.
7. Assess clients’ eligibility to public benefits prior to release.
8. Develop a system to connect formerly incarcerated individuals with positive social
networks prior to release.
9. Ensure that ARC counselors keep up-to-date information about substance abuse
services in Contra Costa County.
10. Address immediate issues prior to release that could prevent successful reentry such as
substance abuse treatment, lack of medication, housing, etc.
Health
1. Develop a coordinated mechanism for providing re-entrants with health services.
2. Ensure that reimbursement mechanisms for covering the cost of health care are
established and that MOUs and policy related to this are implemented.
3. Establish a special committee to coordinate mental health, health and substance abuse
issues.
4. Advocate with CDCR to obtain medical, mental health and substance abuse records to
provide continuity of care and expedite establishment of benefits.
5. Advocate for clarification of the definition of “legal residence” to ensure access to all
potential reimbursement mechanisms.
Mentoring/Community Engagement
1. Incorporate a consultation with youth social worker, advocate or mentor (if possible)
into sentencing decision in order to gather valuable psychosocial information on youth.
2. Create a task force dedicated to exploring structured mentoring opportunities/practices
specific to addressing the needs of formerly incarcerated individuals.
3. Identify promising strategies/evidence-based models and best practices of mentoring
that have demonstrated success in serving those who are formerly incarcerated.
4. Select and support the development of successful mentoring strategies/programs that
are designed specifically to serve the formerly incarcerated:
o Identify and obtain financial support to develop, evaluate and sustain mentoring
efforts that address the needs of the formerly incarcerated.
o Implement the program with operating procedures and standards for mentor
and participant that include recruitment, screening, training, matching,
monitoring and support, match closure and evaluation strategies based on the
latest mentoring research and evidence from experienced mentoring
practitioners.
Housing
Page 90 of 179
xvii
1. Ensure housing-focused discharge planning prior to release.
2. Develop pre-release plans that realistically address the housing needs of the individual.
3. Involve the inmate, community-based case manager and parole/probation officer in
pre-release planning process.
4. Connect formerly incarcerated individuals with support system immediately upon
release.
5. Provide opportunities for community service upon release.
6. Offer peer-driven case management and supports to facilitate transition process.
7. Remove any barriers to affordable housing:
o Work with developers to remove "screening" for people with criminal records.
o Work with Housing Authority to remove any potential barriers in their policies
and practices.
o Work with affordable housing currently in operation to make sure that there is
no bar against the formerly incarcerated person reentering those units (i.e. to
reunify with family).
8. Increase the supply of housing dedicated to the formerly incarcerated in Contra Costa
County
9. Provide service providers with professional training opportunities to develop their
understanding of the formerly incarcerated.
o Establish professional development requirements for all service providers who
receive funding through the Richmond and Contra Costa County Workforce
Investment Boards.
Legal Services
1. Conduct a legal issues risk and needs assessment to during incarceration, pre-release
and post-release.
2. Increase the number of currently incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals’
participation in services/programs that modify child support payments, establish
paternity, determine visitation rights, and release license holds immediately upon
incarceration.
3. Increase the number of formerly incarcerated individuals’ participation with Housing
Law Providers in an effort to decrease evictions and increase access to subsidized
housing.
4. Increase the number of formerly incarcerated individuals who participate in Homeless
Court and/or attend Traffic Court.
5. Increase the number of formerly incarcerated individuals who have access to their
county/state RAP sheet.
6. Increase number of employers who understand and follow employment law related to
hiring individuals with criminal records.
7. Increase understanding and completion of terms of Parole and Probation in order to
decrease violations. Increase communication between Parole/Probation and service
providers regarding violation hearings.
Page 91 of 179
xviii
8. Increase number of registered and voting formerly incarcerated individuals in Contra
Costa County.
9. Create reentry courts, drug courts, mental health courts and alternatives to
incarceration/diversion programs in order to address underlying causal factors for
offenses such as substance abuse and mental health disorders in order to reduce
recidivism and increase recovery.
10. Create a monthly “Clean Slate” clinic that provides access to legal remedies to common
barriers to housing, employment and public benefits and for juveniles’ record sealing.
11. Create training for reentry service providers on legal issues, barriers and remedies.
Establish training requirements around reentry legal issues for all service providers who
receive funding through the Richmond and Contra Costa County funding streams
specific to the area of service.
12. If youth is incarcerated for sex work, work with judge to see if there is a prison/jail
alternative.
13. Identify jail/prison alternatives for youth (e.g., boys/girls ranch, mental health treatment
center) if appropriate, and inform judge of these options.
Part IV: Implementation Plan
The implementation of this strategic plan consists of three phases: 1) Adoption of the Strategic
Plan; 2) Establishment of the Reentry Infrastructure; and 3) Implementation of the
Programmatic Recommendations.
The first phase of implementation is to have the strategic plan formally adopted by the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg and Richmond City
Councils. Therefore, the members of the Reentry Planning Task Force and the soon to be
established CCCRRC will hold a series of meetings with the directors of county and city agencies
in these jurisdictions to brief them and obtain their support for this Strategic Plan.
Subsequently, the strategic plan will be brought to the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors and city councils with a request for formal adoption.
Concurrent with the adoption of the strategic plan the participants of the Reentry Planning
Initiative will begin to establish the reentry infrastructure outlined above. The current Reentry
Planning Task Force will create the Coordinating Council and the existing East and West County
provider groups will create the Programs and Services Subcommittee. During this time the
committees will establish their procedural and operational practices to ensure that they are
fully functioning when the Board of Supervisors adopts the strategic plan.
Implementation of the programmatic recommendations will begin as soon as the infrastructure
is in place, with certain recommendations moving forward after the various committees being
established. An emphasis will be placed on implementing the system-wide recommendations
first as they will have the greatest impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the service area
recommendations.
Page 92 of 179
xix
A logic model outlining the program recommendations, the performance measures associated
with those recommendations and the resources that will be devoted towards these
recommendations is on page 44 of this Plan.
Page 93 of 179
xx 9/20/2010Recommendation fromBOS Public Protection Cmt.10/22/2010 - 11/20/2010Est. Data Subcommittee__9/1/20101/24/201110/1/201011/1/201012/1/20101/1/201110/14/2010 - 11/19/2010__Presentations to BOS and City Councils__9/10/2010 - 11/2/2010Mtgs w/ City/County Agency Directors__Program Specific Recommendations12/17/2010 - 1/24/2011Contra Costa Reentry Initiative September 2010 - January 20119/20/2010 - 10/28/2010Est. Programs and Services Subcommittee__11/20/2010Adoption11/25/2010CCCRRC Est.Est. Coordinating Council__9/7/2010 - 10/5/201012/6/2010 - 1/24/2011Program Recommendations12/7/2010 - 1/24/2011System-Wide Recommendations9/1/2010 - 11/25/2010__Adoption of Strategic Plan__9/5/2010 - 12/4/2010Establishment of CCCRRC Infrastructure Page 94 of 179
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:10/27/2014
Subject:ACCEPT REPORT ON REVIEW OF COUNTY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
SALES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE
Submitted For: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: ACCEPT REPORT ON REVIEW OF COUNTY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
SALES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE
Presenter: Bob Calkins, (925) 674-7877 Contact: Bob Calkins, (925) 674-7877
Referral History:
On June 3, 2014 the Board of Supervisors referred to Public Protection Committee a review of the
Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activities Ordinance. In 2002, the Board of Supervisors
adopted Ordinance No. 2002-33, which established Chapter 82-38 of the County Ordinance Code.
The Ordinance regulates Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activities, which are locations
where the retail sale of alcoholic beverages occur.
The ordinance requires land use permits for newly established alcoholic beverage commercial
activities, conferred Deemed Approved ("grandfathered") status on certain existing
establishments selling alcoholic beverages, and provides standards and an administrative hearing
process to review violations of those standards. The ordinance was enacted to protect the general
health and welfare of the residents of the County and to prevent nuisance activities where
alcoholic beverage sales occur. Since 2002, there may have been additional alcoholic beverage
products released and marketed within the unincorporated area that are contributing to nuisance
activities, but are not included in the County Ordinance Code.
On June 23, 2014, the Department of Conservation and Development provided, and the Public
Protection Committee approved, a 4-phase work-plan to review the current Ordinance and return
to the Committee with recommendations. Over the course of the last four months, the Department
has formed an internal workgroup composed of members of Administration, Code Enforcement
and Community Development to review crime statistics at facilities with deemed approved status
within the unincorporated area and will present findings at today's meeting.
Referral Update:
Bob Calkins, CDBG Program Manager, will make a presentation to the Committee on the
findings of the workgroup and answer any questions that the Committee may have.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Page 95 of 179
1. ACCEPT a report on the review of the Alcoholic Beverage Commercial Sales ordinance
(commonly referred to as the "Deemed Approved Ordinance"); and,
2. PROVIDE direction to staff as necessary.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activities Ordinance - Staff Report
Page 96 of 179
Page 97 of 179
Page 98 of 179
Page 99 of 179
Page 100 of 179
Page 101 of 179
Page 102 of 179
Page 103 of 179
Page 104 of 179
Page 105 of 179
Page 106 of 179
Page 107 of 179
Page 108 of 179
Page 109 of 179
Page 110 of 179
Page 111 of 179
Page 112 of 179
Page 113 of 179
Page 114 of 179
Page 115 of 179
Page 116 of 179
Page 117 of 179
Page 118 of 179
Page 119 of 179
Page 120 of 179
Page 121 of 179
Page 122 of 179
Page 123 of 179
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:10/27/2014
Subject:Update on Inmate Welfare Programs, Inmate Telecom/Visitation Policies
offered at County Adult Detention Facilities
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.
On December 9, 2013, the Committee received an update from the Sheriff's Office on the status
of the RFP and the work being conducted by Praeses, LLC on behalf of the County to assist in
development of he RFP. The Sheriff's Office was requested to return at a future meeting date for
Page 124 of 179
an update.
On April 28, 2014, the Committee received an update from the Sheriff's Office on this status of
the RFP for inmate telecommunications services. The Sheriff's Office notified the Committee that
the draft RFP was received earlier that morning and was under review. The Committee requested
that the Sheriff's Office provide a copy of the RFP to assist with the discussion at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
On June 23, 2014, the Committee received an update from the Sheriff's Office on the status of the
RFP for inmate telecommunications services; however, the RFP document was not finalized for
review. The Committee directed staff to return with an update once the RFP document was ready
to be listed in the agenda packet for an upcoming meeting.
Referral Update:
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. The DRAFT Inmate Telecom RFP is attached for review and comment at
this meeting.
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):
1. ACCEPT a report from the Sheriff's Office regarding the Inmate Telecommunications Request
for Proposals process.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
Inmate Programming with Funding Source
Penal Code Section 4025
DRAFT Inmate Telecom Request for Proposals
Page 125 of 179
Page 126 of 179
Page 127 of 179
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 128 of 179
Page 129 of 179
Page 130 of 179
Page 131 of 179
Page 132 of 179
Page 133 of 179
Page 134 of 179
Page 135 of 179
Page 136 of 179
Page 137 of 179
Page 138 of 179
Page 139 of 179
Page 140 of 179
Page 141 of 179
Page 142 of 179
Page 143 of 179
Page 144 of 179
Page 145 of 179
Page 146 of 179
Page 147 of 179
Page 148 of 179
Page 149 of 179
Page 150 of 179
Page 151 of 179
Page 152 of 179
Page 153 of 179
Page 154 of 179
Page 155 of 179
Page 156 of 179
Page 157 of 179
Page 158 of 179
Page 159 of 179
Page 160 of 179
Page 161 of 179
Page 162 of 179
Page 163 of 179
Page 164 of 179
Page 165 of 179
Page 166 of 179
Page 167 of 179
Page 168 of 179
Page 169 of 179
Page 170 of 179
Page 171 of 179
Page 172 of 179
Page 173 of 179
Page 174 of 179
Page 175 of 179
Page 176 of 179
Page 177 of 179
Page 178 of 179
Page 179 of 179