HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11102014 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
November 10, 2014
10:30 A.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 October 27, 2014 meeting. (Page 4)
4. CONSIDER accepting a report on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
and Community Recidivism Reduction Grant programs, AUTHORIZE the County
Administrator, or designee to secure a grant writer, if needed, to assist in the
development of the final grant proposal and PROVIDE direction to staff as necessary.
(Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator) (Page 9)
5. CONSIDER recommending a nominees for appointment to the CY2015 Community
Corrections Partnership (CCP) and CY2015 Community Corrections Partnership
Executive Committee. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 60)
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 22, 2014 at 1:00 P.M.
7.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
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:11/10/2014
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - October 27, 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 October 27, 2014
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the October 27, 2014 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
October 27, 2014 Record of Action
Page 4 of 67
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
Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator-Committee Staff
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Mark Peterson, District Attorney-Public Administrator
Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender
Phil Kader, Chief Probation Officer
Michael V. Casten, Undersheriff
Todd Billeci, Chief Deputy Probation Officer
Matthew Schuler, Assistant Sheriff-Custody Services Bureau
Mary Knox, Senior Deputy District Attorney
Thomas Chalk, Captain, WCDF Commander
Dana Filkowski, Deputy District Attorney
Cherie Mathisen, Chief of Administration - District Attorney's Office
Robert T. Calkins, CDBG Program Manager - Conservation and Development
Department
Donte Blue, County Reentry Coordinator
Terrance Cheung, Chief of Staff - District I
Donna Maxwell, District II Staff
Ed Diokno, District V Staff
1.Introductions
Convene - 1:00 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 July 28, 2014 meeting.
Page 5 of 67
Approved as presented.
Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4.1. 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.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
Byrne JAG Grant:
1. Staff needs to prioritize formation of JAG Steering Committee prior to the
existing workgroup agreeing on a programmatic approach to the grant.
2. The JAG Steering Committee should be composed of 12-14 members, including
"traditional" and "non-traditional" stakeholders as outlined in the State RFP.
3. Committee staff should schedule a special meeting of the Public Protection
Committee to receive an update on the JAG Grant proposal development process
prior to the November 24, 2014 submission deadline.
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant:
1. The $250,000 grant from the state should be competitively bid in the following
increments: Two (2) $50,000 allocations to Juvenile programming and three (3)
$50,000 allocations to adult programming.
2. For the three (3) $50,000 allocations to adult programming, the funding should
be allocation to West, Central and East county programs equally. The funded
programs should build off of existing programming established by the Community
Corrections Partnership for the AB 109 population, but it is not a requirement that
the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant funding be spent exclusively on the AB
109 population.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.1. 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.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
Page 6 of 67
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. The Committee noted that County staff should continue to pursue the opportunity
of partnering with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on
programming for parolees in Contra Costa County should the West County Reentry
Resource Center Steering Committee vote to disallow participation of parolees in the
West County Reentry Resource Center through a contract with the State. The
provision of reentry services to parolees is contemplated in current County policy
through the County Reentry Strategic Plan.
6.1. 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.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. The Committee directed staff to bring the approved recommendations to the full
Board of Supervisors.
Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
7.1. ACCEPT a report from the Sheriff's Office regarding the Inmate
Telecommunications Request for Proposals process.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. The Committee requested a report back in the future once the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) publishes the final ruling on commissions for
intra-state inmate phone calls and the resulting impact on the Sheriff's Office
Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF).
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM.
The Committee directed staff to work with each Supervisor's scheduler to schedule a
special meeting of the Committee for early to mid November to facilitate additional
discussion of the Byrne JAG grant.
9.Adjourn
Adjourned - 2:59 PM.
Page 7 of 67
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 8 of 67
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:11/10/2014
Subject:Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) - Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG)
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.:
Referral Name: Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) - Byrne Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG)
Presenter: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097 Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097
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
Page 9 of 67
laboratories, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems.
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:
At the October 27, 2014 Public Protection Committee, provided the following direction to staff:
1. Staff needs to prioritize formation of JAG Steering Committee prior to the existing workgroup agreeing on
a programmatic approach to the grant.
2. The JAG Steering Committee should be composed of 12-14 members, including "traditional" and
"non-traditional" stakeholders as outlined in the State RFP.
3. Committee staff should schedule a special meeting of the Public Protection Committee to receive an update
on the JAG Grant proposal development process prior to the November 24, 2014 submission deadline.
The special meeting of the PPC was requested to provide the Committee with an opportunity to
meet prior to submission of the Byrne JAG Grant proposal to the BSCC. The JAG workgroup is
scheduled to meet on Thursday, November 6, 2014, which is the same date that the PPC agenda
packet is required to be published pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance. For that reason,
staff will provide an update and materials related to the scheduled workgroup meeting at the PPC
meeting and request that those materials be accepted into the record.
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. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to secure a grant writer, if needed, to
assist in the development of the final Byrne JAG grant proposal in recognition of the short
turnaround time required to submit the grant by November 24, 2014.
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
Page 10 of 67
BSCC Byrne JAG Grant - RFP
BSCC Byrne JAG Grant - Interest Letter
FY2014 Regional Anti-Drug Abuse (RADA) Program Allocations Board Order
Page 11 of 67
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 12 of 67
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 13 of 67
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 14 of 67
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 15 of 67
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 16 of 67
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 17 of 67
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 18 of 67
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 19 of 67
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 20 of 67
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 21 of 67
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 22 of 67
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 23 of 67
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 24 of 67
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 25 of 67
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 26 of 67
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 27 of 67
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 28 of 67
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 29 of 67
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 30 of 67
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 31 of 67
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 32 of 67
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 33 of 67
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 34 of 67
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 35 of 67
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 36 of 67
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 37 of 67
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 38 of 67
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 39 of 67
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 40 of 67
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 41 of 67
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 42 of 67
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 43 of 67
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 44 of 67
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 45 of 67
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 46 of 67
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 47 of 67
34
APPENDIX C
JAG Steering Committee Member Roster
JAG Steering Committee – County of
Name Title Agency/Organization Phone Number Email Address
Page 48 of 67
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 49 of 67
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 50 of 67
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 51 of 67
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 52 of 67
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 53 of 67
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 54 of 67
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 55 of 67
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 56 of 67
Page 57 of 67
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 58 of 67
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 59 of 67
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:11/10/2014
Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2015 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2015 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Presenter: Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036
Referral History:
↵The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011), which
transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109
(AB109) took effect on October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice
system. On a prospective basis, the legislation:
• Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified nonviolent,
non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an
expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders;
• Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released
from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense)
from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release
Community Supervision (PRCS);
• Transferred the custody responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail,
administered by county sheriffs
AB109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership
(CCP) and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan (Plan) to the county Board of
Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections
Partnership is identified in statute as the following:
Community Corrections Partnership
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1.
Presiding Judge (or designee)2.
County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS3.
Page 60 of 67
District Attorney4.
Public Defender5.
Sheriff6.
Chief of Police7.
Head of the County department of social services8.
Head of the County department of mental health9.
Head of the County department of employment10.
Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs11.
Head of the County Office of Education12.
CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders13.
Victims’ representative14.
Later in 2011, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), which
served as “clean up” legislation to AB109. Assembly Bill 117 (AB117) changed, among other
things, the composition of the local CCP-Executive Committee. The CCP-Executive Committee
is currently identified in statute as the following:
Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1.
Presiding Judge (or designee)2.
District Attorney3.
Public Defender4.
Sheriff5.
A Chief of Police6.
The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and
drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors)
7.
Although AB109 and AB117 collectively place the majority of initial planning activities for
Realignment on the local CCP, it is important to note that neither piece of legislation cedes
powers vested in a county Board of Supervisors’ oversight of and purview over how AB109
funding is spent. Once the Plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors may choose to implement
that Plan in any manner it may wish.
Referral Update:
Each year, the PPC reviews the membership of the Community Corrections Partnership and
makers recommendations for appointment to non ex-offico seats to the Board of Supervisors. The
Board has made these appointments on a calendar year basis. Today's action is necessary to bring
recommendations to the Board in December, which will take effect on January 1, 2015.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND nominees for appointment to seats on the CY2015 Community Corrections
Partnership & Executive Committee (see attachments).
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Page 61 of 67
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
2014 CCP Membership
2014 CCP Executive Committee Membership
CSAC Informational Letter
Page 62 of 67
EXHIBIT A ‐ 2014 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPSeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Philip F. Kaderex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Mimi Lyster‐Zemmelmanex‐officioCounty supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOSDavid J. Twa, County AdministratorDecember 31, 2014District AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceGuy Swanger, Concord Police ChiefDecember 31, 2014Head of the County department of social servicesKathy Gallagher, EHS Directorex‐officioHead of the County department of mental healthVacantex‐officioHead of the County department of employmentStephen Baiter, Executive Director‐Workforce Development Boardex‐officioHead of the County alcohol and substance abuse programsCynthia Belon, Director of Behavioral Health Servicesex‐officioHead of the County Office of EducationJoseph A Ovick, Ed.D.ex‐officioCBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offendersVacantDecember 31, 2014Victim's RepresentativeDevorah Levine, Zero Tolerance Program ManagerDecember 31, 2014Page 63 of 67
EXHIBIT B ‐ 2014 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEESeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Philip F. Kaderex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Mimi Lyster‐Zemmelmanex‐officioDistrict AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceGuy Swanger, Concord Police ChiefDecember 31, 2014Representative approved by BOS from the following CCP members: Cynthia Belon, Director of Behavioral Health Services December 31, 2014 *Head of County department of Social Services *Head of County department of mental health *Head of County department of alcohol and substance abuse programsPage 64 of 67
MEMORANDUM
July 12, 2011
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officers
From: Paul McIntosh
Executive Director
Re: AB 117 and the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
There continues to be a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding
the changes in the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) encompassed in
Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), passed as part of the 2011-12
budget. AB 117 did not change the make-up of the CCP, first formed in SB 678
in 2009, but does provide for revisions to the makeup of the CCP’s Executive
Committee, which originally was established in AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of
2011).
The fourteen-member CCP in each county remains essentially unchanged and is
comprised of the following (Penal Code Section 1230.1):
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Presiding Judge (or designee)
County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS
District Attorney
Public Defender
Sheriff
Chief of Police
Head of the County department of social services
Head of the County department of mental health
Head of the County department of employment
Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs
Head of the County Office of Education
CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal
offenders
Victims’ representative
AB 117 requires the CCP to prepare an implementation plan that will enable the
county to meet the goals of the public safety realignment. AB 117 is silent as to
what those goals may be and provides counties with flexibility in how to address
realignment. AB 117 does not abdicate the board of supervisor’s authority over
appropriations and does not enable the CCP to direct how realignment funds will
be spent.
Page 65 of 67
The seven-member CCP Executive Committee, as provided in AB 117, is
comprised of the following:
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Presiding Judge (or designee)
District Attorney
Public Defender
Sheriff
A Chief of Police
The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or
alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors)
Under AB 117, the CCP would develop an implementation plan and the
Executive Committee would vote to approve the plan and submit it to the board
of supervisors. The plan would be deemed accepted unless the board of
supervisors voted via a 4/5 vote to reject the plan and send it back to the CCP.
Concerns have been raised regarding why the CAO or board member is not part
of the Executive Committee and why a 4/5 vote is required to reject the plan.
CSAC’s role in the drafting of this component of AB 117 was as one of several
stakeholders involved in the public safety realignment. While most of the county
stakeholders maintained general agreement on realignment issues during each
phase of negotiations in general, there were disparate opinions in how the
planning process should unfold. CSAC felt strongly that the only way
realignment will be successful is if the planning effort results in a significant shift
away from a predominantly incarceration model and movement to alternatives to
incarceration. Therefore, it was critical that the planning process be structured to
encourage compromise in the CCP to reach the goals of the community in a
manner acceptable to the board of supervisors.
The CAO, as you know, must be in a position to remain objective and provide the
board of supervisors with unvarnished recommendations on matters that come
before them. Having the CAO or a board member as part of the Executive
Committee, and therefore casting a vote on the plan to be presented to the board
of supervisors, would represent a conflict of interest to the CAO or board member
and place them in a position that could compromise their independence. Rather,
this approach seemed to capture the best of both worlds – the CAO is part of the
planning process and can bring that global vision to that process but is also free
to make contrary recommendations to the board of supervisors should they
disagree with the ultimate plan adopted. Likewise with a member of the board of
supervisors being part of the executive committee.
Some have commented that the 4/5 vote requirement to reject the plan submitted
by the CCP limits local flexibility and discretion of the board of supervisors.
While the dynamics of the planning process will differ from county to county, the
goal was to force consensus within the CCP and the planning process and not
Page 66 of 67
provide an avenue for a participant to try to push their opinion outside of the CCP
with the board of supervisors. A super majority makes an “end run” difficult, but
still enables the board to reject the plan if the board disagrees with it. A 4/5 vote
requirement is not unusual, but does place a higher level of focus on the planning
process. It should be noted, as well, that counsel has opined that meetings of
the CCP and the Executive Committee will be subject to the Brown Act and all
discussions will be required to be conducted in a public meeting.
AB 117 is not a perfect solution but it represents a negotiated agreement that will
enable California’s counties to move forward with the dramatic changes
necessary to make realignment successful. Clearly the successful
implementation of realignment will require a significant paradigm shift in our
public safety communities. The successful model will not be an incarceration
model, but one that seeks to divert and rehabilitate citizens, returning them to be
productive members of our community. Hopefully, the construct of the CCP –
that is intended to drive the local public safety community to a consensus about a
“different way of doing business” - will ultimately lead to that approach.
Page 67 of 67