Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02082016 - PPC Agenda Pkt            PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE February 8, 2016 10:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez Supervisor Candace Andersen, 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 December 14, 2015 meeting. (Page 4)   4. CONSIDER reviewing and approving fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 budget recommendations for integration into the fiscal year 2016/17 County Recommended Budget for final consideration by the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 8)   5.CONSIDER approving a proposed framework for the distribution of fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) and provide feedback to staff. (Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office)   6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for February 29, 2016 at 9:00 am.   7.Adjourn   The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:02/08/2016   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - December 14, 2015 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - December 14, 2015  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 December 14, 2015 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the December 14, 2015 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 175 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***RECORD OF ACTION*** December 14, 2015 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee Present: John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator - Committee Staff Robert Rogers, District I Staff Jill Ray, District II Staff Lindy Lavender, District IV Staff Ed Diokno, District V Staff Mark Peterson, District Attorney Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Philip F. Kader, County Probation Officer Tom Kensok, Assistant District Attorney Jonathan Laba, Assistant Public Defender Todd Billeci, Assistant Probation Officer Ellen McDonnell, Deputy Public Defender Vana Tran, Senior Management Analyst 1. Introductions Convene - 1:03 PM 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). The Committee received public comment from: 1. Joe Partansky 2. Edwina Perez-Santiago 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the November 9, 2015 meeting. Approved as presented. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Page 5 of 175 Passed 4. 1. RECEIVE update on proposed next steps to implement a Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) effort within the County. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Direct the Public Defender, District Attorney and County Probation Officer to assemble a written proposal for a renewed Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) effort for use in securing financing to fund a task force facilitator and potential contract with a research/academic institution. 2. DMC Task Force to be composed of fifteen (15) members with the following composition: a. Public Defender b. District Attorney c. County Probation Officer d. Chief of Police e. Sheriff-Coroner f. Superior Court Designee g. Behavioral Health Director h. Antioch Unified School District representative i. Mount Diablo Unified School District representative j. West Contra Costa Unified School District representative k. Five (5) Community representatives 3. Once proposal is written in No. 1 above, staff can assist in approaching foundations and research institutions for financial assistance to fund the Task Force identified in No. 2. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 5. 1. INITIATE discussion and PROVIDE feedback to staff on a potential County Sales Tax to be proposed on a future ballot. Staff directed to begin preparing the following information for consideration by the Committee at a future date: 1. Catalog public safety prevention, intervention and enforcement programs provided by the County. Vice Chair Federal D. Glover, Chair John Gioia Page 6 of 175 For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 6. The next meeting is currently scheduled for to be determined . 7. Adjourn Adjourn - 1:51 PM The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. Page 7 of 175 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:02/08/2016   SUBJECT:FY 2016/17 AB109 Public Safety Realignment Budget  FROM: David Twa, County Administrator  DEPARTMENT:County Administrator RECOMMENDATION: REVIEW and APPROVE fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 budget recommendations for integration into the fiscal year 2016/17 County Recommended Budget for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the CCP-Executive Committee. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2015, budget instructions for the FY 2016/17 AB 109 budget were distributed to the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) subscriber list, including Committee members, staff and interested parties, requesting formal submission of budget requests no later than November 25, 2015. This year, staff had again requested budget submissions to 1) maintain the status quo funding level at the fiscal year 2015/16 Ongoing budget level, and 2) contemplate new funding requests based on programming needs. On December 4, 2015, the CCP held a fiscal year 2016/17 budget workshop for departments and funded agencies to introduce budget proposals. The CCP set January 22, 2016 as the next meeting date for a vote by the CCP-Executive Committee on a budget to send to the Public Protection Committee. In addition, it was noted that Resource Development Associates (RDA), the County's data evaluation consultant for AB 109 programs, would have a final report prepared on the performance of County departments funded by AB 109 at that time. That report is included in this agenda packet as Attachment E. On January 22, 2016, the CCP convened to have final discussion on fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 budget requests and the CCP-Executive Committee voted on the recommendations that are before the Public Protection Committee today. DISCUSSION: The Community Corrections Partnership has been receiving frequent updates regarding discussions at the State level around establishing a multi-year formula for the distribution of AB 109 Community Corrections sub-account allocation to counties. This process has been completed with the Realignment Allocation Committee (RAC) making its final recommendations to the California Department of Finance (DOF). The recommended formula resulted in a significant reduction in Base allocation funding to Contra Costa County beginning in fiscal year 2014/15. A summary of past funding can be found in Attachment A for reference. FY 2016/17 Base Allocation Recall that the Community Corrections sub-account allocation is composed of a Base allocation and a Growth allocation. The Base allocation is derived from current year funding, and the current year Growth allocation is derived from prior year actual funding from the State. By the nature of this arrangement, Growth has been observed to be more volatile than the Base allocation due to varying economic factors, which have also been compounded by the uncertainty surrounding the final statewide allocation formula. Beginning in fiscal year 2014/15, the CCP Ongoing budget allocations have been in excess of the Base allocations from the State, due to the negative impact of the revised statewide allocation formula. In fiscal year 2016/17, the Base allocation for Contra Costa County is estimated to increase to $22,651,678 (according to new estimates released in the FY 2016/17 Governor's Proposed Budget), which is still slightly below the high of $22,854,832, in fiscal year 2013/14, when the majority of current programs were funded. Although this is positive progress, the County Base allocation still has not recovered fully from the negative impacts of the formula reallocation completed last year by the RAC and ultimately approved by DOF. For this reason, it is important to recognize that even a nominal increase in funding, through a cost of living allowance (COLA) to existing programs or the funding of new programs, puts pressure on the Base allocation in the near term. The CCP-Executive Committee, following careful deliberation, is recommending a budget of $23,074,570 in Ongoing expenditures in fiscal year 2016/17. A summary of the CCP-Executive Committee approved budget is included as Attachment C. Below is an illustration of the three year impact of this budget, assuming from 2%, 3%, and 4% annual COLAs beginning in fiscal year 2017/18: Page 8 of 175 In fiscal year 2018/19, each of the scenarios above result in CCP Ongoing expenditures exceeding Base allocation revenue, ranging from $1.4 million to $2.3 million, annually. Should the new Growth allocation formula result in a significant reduction, as anticipated, and be insufficient to cover this overage, then it will be necessary to draw from reserves to fund the difference. Essentially, one-time resources would continue to be used to fund ongoing service levels. FY 2015/16 Growth Allocation (distributed in FY 2016/17) Growth allocations have historically been difficult to predict and a moving target depending on revenue estimates from the State at any given point during the year. In addition, the RAC has made recommendations to allocate growth using different funding formulas in 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. Beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 Growth allocation, and for several years into the future, the formula will be based on the following: 1. SB 678 Success – 80%  SB 678 success rate (60%) – all counties SB 678 year-over-year improvement (20%) – only those counties showing improvement 2. Incarceration rates – 20%  County’s reduction in year-over-year second strike admission (fixed dollar amount per number reduced County’s reduction in year-over-year overall new prison admission (10%) County’s success measured by per-capita rate of prison admissions (10%) Contra Costa County has been a leader in the majority of the above metrics and may benefit little from incremental improvement in each category when compared to other counties throughout the State. For that reason, we do not believe that Growth funding allocated using the formula commencing in fiscal year 2016/17 will be a substantial source of revenue for our local AB 109 infrastructure. The action before the Public Protection Committee today is to review and approve, including any amendments, the fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 budget submitted by the CCP-Executive Committee. Once approved, staff will integrate the AB 109 budget into the fiscal year 2016/17 County Recommended Budget for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Currently, budget hearings are scheduled for April 19, 2016. A complete timeline of the AB 109 budget process is included in Attachment B. FISCAL IMPACT (if any): The fiscal year 2015/16 Ongoing Budget for AB 109 is $21,458,315. The FY 2016/17 Governor's Proposed Budget includes Page 9 of 175 The fiscal year 2015/16 Ongoing Budget for AB 109 is $21,458,315. The FY 2016/17 Governor's Proposed Budget includes updated estimates for the statewide 2011 Local Revenue Fund, which includes the Community Corrections sub-account that allocates funding to counties. The Contra Costa factor for the Base allocation is 1.8809% of the total, statewide sub-account allocation resulting in an estimated funding allocation of $22,651,678 for Contra Costa County (See Attachment F). An estimate for the Growth allocation is difficult to project due to the new changes in the Growth formula implemented for the distribution in FY 2016/17; however, it is expected that the Contra Costa share may drop to approximately $200k - $300k. The CCP-Executive Committee is recommending a budget of $24,874,570; $23,074,570 in ongoing expenditures and $1,800,000 in one-time expenditures. With Base revenue estimated at $22,651,678, the fiscal year 2016/17 budget will require a draw from fund balance of $2,222,892; $422,892 to support ongoing expenditures and $1,800,000 to support one-time expenditures. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation Attachment A - CSAC Estimated Base & Growth Allocations by County (FY 2014-17) Attachment B - FY 2016/17 AB109 Budget Schedule Attachment C - FY 2016/17 CCP Proposed Budget Summary Attachment D - FY 2016/17 Budget Requests Attachment E -"Review of AB 109 Funded Department Performance" January 2016  Attachment F - FY2016/17 2011 Local Revenue Fund Estimates Page 10 of 175 FY 2016/17 AB 109 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT1Page 11 of 175 2Page 12 of 175 3Page 13 of 175 4Page 14 of 175 5Page 15 of 175 6Page 16 of 175 7Page 17 of 175 8Page 18 of 175 9Page 19 of 175 ‣Completed three-year data evaluation and performance review plan‣DA Case management system implemented, Probation system in progress followed by Public Defender‣Opening of the West County Reentry Success Center‣Continued State and National attention of approach to Realignment and Reentry10Page 20 of 175 ‣New funding formula has brought stability to Base allocation revenues‣16/17 Growth allocation formula likely to result in additional revenue reductions‣Little opportunity for increased funding in future years based on formula categories‣First Annual Report to be released by end of fiscal year 2015/16‣Begin updates to Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operations Plan.11Page 21 of 175 ‣Staff is requesting the PPC to initiate discussion regarding the FY 2016/17 CCP-Approved Budget, and‣Consider approving the budget and directing staff to integrate into the FY 2016/17 County Recommended Budget for final review and approval by the Board of Supervisors.12Page 22 of 175 Page 23 of 175 Page 24 of 175 Major ActivityDue Date CCP Date PPC Date Board Date Completed?Distribute 2016/17 CCP Budget Packet11/13Departments Submit Preliminary Budget Proposals11/25December 2015 CCP Agenda Packet Published11/27December 2015 CCP Meeting ‐ Budget Workshop12/4January 2016 CCP Agenda Packet Published1/15January 2016 CCP Meeting ‐ Budget Deliberations1/22County Budget Salary & Benefit forecast Finalized (estimated)1/15Public Protection Com. Agenda Packet Published2/4February 2016 Public Protection Com. ‐ CCP Budget Workshop2/8County Budget Materials Due from Departments2/12County Recommended Budget available (estimated)4/8Board of Supervisors Budget Hearings4/19County Budget Adoption5/10as of 2/3/2016FY 2016/17 CCP Budget ScheduleAttachment BPage 25 of 175 as of 1/27/2016 2015/16 ONGOING REQUEST NEW FUNDING CCP ONGOING CCP ONE-TIME PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Sheriff Salaries & Benefits 5,827,782 5,983,717 - 5,983,717 - Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 - 456,250 - Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 - 55,000 - IT Support 40,000 40,000 - 40,000 - Vehicle Maintenance/Depreciation 48,000 - - - - Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 - 80,500 - Transport Bus Maintenance 79,032 - - - - "Jail to Community" Program 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 - Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 731,000 - 731,000 - 16/17 WCDF Capital Projects - 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 Sheriff Total 6,786,564 7,546,467 1,800,000 7,546,467 1,800,000 Probation Salaries & Benefits 2,459,421 2,489,970 - 2,489,970 - Operating Costs 223,597 294,173 - 294,173 - Probation Total 2,683,018 2,784,143 - 2,784,143 - Behavioral Health Salaries & Benefits 827,352 827,352 - 827,352 - Operating Costs 91,205 97,533 - 97,533 - Contracts 1,315,858 1,285,900 - 1,285,900 - Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 9,018 22,448 - 22,448 - Travel - 10,200 - 10,200 - Behavioral Health Total 2,243,433 2,243,433 - 2,243,433 - Health Services--Detention Health Services Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 180,324 180,324 - 180,324 - Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 283,376 283,376 - 283,376 - Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 475,004 475,004 - 475,004 - Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 116,858 116,858 - 116,858 - Detention Health Services Total 1,055,562 1,055,562 - 1,055,562 - Public Defender Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 209,000 239,689 77,241 316,930 - Sal & Ben-ACER Program 665,000 697,958 - 697,958 - Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordinator 250,000 257,399 - 257,399 - Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program - - 151,080 151,080 - Public Defender Total 1,124,000 1,195,046 228,321 1,423,367 - District Attorney Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 87,434 87,434 - 87,434 - Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 592,516 592,516 - 592,516 - Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 606,169 606,169 - 606,169 - Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 89,624 89,624 - 89,624 - Salaries & Benefits-Add (1) Gen'l Clerk - - 68,059 68,059 - Ceasefire Coordinator Program - - 110,000 - - Operating Costs 82,995 82,995 - 82,995 - District Attorney Total 1,458,738 1,458,738 178,059 1,526,797 - Employment & Human Services Data Collection/Evaluation 40,000 - - - - EHSD Total 40,000 - - - - EHSD‐‐ Workforce Development Board Salaries & Benefits 196,000 196,000 - 196,000 - Travel 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 - EHSD-WDB Total 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 - County Administrator Salaries & Benefits 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 - Data Collection/ Program Review 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 - CAO Total 450,000 450,000 - 450,000 - CCC Police Chief's Association Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 522,000 522,000 - 522,000 - CCC Police Chiefs' Total 522,000 522,000 - 522,000 - Pre-Trial Services Program (Probation/Public Defender) Salaries & Benefits-Probation 751,717 719,322 - 719,322 - Salaries & Benefits-Public Defender 138,002 147,541 - 147,541 - Operating Costs 10,281 75,497 - 75,497 - Pre-Trial Total 900,000 942,360 - 942,360 - Community Programs Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 200,000 2,000,000 - Implementation of (3) One-Stop Centers 1,200,000 1,225,036 59,964 1,225,036 - Short and Long-Term Housing Access 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - Peer and Mentoring Services 100,000 110,000 - 110,000 - Development of a "Re-entry Resource Guide" 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - Legal Services 80,000 80,000 70,000 80,000 - Family Reunification 100,000 90,000 - 90,000 - COLA (Program Allocation TBD ) - - - 160,000 - Community Programs Total 3,995,000 4,020,036 829,964 4,180,036 - Superior Court Salaries and Benefits - Veteran's Court - - 207,380 - - Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial - - 200,405 200,405 - Superior Court Total - - 407,785 200,405 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 21,458,315 22,417,785 3,444,129 23,074,570 1,800,000 Notes: 1. "Ongoing" column includes the FY 2015/16 approved budget for ongoing expenditures (non one‐time) 2. "Request" column includes FY 2016/17 requests for budget increases to existing programs at current staffing levels. 3. "New Funding" column includes FY 2016/17 requests for new programs, expansion of existing programs and one‐time capital costs. 4. "CCP Ongoing" column includes FY 2016/17 budget allocations for ongoing expenditures recommended by the CCP‐Executive Committee on January 22, 2016. 5. "CCP One‐Time" column includes FY 2016/17 budget allocations for one‐time expenditures recommended by the CCP‐Executive Committee on January 22, 2016. 2016/17 2016/17 AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM FY 2016/17 SUMMARY OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS (as recommended by the CCP-Executive Committee on January 22, 2016) Page 26 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation 2016/17 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request2 2016/17 Total Funding Request SALARY AND BENEFITS - Sergeant Staff Supervision Objective 3.1 1 266,599.00$ 274,597.00$ 274,597 Deputy Sheriff Inmate Management Objective 3.1 20 4,511,842.00$ 4,647,197.00$ 4,647,197 Overtime Objective 3.1 -$ - Specialist Alternative Custody progrms Objective 3.1 3 401,009.00$ 401,009.00$ 401,009 Senior Clerk Data and Admin Support Objective 3.1 2 218,911.00$ 225,478.00$ 225,478 ASA II Administrative Support Objective 5.2 1 126,295.00$ 132,310.00$ 132,310 DSW Additional Cleaning/Maintenance Objective 3.1 2 195,339.00$ 195,339.00$ 195,339 Lead Cook Food Prep.Objective 3.1 1 107,787.00$ 107,787.00$ 107,787 Vendor for Equip.CAF Monitoring Maintenance Objective 3.1 1 -$ - - Subtotal 31 5,827,782.00$ 5,983,717.00$ -$ 5,983,717.00$ OPERATING COSTS - FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSEHOLD Inmate Management/Welfare Objective 3.1 456,250.00$ 456,250.00$ 456,250 MONITORING COSTS Inmate Monitoring Objective 3.1 55,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 55,000 IT SUPPORT Tech. Support Objective 3.1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000 ISF VEHICLE COSTS Maintenance ISF Objective 3.2 48,000.00$ -$ - Bus Depreciation Asset Depreciation Objective 3.2 79,032.00$ -$ - Behavioral Health Crt. Ops.Overhead for Behavioral Health Court Objective 3.3 80,500.00$ 80,500.00$ 80,500 Program Administration Jail-to-Communities Programs Objective 5.3 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 200,000 Program Services Inmate Program Services 754,000.00$ 731,000.00$ 731,000 - - Subtotal 0 1,712,782.00$ 1,562,750.00$ -$ 1,562,750.00$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- Central Control Renovations Objective 3.1 -$ -$ -$ - MDF Furniture Upgrade Objective 3.1 -$ -$ -$ - WCDF Visiting Center Upgrade Objective 3.1 -$ -$ -$ WCDF Capital Projects Increase Objective 3.1 -$ -$ 1,800,000.00$ 1,800,000 Subtotal 0 -$ -$ 1,800,000.00$ 1,800,000.00$ Total 31 7,540,564.00$ 7,546,467.00$ 1,800,000.00$ 9,346,467.00$ 1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level. 2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17. Page 27 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: The above funding requests reflect a maintenance of 16/17 staffing, operations and programs, with no request for capital costs. 2016/17 Status Quo Request FY 2016-2017 SERGEANT Maintains same staffing approved for 15-16; increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs FY 2016-2017 DEPUTY SHERIFF (16) Facilities, (2) Transportation (1) Classification,(1) Behaviorial Health Court Maintains same staffing approved for 15-16; increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs FY 2016-2017 SENIOR CLERK (2) Maintains same staffing approved for 15-16;increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs FY 2016-2017 ASA II (1) -Inmate Programs Maintains same staffing approved for 15-16,increased personnel costs reflect rise in salary step increase FY 2016-2017 Food/Clothing/Household Funding for food, clothing, and household expenses to meet inmates' needs and Title 15 requirements. FY 2016-2017 Monitoring Costs The ongoing costs associated with the monitoring through contracts with SCRAM and 3M for alternative custody devices. FY 2016-2017 IT Support The ongoing costs associated with the Sheriff’s Office and contracts for IT support, which includes installation and maintenance for the alternative custody devices. FY 2016-2017 Behavioral Health Court This item is to support the ongoing costs of the Behavioral Health Court as it currently exists. Vehicle, Rent, IT Support, Phones, PG&E, Repairs, Limited Supplies, Cell Phones, Computers, Drug Testing, and Deputy Annual Training Classes FY 2016-2017 Program Administration Costs The Sheriff's Office was awarded $200,000 in FY 15-16 to administer "Jail to Community" programs in the detention facilities. The programs are in place and the 'status quo' budget should include the cost for their continuation. FY 2016-2017 Program Services The Sheriff's Office was awarded $754,000 in FY 15-16 for inmate program services in the detention facilities. Actual forecasts regarding phone service fees were pending phone commission legislation. The 16-17 Status Quo figure is based on current projections for 16-17 FY 2016-2017 New Funding Request The West County Detention Facility capital progects were under-estimated by the vendor hired by Public Works to assess associated costs.As such, the Office of the Sheriff requires $1,800,000 in additional funding in order to properly complete the projects. This is based on using the most inexpensive RFP bidder/contractor. Page 28 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment:  ProbationDescription of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. PlanItem  #Quantity/FTE2015/16AllocationQuantity/FTE2016/17 StatusQuo Request1Quantity/FTE2016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITSDirector Field ServicesPost‐release Community Supervision5.10.1025,994$                  0.1025,994$                  910$                        26,904$                    Probation ManagerPost‐release Community Supervision5.10.2047,878$                  0.2047,878$                  1,676$                     49,554$                    Probation Supervisor IPost‐release Community Supervision5.11.00 210,069$                1.00 210,069$                7,352$                     217,421$                  Deputy Probation Officer IIIPost‐release Community Supervision5.1 12.00 2,015,404$             12.00 2,015,404$             70,539$                  2,085,943$               Deputy Probation Officer III OvertimePost‐release Community Supervision5.1N/A25,000$                  N/A25,000$                  25,000$                    ClerkPost‐release Community Supervision5.11.0074,899$                  1.0074,899$                  2,247$                     77,146$                    IT SupportPost‐release Community Supervision6.3 0.05657,823$                     0.05657,823$                     179$                        8,002$                        Subtotal14.36 2,407,067$             14.36 2,407,067$             0.0082,903$                  2,489,970$               OPERATING COSTSOffice ExpensePost‐release Community Supervision5.12,500$                     2,500$                     2,500$                        Communication CostsPost‐release Community Supervision5.19,500$                     9,500$                     9,500$                        Minor Furniture/EquipmentPost‐release Community Supervision5.12,000$                     2,000$                     ‐$                         2,000$                        Minor Computer EquipmentPost‐release Community Supervision5.111,419$                  11,419$                  11,419$                    FoodPost‐release Community Supervision5.112,953$                  12,953$                  12,953$                    Client Expenses/IncentivesPost‐release Community Supervision5.115,000$                  15,000$                  15,000$                    ContractsPost‐release Community Supervision5.1,5.2, 5.3144,000$                144,000$                5,000$                     149,000$                  Data Processing Services/SuppliesPost‐release Community Supervision5.16,801$                     6,801$                     6,801$                        Warrant Pick‐upPost‐release Community Supervision5.15,000$                     5,000$                     5,000$                        Annual Vehicle Operating Expenses (ISF)Post‐release Community Supervision5.166,778$                  66,778$                  13,222$                  80,000$                    Subtotal275,951$                275,951$                18,222$                  294,173$                  Total14.36 2,683,018$              14.36 2,683,018$              ‐$          101,125$                 2,784,143$                1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17.Page 29 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above. 2016/17 Status Quo Request The Probation Department will have a salary increase for sworn staff of 4%. The result is a projected increase of $82,903 in salary and benefits. Additionally, operating costs are anticipated to rise by $13,222. The overal increase is projected to be $96,125. The Probation Department's FY 2016/17 allocation of $2,683,018 will provide the following level of service: Salary and Benefit costs of $2,407,067 are requested for: • One (1) FTE Probation Supervisor • Twelve (12) FTE Probation Officers o The case load for each AB 109 Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) is 40 to 45 people o This includes a dedicated DPO to process the reentry of those being released from prison and local jail. This will include but is not limited to completion of the CAIS risk needs assessment tool, develop a case plan, and begin the triage process already developed to ensure the most seamless transition from being in custody and returning to our communities. • one (1) FTE clerk • Partial FTE for additional management supervision and IT support, as well as projected overtime. (This will be eliminated if additional funding request is not approved.) Operating costs of $280,951 are requested for: • $126,951 for ongoing vehicle maintenance, equipment, communication costs for all DPOs, data processing services, incentives for probation clients including bus/BART tickets,and food for weekly “Thinking for a Change” meetings. • One-year contract with re-entry coordinator in the amount of $125,000. • One-year contract with Victim Offender Education Group (VOEG) in the amount of $19,000. • An additional $5,000 is requested to pay for warrant pickups. Probation has the responsibility of the post release community supervision population as well as those sentenced to prison pursuant to 1170(h) and subsequently released from county jail. When a warrant and/or revocation is issued and results in an arrest in another jurisdiction we are notified by that county to pick up that person or they will be released. In the past the Sheriff would pick these detained people and transport them back to our county. The Sheriff has discontinued that service but would be willing to do so if their cost can be offset. Since we do not want those arrested individuals released from those other county jails we are asking for the estimated revenue needed to bring them back to our county for their court hearing in a timely manner. 2016/17 New Funding Request The Probation Department is seeking new funding for FY2016/17 for the following programs: Salary and Benefit costs of $82,903 are requested for: • Increased revenue to cover projected salary and benefits increases. Operating costs of $18,222 are requested for: • Aniticpated increase for ongoing vehicle maintenance. • 4% increase for e-entry coordinator contract in the amount of $5,000. Page 30 of 175 Page 31 of 175 Page 32 of 175 Page 33 of 175 Page 34 of 175 Page 35 of 175 Page 36 of 175 Page 37 of 175 Page 38 of 175 Page 39 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment:PUBLIC DEFENDERDescription of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item  # Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation2016/17 Status Quo Request12016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITS‐                                                        Deputy Public Defender IVACER1.2,2.1,2$500,000$500,000$8,050$508,050Deputy Public Defender IIIACER1.2,2.10.5$96,000$96,000 $16,667$112,667Legal AssistantACER1.21$69,000$69,000$8,241$77,241Clean Slate Legal AssistantClean Slate5.21$92,000$92,000 $12,971$104,971Social WorkerClient Support5.31$117,000 $117,000 $17,718$134,718Deputy Public Defender IVReentry Coordinator2.1‐2.3; 3.3, 4.1, 5.1‐51$250,000 $250,000 $7,399$257,399Clean Slate Legal AssistantClean Slate5.21$77,241$77,241Deputy Public Defender ‐ Special Assignment FTA Reduction Program1.2,5.31$73,839$73,839Legal AssistantFTA Reduction Program1.2,5.31$77,241$77,241Subtotal9.5 1,124,000.00$           $1,124,000$299,367$1,423,367OPERATING COSTS  e.g. Training/Travel‐                                                        Small Equipment Purchase‐                                                        computer, printer, etc.‐                                                        IT Support‐                                                        Vehicle Operating‐                                                        Office Supplies‐                                                        Communication Costs‐                                                        Outfitting Costs‐                                                        ‐                                                        ‐                                                        Subtotal0‐$                             ‐$                                      ‐$                       ‐$                                                  CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐                                                        e.g. Vehicle Purchase‐                                                        ‐                                                       Subtotal0‐$                             ‐$                                      ‐$                       ‐$                                                  Total9.5 1,124,000.00$  1,124,000.00$         299,367.00$ 1,423,367.00$                               1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level.2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17.Page 40 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above.2016/17 Status Quo RequestThe Public Defender’s Office has requested $1,195,218 for the following programs:Assistant.  This program provides for early representation of in‐custody clients at the first court appearance.  The program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases.2. Social Worker.  Salary and benefits costs of $134,718 are requested for (1) FTE Social Worker.  The Public Defender Social Worker provides social histories and needs assessments for clients to support appropriate case dispositions and to refer clients to services that will result in successful case outcomes and reduce recidivism.  The program furthers to goals of providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB109 population.  3. Clean Slate. Salary and benefits costs of $104,971 are requested for (1) FTE Clean Slate Legal Assistant.  This program provides clean slate services for indigent persons county‐wide.  The program furthers the goals of  providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB109 population.  4. Reentry Coordinator.  Salary and benefits costs of $257,399 are requested for (1) FTE Reentry Coordinator.  The Reentry Coordinator oversees and coordinates the Public Defender’s work with the various reentry programs countywide in order to continue and expand our outreach to CBOs, other county agencies, and the greater community to support reentry services for our client population.    2016/17 New Funding RequestThe Public Defender’s Office is seeking $228,321 for the following programs:1.  Expansion of the Clean Slate Program to encompass Proposition 47 services.  Salary and benefits costs of $77,421 are requested to add another Legal Assto our Clean Slate staff.  Since the passage of Proposition 47 in November of 2014, and its provisions for reducing prior felony convictions to misdemeanors,we are experiencing a significant backlog in processing our Clean Slate cases, such as expungements, Prop 47 petitions and Certificates of Rehabilitation.  Prthose with prior qualifying felony convictions to reduce those felony convictions to misdemeanors, this provision of Prop 47 will terminate on November 4, 2gathered from the County's DOIT, at least 10,000 people qualify for this relief in Contra Costa. We will only  be able to provide assistance to a smthose who qualify unless we receive funding for an additional Clean Slate Legal Assistant.  (Please refer to our Project summary for more information).   2.  Failure to Appear (FTA) Reduction Project.  Salary and Benefit costs of $151,080 are requested for (1) FTE Deputy Public Defender ‐ Special Assignment anThis Project will be a pilot program in West County to reduce the high numbers of arraignment court failures to appear.  It will be a partnership between thethe Richmond Police Department, and the Richmond Reentry Success Center.  This Project is designed to provide immediate representation for persons citeoffenses in order to avoid costly failures to appear in court.  The Project will result in lower costs to law enforcement, lower custody days for low‐level offencosts, lower recidivism rates, and improved case outcomes for misdemeanor and low‐level felony offenders.  (Please refer to our Project summary for morePage 41 of 175 Proposal for Clean Slate / Proposition 47 Legal Assistant Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender December 4, 2015 1. Request The Public Defender’s office is requesting funding for one additional FT Clean Slate Legal Assistant in order to expand our Clean Slate program to encompass Proposition 47 reclassifications before the provisions of the law terminate on November 5, 2017. 2. Prop 47 Reclassifications On November 4, 2014, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 47 (“Prop 47”), which reclassifies a set of non-serious and nonviolent property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.  Prop 47 provides for resentencing in cases where individuals are currently either in custody or on active probation, parole, supervision, etc., and provides for reclassification of prior felony convictions for those who have prior convictions  While Prop 47 is completely retroactive, its provisions terminate on November 5, 2017, which provides a very narrow window to identify, locate, consult with and provide legal services to eligible individuals  In Contra Costa, between 10,000 and 15,000 cases are potentially eligible for Prop 47 reclassification of prior felony convictions1  Despite our aggressive community outreach and commitment to serving all who are eligible for this relief, at current rates of staffing, we expect to be able to process no more than 40% of the 10,000 or more eligible cases in the County before the law’s provisions terminate in November of 2017 3. Prop 47 Milestones In the 12 months since the law was enacted, the Public Defender’s Office has achieved the following:  Gained the release from County jail or state prison for eligible clients  Achieved reductions for all known Prop 47-eligible felony probationers (more than 1,000 people)  Filed resentencing and reclassification petitions in 1,760 adult cases  Filed resentencing and reclassification petitions in approximately 65 juvenile cases, with an ongoing review of an additional 700 potentially eligible cases  Successfully litigated Prop 47 legal issues of statewide importance  Conducted aggressive community outreach by partnering with other county departments and community based organizations to reach those eligible for relief                                                              1 From the County’s Department of Information and Technology (“DOIT”), we obtained a data set of all Public Defender cases for the last 25 years in which individuals were convicted of Prop 47-eligible offenses. This yielded a list of 10,000 cases. We have subsequently filed a request with DOIT for all Prop 47-eligible cases (not just those represented by the Public Defender’s Office) in the past 25 years. We believe it may yield another 5,000 cases. Page 42 of 175 4. Benefit of Prop 47 Prop. 47 is the largest opportunity in U.S. history for people to change past felony convictions on their records. Well over 10,000 cases are eligible for this relief in Contra Costa County alone. For many people, old criminal records that contain felony convictions for low-level, nonviolent crimes have created barriers to stability. Many find it difficult to secure jobs, housing, student loans and other opportunities for economic security and family stability. Individuals who achieve a felony reduction through Prop 47 will no longer face the lifetime barriers felony convictions create. Most individuals granted Prop 47 relief will thereafter become eligible for an expungement through the Clean Slate program, which provides for a dismissal of a prior criminal conviction and is a much more comprehensive legal remedy. The true value of Prop 47 relief is seen as these individuals have new opportunities regarding their employment, housing, education, and public benefits, among other things. Unfortunately, in recent months, we have had to notify clients requesting Clean Slate relief of significant delays due to a substantial backlog of cases caused by Prop 47. With the assistance of an additional Clean Slate legal assistant, we would be able to come closer to achieving the goal of assisting the thousands in our county who are eligible for Prop 47 relief before this law sunsets in November of 2017. 5. Budget (7/1/16-6/30/17) Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Legal Assistant $77,241 Total Page 43 of 175 FTA Reduction Project Proposal Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender, December 4, 2015 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Public Defender III and 1 FT Legal Assistant in order to launch an innovative and cost-saving Failure to Appear (“FTA”) Reduction Project. 2. Background and Context The majority of cases that fill the criminal courts in Contra Costa County are low-level, misdemeanor offenses. In the wake of Proposition 47’s passage, misdemeanor filings have increased substantially in Contra Costa County. Currently the Richmond Superior Court schedules between 65-90 misdemeanor arraignments per week. Twenty to thirty percent of the defendants do not show up for their arraignment dates and bench warrants are issued. Courts, law enforcement the Public Defender and District Attorney’s offices bear direct costs because of these FTAs. Warrants must be generated and processed by the courts and law enforcement must then use personnel to act on these warrants to look for and arrest these individuals. Once they are arrested, individuals are booked into jail and held usually for more than a day before being brought to court for a warrant hearing. These FTAs have a cost not only to our justice system but also to the arrested individuals, their families and our communities because of the collateral effects of short-term incarceration on areas like jobs, housing and school. The FTA Reduction Project would address these costly FTAs by implementing measures to reduce the number of FTAs for indigent persons in our Superior Court in Richmond. This Project is designed to provide immediate representation for persons cited for misdemeanor offenses in order to reduce incarceration and other collateral consequences, such as warrants, arrests, and time spent in-custody, for cite-released persons in Richmond. 3. Project Design  The Project will be a partnership between the Public Defender, the Richmond Police Department, and the West County Reentry Success Center  The Project will be housed in Richmond at the newly-opened community-based Reentry Success Center  The Project will assure that, at the time of citation, the officer making an arrest will provide printed information, in English and Spanish, advising individuals of the availability of immediate legal representation and providing contact information for the Public Defender’s Office  The Project staff will provide pre-arraignment legal advice and representation and will: o Assist clients with developing a Court Appearance Plan o Track the progress of a client’s criminal process o Consistently and effectively notify the client of future court dates o Advocate with the District Attorney’s office for pre-filing disposition options o Conduct investigation and other case preparation o Keep the client informed of all aspects of the judicial process Page 44 of 175  This early legal representation will be provided at the Reentry Success Center in Richmond alongside multiple co-located social services such as drug and alcohol services, mental health care, public benefits, family support and reunification services, probation services, and peer mentoring  These co-located services will support client success both during and after the judicial process 4. Outcomes  The FTA Reduction Project will: o Reduce the number of FTAs for indigent persons cite-released on misdemeanor offenses in Richmond o Reduce the number of arrest warrants issued for indigent persons due to FTAs at arraignment o Reduce the burdens imposed by FTAs on justice system partners o Eliminate or mitigate the collateral consequences of custodial arrests o Improve outcomes for indigent persons charged with misdemeanor offenses by providing early case evaluation, case investigation, and intervention with the District Attorney’s Office prior to first court appearance o If successful, provide a model for FTA reduction County-wide 5. Budget (7/1/16-6/30/17) Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Deputy Public Defender Special Assignment Classification $73,839 1 FT Legal Assistant $77,241 $151,080 Total Page 45 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: District Attorney Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #Quantity/FTE 2015/16 Allocation 2016/17 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request2 2016/17 Total Funding Request SALARY AND BENEFITS DDA-Advanced Level Realignment Coordinator Attorney 1 272,007$ 272,007$ -$ 272,007$ DDA-Advanced Level Arraignment Court/Realignment Attorney 2 512,884$ 512,884$ -$ 512,884$ Senior Level Clerk Clerical/file support-Arraign. Court 1 79,632$ 79,632$ -$ 79,632$ Experienced Level Clerk Clerical/file support-Arraign. Court 1 89,624$ 89,624$ -$ 89,624$ V/W Assist. Prog Specialist Reentry Notification Specialists 1 87,434$ 87,434$ -$ 87,434$ V/W Assist. Prog Specialist Reentry Notification Specialists 2 137,294$ 137,294$ -$ 137,294$ DDA-Basic Level Violence Reduction/Recidivism Attorney 1 196,868$ 196,868$ -$ 196,868$ REQUEST ADDITIONAL STAFF: Experienced Level Clerk Clerical/file support 1 -$ 68,059$ 68,059$ Subtotal 10 1,375,743$ 1,375,743$ 68,059$ 1,443,802$ OPERATING COSTS -$ Office Expense 2,156$ 2,156$ -$ 2,156$ Books -$ -$ -$ -$ Postage 656$ 656$ -$ 656$ Communication 1,740$ 1,740$ -$ 1,740$ Minor Furniture/Equipment 364$ 364$ -$ 364$ Minor Computer Equipment 3,481$ 3,481$ -$ 3,481$ Clothing & Supply 25$ 25$ -$ 25$ Memberships 1,560$ 1,560$ -$ 1,560$ Computer Software Cost 20$ 20$ -$ 20$ Auto Mileage 1,995$ 1,995$ -$ 1,995$ Other Travel Employees 264$ 264$ -$ 264$ Court Reporter Transcript 207$ 207$ -$ 207$ Occupancy Costs 52,938$ 52,938$ -$ 52,938$ Data Processing 17,388$ 17,388$ -$ 17,388$ Other Interdepartment Charges 105$ 105$ -$ 105$ Other Special Dept. Charges 96$ 96$ -$ 96$ Misc. Services and Supplies -$ -$ -$ -$ Subtotal 0 82,995$ 82,995$ -$ 82,995$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)-$ e.g. Vehicle Purchase -$ Subtotal 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Total 10 1,458,738$ 1,458,738$ 68,059$ 1,526,797$ 1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level. 2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17. Page 46 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:2016/17 Status Quo RequestThe District Attorney's Office has requested $ 1,458,738. The realignment team will continue toaddress the additional challenges presented by the realignment of our criminal justice systempursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h).  This includes (4) FTE Deputy District Attorneys, (1) Senior Level Clerk, (2) Experienced Level Clerks, and (3) Victim/Witness Assistance ProgramSpecialists.●         Salary and Benefit costs of $1,375,743 are requested for (4) FTE Deputy District Attorneys,           (1) Senior Level Clerk, (1) Experienced Level Clerk, and (3) Victim/Witness Assistance           Program Specialists.●         Operating costs includes $ 2,156 for Office Expense, $ 656 for Postage, $ 1,740 for Communications,                            $ 364 for Minor Furniture/Equipment, $ 3,481 for Minor Computer Equipment, $ 25 for Clothing                              and Supply, $ 1,560 for Memberships, $ 20 for Computer Software Cost, $ 1,995 for Auto Mileage,                           $ 264 for Other Travel Employees' $ 207 for Court Reporter Transcript, $ 52,938 for Occupancy Costs,                            $ 17,388 for Data Processing, $ 105 for Other Interdepartment Charges, $ 96 for Other Special Dept.                            charges.2016/17 New Funding RequestThe District Attorney is seeking new funding in the amount of for FY 2016/17 for the following:●        Request additional Experienced Level Clerk for $ 68,059.Page 47 of 175 Ceasefire, Community and Restorative Justice Project Project Coordinator: $83,000.00 Facilitator: $27,000.00 Total: $110,000.00 Need: While many gains have been made in recent years, our urban areas are still plagued by violence and mistrust. The city of Richmond has seen a dramatic drop in homicides in the last 7 years, but there are still pockets of violent crime. The Ceasefire Project, which is a form of Group Violence Intervention (GVI) has made a significant contribution to the drop, but needs support in terms of coordination with community members and service providers. In addition, it is time to begin working on a replication in East County. Currently, this burden is shouldered by the Richmond Police Department. In light of the goal of strengthening and expanding the program, this burden needs to shift to a countywide agency. The coordinator will work collaboratively with social service and community constituencies to leverage community resources. Service provision also helps in mobilizing community figures who can influence the behavior of group members. Community members are more willing to deliver the needed moral messages against violence when they know that group members have a standing, genuine offer of help. The coordinator will be responsible for the following steps: 1. Identify providers 2. Bring providers into the strategy. Social service agencies selected for this project must be able to work with law enforcement and have good standing in the community. 3. After identifying a social service the coordinator should get dedicated providers to deliver rapid, priority attention to group members. Upon contacting the social service providers, group members should receive a prompt response. Social services should provide an individualized assessment, backed with case management and follow-up, as soon as possible. 4. The coordinator, in partnership with any other social service agencies to which the Working Group refers group members, should collect and analyze data on all group members who make contact for services. The lead agency then reports information on clients’ progress, process adherence, and program outcomes to the Working Group that defines successful outcomes: e.g., no further involvement in violence. Technical assistance: The National Network for Safe Communities recommends the support of an experienced technical assistance team. During the initial planning period, the National Network recommends that the community interested in launching GVI work with a technical assistance team that can explain, guide, and ensure fidelity in basic implementation. Technical advisers can also provide guidance on a governing structure for the GVI effort and analytical and research capacity. Page 48 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Workforce Development Board Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation 2016/17 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request2 2016/17 Total Funding Request SALARY AND BENEFITS - One Stop Administrator Coordination with One-Stop system Each position 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ -$ 16,000 One Stop Case Managers & Emploment Placement Counselors Linkage with direct service providers is a full FTE 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ -$ 40,000 Workforce Services Specialist Engagement with public & private partners funded 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ -$ 50,000 Business Service Representative Recruitment & engagement of businesses through 65,000.00$ 65,000.00$ -$ 65,000 SBDC Director Small business & entrepreneurship linkages multiple 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ -$ 5,000 SBDC Advisors Small business & entrepreneurship linkages sources 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ 10,000 Workforce Board Executive Director Oversight & coordination with workforce system 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ 10,000 Subtotal 0 196,000.00$ 196,000.00$ -$ 196,000.00$ OPERATING COSTS - Travel 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000 - - - - - - - - - Subtotal 0 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ -$ 4,000.00$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchase - - Subtotal 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Total 0 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ -$ 200,000.00$ 1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level. 2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17. Page 49 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above.Example:2016/17 Status Quo RequestThe Contra Costa County Workforce Development Board (WDB) is not increasing its funding request for fiscal year 2016‐17.  The WDBhas submitted a budget request that reflects the amount of time key staff will devote to AB 109 in order to continue the programs success.In accordance with the WDB's original submittal, the WDB will use AB 109 funds to leaverage other funds to provide services to previouslyincarcerated individuals.  2016/17 New Funding RequestIn accordance with the direction from the CAO's office, the Workforce Development Board is not seeking new funding at this time, We are committed to working with CCP partner agencies and other organizations to pursue and secure additional resources that can helpfurther support, link, align, and leverage the work we are doing to serve AB 109 participants and concurrently expand our efforts to serveother populations that are returning to communities in Contra Costa County and help them with employment & training needs.Page 50 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: County AdministratorDescription of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item  # Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation2016/17 Status Quo Request12016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITS‐                       e.g. Deputy Probation Officer‐                       Senior Deputy County AdministratorProgram Administration6.21.0173,736$                   171,979$           ‐$               171,979$       Business Systems Analyst (or contractor equivalent)Data Collection/Evaluation6.3, 6.40.551,264$                     53,021$             ‐$               53,021$          ‐                       Subtotal1.5 225,000$                   225,000$           ‐$               225,000$       OPERATING COSTS‐                       e.g. Training/Travel‐                       Data Evaluation ContractData Collection/Evaluation6.3, 6.4N/A225,000$                   225,000$           ‐$               225,000$       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       Subtotal0 225,000$                   225,000$           ‐$               225,000$       CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐                       e.g. Vehicle Purchase‐                       ‐                       Subtotal0‐$                           ‐$                   ‐$               ‐$                 Total1.5 450,000$          450,000$   ‐$        450,000$       1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level.2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17.Page 51 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:The County Administrator's Office has requested a 2016/17 Status Quo allocation of $450,000, which is composed of the following:  2016/17 New Funding RequestThe County Administrator's Office is not submitting a request for new funding in 2016/17.     Salary and Benefit costs of $225,000 are requested for 1.0 FTE Senior Deputy County Administrator and 0.5 FTE Business Systems Analyst. The Senior Deputy position will continue to provide administrative support to the countywide AB109/reentry program, including but not limited to service contract/procurement activities, support to the Community Corrections Partnership and its standing committees, oversight of legislative affairs and oversight of data collection/evaluation activities. The Business Systems Analyst position will provide information technology support for the collection and maintenance of data for use by the county in evaluating AB109/reentry programming, including the deployment and maintenance of case management systems in the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation departments. The budget will support staff and contractor time related to case management system deployment.     Operating Costs include $225,000 for the provision of data collection and evaluation services. In fiscal year 2015/16, the Department continued to retain the services of Resource Development Associates (RDA) for data and program evaluation services in the amount of $225,000. The focus in 2015/16 has been an evaluation of programs provided by county departments and developing a proposed structure for an AB 109 Annual Report. For 2016/17, we are proposing a status quo budget of $225,000 for data and evaluation services. The primary focus in 2016/17 will be an update of the Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan, the AB 109 Operational plan and the continued support of data collection and evaluation efforts. All evaluation activities will continue to involve the Data Evaluation Committee, the Quality Assurance Committee, the Community Corrections Partnership and the Public Protection Committee.Page 52 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: Contra Costa County Police Chief's Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item  # Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation2016/17 Status Quo Request12016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITSAntioch Police OfficerAB 109 OfficerObective 5.11 130,500.00$             130,500.00$             ‐$              130,500          Concord Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObective 5.11 130,500.00$             130,500.00$             ‐$              130,500          Pittsburg Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObective 5.11 130,500.00$             130,500.00$             ‐$              130,500          Richmond Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObective 5.11130,500.00$             130,500.00$             ‐$              130,500          Subtotal4 522,000.00$             522,000.00$             ‐$              522,000.00$    OPERATING COSTS‐                         e.g. Training/Travel‐                         Small Equipment Purchase‐                         computer, printer, etc.‐                         IT Support‐                         Vehicle Operating‐                         Office Supplies‐                         Communication Costs‐                         Outfitting Costs‐                         ‐                         ‐                         Subtotal0‐$                            ‐$                            ‐$              ‐$                  CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐                         e.g. Vehicle Purchase‐                         ‐                         Subtotal0‐$                            ‐$                            ‐$              ‐$                  Total4 522,000.00$     522,000.00$    ‐$        522,000.00$    1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level.2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17.Page 53 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:2016/17 Status Quo Request2016/17 New Funding RequestNo new funding requestsThe Contra Costa County Police Chief's Association has requested $522,000 to fund these four (4) postions. These officers particpate in coordinated monitering, compliance checks, and drug testing within the County. This collabroative approach is consistent with the Contra Costa County AB109 Operation Plan. Each Police Officer maintains a curent knowledge of County AB 109 programs to ensure County AB109 probationers are referred to services, if deemed appropraite.  Each police agency assigns one (1) full‐time Police Officer to participate in a countywide AB109 joint operation team cordinated by the respective police agencies and the Contra Costa County Police Chief's Association Page 54 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment:  Probation Pre‐Trial ProgramDescription of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. PlanItem  #Quantity/FTE2015/16AllocationQuantity/FTE2016/17 StatusQuo Request1Quantity/FTE2016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITSDeputy Probation Officer IIIPost‐release Community Supervision5.14.00 609,867$                4.00 609,867$                35,556$                  645,423$                  ClerkPost‐release Community Supervision5.11.0072,084$                  1.0072,084$                  1,815$                     73,899$                    ParalegalPost‐release Community Supervision6.32.00 142,552$                2.00 142,552$                4,989$                     147,541$                  Subtotal7.00 824,503$                7.00 824,503$                42,360$                  866,863$                  OPERATING COSTSOffice ExpensesPost‐release Community Supervision5.1,5.2, 5.310,497$                  10,497$                  10,497$                    ContractsPost‐release Community Supervision5.165,000$                  65,000$                  65,000$                    Subtotal75,497$                  75,497$                  ‐$                         75,497$                    Total7.00 900,000$                 7.00 900,000$                 ‐$          42,360$                   942,360$                   1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17.Page 55 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above.2016/17 Status Quo RequestThe Probation Department will have a salary increase for sworn staff of 4%.  The result is a projected increase of $40,260 in salaryand benefits in the Pre‐Trial ProgramThe Probation Department's FY 2016/17 allocation of $900,000 will provide the following level of service:Salary and Benefit costs of $824,503 are requested for: Four  (4) FTE Probation Officers  One (1) FTE Clerk Two (2) FTE ParalegalsOperating costs of $75,497 are requested for:  $10,497 for Office Expenses. One‐year contract in the amount of $65,000 for Pre‐Trial program evaluation.2016/17 New Funding RequestThe Probation Department is seeking new funding for FY2016/17 for the following programs:Salary and Benefit costs of $42,360 are requested for: Increased revenue to cover projected salary and benefits increases.Page 56 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 1 of 6) Community Advisory Board Recommendations to the Community Corrections Partnership Fiscal Year 2016 – 2017 INTRODUCTION Since its 2012 inception, the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) has provided a number of recommendations to encourage outcomes consistent with the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan. As stated in its first set of recommendations in July 2012, CAB still believes that recidivism is best addressed “through early intervention and programs that address the individual’s assessed needs, including education, substance abuse treatment, employment and housing.” During this same time CAB recommended, among other things, that the CCP establish “Reentry First -stop Resource Centers” to centralize information and increase service integration. CAB commends the CCP for its commitment to bringing this recommendation to fruition, and believe both the Reentry Success Center and Network System of Services will become cornerstones of the reentry and reintegration process in each region of the county. While achievement of this long term goal deserves proper recognition, CAB believes that there are still several of its longstanding recommendations worth renewing that concern the need for significant investments in the infrastructure required to adequately support the County’s ongoing reentry efforts and strategies. POLICIES AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS For FY 2016-2017 CAB makes the following recommendations regarding reentry policies and practices. RENEWED RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Implement a Trauma Informed Approach In 2012, with its initial set of recommendations, CAB recognized the need for a trauma informed approach to the work and recommended that system-wide trauma training be funded for all public and private reentry partners, and that all contracts “require trauma informed principles, practices, and competencies.” Trauma informed practices are essential in providing effective services for the reentry population. This recommendation should be implemented with any future RFP process by the County. 2.Promote Capacity-Building To Maximize CBO Outcomes In 2013, CAB highlighted the need for the County to take steps in building system-wide capacity and made an explicit recommendation for an “[i]nvestment in capacity-building for CBO’s [to] build a strong foundation for sustaining services and enhanced coordination and integration over time.” The CCP should again consider enhancing the outcomes of future contracts by investing in a consultant to provide CBO’s with technical assistance, and to facilitate a series of Page 57 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 2 of 6) workshops that respond to the findings of an initial needs assessment of the various non-profit contractors. Likewise, in 2015 CAB recommended “that the CCP carve out and institutionalize a data and evaluation component for the AB 109 programs … to engage in a data driven decision making process.” 3.Strengthen the Office of the Reentry Coordinator 2014 saw CAB expand on a recommendation from its inaugural year in 2012 where CAB recommended providing the Office of the Reentry Coordinator with administrative support and additional funding for an expanded communications role. In 2014, that initial recommendation was reiterated as CAB urged the CCP to strengthen the Reentry Coordinator Office so that it would be able “to supervise and synthesize diverse efforts [as] a cost-effective mechanism to leverage and steward the County’s investments to reduce recidivism.” Specifically, CAB felt (and still feels) this office provides an important backbone function whose development would give the County internal competency and bandwidth to ensure effective communication and service delivery among AB 109 contractors; foster effective operations and integration of the “First-stops;” and the ability to provide timely data collection, evaluation, and analysis through written reports and data driven recommendations regarding the County’s reentry efforts. Without a more serious investment in this central and vital role, the County is unable to substantiate any stated intent to pursue an actual integrated strategic approach to its reentry efforts. Indeed, in the County’s 2014 review of the AB 109 programs conducted by Research Development Associates (RDA), the institutionalization of the Reentry Coordinator position and its functions seemed to be an essential recommendation for enhancing the coordination, integration, and development of various program components. CAB RECOMMENDATIONS 2016-17 4.Increase Investments in Community Based Programs The initial budget for “Community Programs” was for $4,035,000. When the $120k used to plan for “first -stops” across the county were replace with a single legal services contract of $80k, this resulted in a net reduction of $40k/yr. to the $3,995,000 allocated to these programs over the past 3 years. Over this same time, this is the only budget under the purview of the CCP that has seen any reduction. What the facts support, however, is increasing the amount of resources directed to providing services in the community. 4.1 The target population is in our communities While initially the jails saw a significant increase in use from AB 109, this was largely due to parole revocations that have almost disappeared since 2013. RDA’s evaluation report from July 2014 indicat ed that while the over 1,300 individuals jailed for parole revocations since the October 2011 Page 58 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 3 of 6) inception of AB 109 represented nearly 80% of the total number of people jailed under the new bill, there had been just under 60 revocation hearings in the first six months after the Superior Court took this function over in July of 2013 (about a 85% reduction). Thus, while the number of individuals currently incarcerated in Contra Costa jails tends to hover around 1,400 - 1,500, rarely are even 90 (6% at best) of these men and women able to be directly connected to the policy shifts of AB 109. By contrast, the 700+ individuals Probation currently supervises in the community under AB 109 is at least eight times the number of AB 109 individuals in our jails. When recently reporting about Contra Co sta’s Recidivism, RDA wasn’t able to provide reliable data on those who received jail only sentences under AB 109 because Contra Costa has long been the state leader in avoiding such sentencing practices by imposing Mandatory Supervision in the community in over 90% of its eligible cases. There were even recent changes in the sentencing laws that seek to make Mandatory Supervision sentences the norm, and custody only sentences the exception under AB 109. Instead of ignoring these realities, the CCP must question whether continued funding of the County’s carceral machinery to the tune of roughly 1/3 of the AB 109 budget can continued to be justified. Undoubtedly, this money is better spent to provide needed services to individuals both pre and post-release. 4.2 Funding Services Reduces Recidivism By now it is almost scientific fact that the way to reduce recidivism is through adherence to risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles. Developed in the 1990’s by D.A. Andrews, James Bonta, and Robert Hodge, this approach attempts to reduce a person’s risk for recidivism by providing them with services that respond to assessed criminogenic needs. In the County’s current design, Probation assesses needs through the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (C AIS), and then makes referrals to the proper service provider. It is clear that the availability of services for individuals is a key component of this process After reviewing recidivism rates under this current setup, RDA made the following conclusions: •Individuals who received any type of service were less likely to recidivate than individuals who did not receive services. •Individuals who received any type of service recidivated at a slower rate than individuals who did not receive services. •Each day that individuals did not recidivate reduced their overall likelihood of recidivism. The County’s current recidivism rate was also found to be around 30% for AB 109 individuals who have been release just over 2 years on average. Simple adherence to a stat us quo approach cannot improve this outcome. The easiest Page 59 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 4 of 6) way to see recidivism reduced is to pursue efforts that increase availability and access to needed services. 5.Strengthen Pre-Release Program Components In previous years CAB has highlighted important research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) that showed the link between therapeutic programs during incarceration and follow-up programs in the community as the most important piece of successful reentry programming. CAB still holds that an effective pre-release program coordinated with post release programs is crucial to effective reentry services. With both the Network and Center functioning to improve the delivery of post-release services in each region of the county, the time has come to ensure our jails are best preparing individuals to successfully transition and benefit from these services once released. 5.1 Pursue a true Jail to Community model In its most recent application for jail renovation funding from the state, the Sheriff’s Office documented its commitment to, and the reasoning for, implementing a true Jail to Community model in our local justice system. While this proposal was ultimately not funded by the state, the CCP should encourage and support the Sheriff in any attempt to utilize this model to respond to a number of the findings made by its own consultant when evaluating the AB 109 programs. In its evaluation reports, RDA has raised issues around pre-release planning, types of services provided, pre-release access by those providing the service, and the coordination of each of these efforts. Specifically, in its May 2015 report RDA indicated: When the County system facilitates pre-release contact with programs in alignment with the Jail to Community model, providers are better positioned to engage participants and can address barriers to employment and housing more quickly. In its June 2015 recidivism analysis, RDA also stressed the importance of providing access to services as soon as possible upon release to attenuate the highest levels of local recidivism that occur in the first year. Given these recent developments and findings, intentional focus should be made to improve collaboration between county and community stakeholders with the goal of moving towards implementing a true Jail to Community system. 6.Improve Reentry System Infrastructure Support CAB’s continued focus throughout the years on building infrastructure to support an effective reentry system can no longer be overlooked by the CCP, or County at large. This past year the County created a CCP Quality Assurance Committee to improve program effectiveness and efficiency, expanded services to the non-AB 109 reentry population, mandated the use of ServicePoint by AB 109 contractors, and required monthly data reports from all funded partners. However, no Page 60 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 5 of 6) infrastructure exists to provide timely feedback additional data collected, for permanent administration of the ServicePoint database, or to actually improve the delivery of services being provided to individuals. Given these realities, CAB urges the CCP to prioritize the funding of the permanent infrastructure needed to support the County’s growing system of reentry. With the opening of “no wrong doors” to its Networked System of Services in East/Central County, and brand new doors to it Reentry Success Center in West County, the County has added two rounds of funding for recidivism reduction grants. Yet despite this obvious growth in Contra Costa’s world of reentry, there has not been any significant funds expended to increase the County’s internal capacities to collect evidence of its success, evaluate this data, and report on the outcomes of this evaluation. The County should at least invest in building the capacities of those providing services, providing ongoing support and administration for the ServicePoint database, and staff who are tasked with providing oversight, advice, and guidance concerning the County’s reentry efforts and strategies. Without such an approach, the County runs the risk of deploying disjointed, expensive, and ineffective simultaneous efforts to reduce recidivism. 7.Develop an Innovations Fund The State has directed counties to tackle realignment and reentry issues by developing creative and localized ideas and practices.1 CAB believes the opportunity and resources of the innovations fund are needed investments, provide opportunity to build capacity in unique ways, and could even attract the support of alternate funding streams. With the current budget allocations there seems to be very little impetus to veer from the status quo; even in the face of research findings and recommendations to do so. Having a dedicated innovations fund will give the County more flexibility to seek out unique solutions to the challenges being encountered – even when no new money is allocated to the County. This fund could be capped at 2 – 3% of the CCP base allocation in any fiscal year, and be paid for by all of the funds from the newly required innovations subaccount plus at least an equal match from the CCP growth funds received the same fiscal year (up to the capped amount), or possibly from CCP reserves in years where no growth is received. Thus, the Innovations Fund on a $20M base allocation in a given year could be capped at $400k (2%). But where the amount funding the newly required innovations subaccount only amounted to $150k in that year, the Innovations Fund would get these funds and a matching amount from CCP growth funding to equal $300k. The County must find a way to stay the course innovating to achieve the goals of justice reinvestment. There is little gained by amassing large reserves if these are simply eroded away over time by continuously increasing County budgets. Being 1 California Government Code 30029.07(a)(2)(b) Page 61 of 175 2016-17 CAB Recommendations (Page 6 of 6) proactive in this situation, by making small investments in search of improved practices, equates to prudent stewardship, and helps ensure the County’s place among the state’s leaders in reentry. Funded programs that show promise might also be able to attract additional funding from other sources that will only further enhance the County’s return on investment. Page 62 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Community Advisory Board Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #2015/16 FTE 2015/16 Allocation 2016/17 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request 2016/17 FTE 2016/17 Total Funding Request SALARY AND BENEFITS Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 5.3.b 18.00 1,117,929.00$ - Short and Long-Term Housing Access 5.3.c 5.00 190,219.00$ - Network System of Services 5.2.b 4.00 327,599.84$ 343,979.83$ 4.00 343,980 Reentry Success Center 5.2.b 3.00 173,130.00$ 181,786.50$ 44,213.50$ 3.00 226,000 Peer and Mentoring Services 5.4.a 2.00 91,884.00$ - Family Renunification 5.4.b 1.50 63,066.00$ - Central County Legal Services 5.4.c 1.00 74,534.00$ - Subtotal 34.5 2,038,361.84$ 525,766.33$ 44,213.50$ 7 569,979.83$ OPERATING COSTS Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 5.3.b 882,071.00$ - Short and Long-Term Housing Access 5.3.c 309,781.00$ - Network System of Services 5.2.b 472,400.16$ 472,400.16$ 3,620.01$ 476,020 Reentry Success Center 5.2.b 259,870.00$ 226,870.00$ 12,130.00$ 239,000 Peer and Mentoring Services 5.4.a 18,116.00$ - Family Renunification 5.4.b 26,934.00$ - Central County Legal Services 5.4.c 5,466.00$ - Reentry Resource Guide 5.2.a 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000 Subtotal 0 1,989,638.16$ 714,270.16$ 15,750.01$ 0 730,020.17$ ONE TIME RFP AMOUNTS2 Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 5.3.b 2,000,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 2,200,000 Short and Long-Term Housing Access 5.3.c 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$ 1,000,000 Peer and Mentoring Services 5.4.a 110,000.00$ 110,000 Family Renunification Services 5.4.b 90,000.00$ 90,000 Countywide Legal Services 5.4.c 80,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 150,000 Subtotal 0 0 2,780,000.00$ 770,000.00$ 0 3,550,000.00$ Total 34.5 4,028,000.00$ 4,020,036.49$ 829,963.51$ 7 4,850,000.00$ 1. Increased FY2016/17 status quo request includes COLA at 5% 2. See included budget narrative Page 63 of 175 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Central/East Contra Costa County Network Reentry System of Services Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #Quantity /FTE 2015/16 Allocation 2016/17 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request2 2016/17 Total Funding Request SALARY AND BENEFITS -$ -$ -$ - N/A - - - - Subtotal 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ OPERATING COSTS - Reserve Funds Purchase necessary items to assist 50,200.00$ 50,200.00$ 3,620$ 53,820 returning citizens in their transition such as; bus passes, and food cards. As well as - additional expenses approved by the - Chief Probation Officer.- - Contracted Providers Network Reentry Team, Alcohol & Other 749,800.00$ 749,800.00$ 16,380$ 766,180 Drugs, Brighter Beginnings, Fast Eddies,- Men & Women of Purpose, Reach - Felowship, & SHELTER Inc.- Subtotal 0 800,000.00$ 800,000.00$ 20,000.00$ $ 820,000.00 CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)-$ -$ - N/A - - Subtotal 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ Total 0 800,000.00$ 800,000.00$ $ 20,000.00 $ 820,000.00 1. FY2016/17 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2015/16 funding level. 2. FY2016/17 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2016/17. Page 64 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: 2016/17 New Funding Request The Central/East Contra Costa County Network Reentry System of Services (The Network), is requesting a "Cost of Living Adjustment" (COLA) increase, and additional funding to assist in managing Network housing. The Network's current, and original, budget of $800,000 with the COLA increase and housing management funding totals $820,000 starting July 1, 2016. Page 65 of 175 Submitted to: Contra Costa County - Community Advisory Board on Public Safety Realignment From: Reentry Success Center for AB109 Program Re:Revised Budget Request 7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017 Date: 12/30/2015 Previous Budget FY15-16 Initial Budget Request FY16-17 Revised Budget Request FY16-17 REVENUE TOTAL 433,000$ 511,777$ 465,300$ A.PERSONNEL A.1 Center Director 71,250$ 95,000$ 95,000$ A.2 Resource Coordinator 29,250$ 49,500$ 49,500$ A.3 Senior Quality Assurance Manager 6,412$ A.4 Program Administrative Support 26,250$ 36,300$ 36,300$ A.5 Chief Program Officer 6,925$ A.6 TOTAL STAFF SALARIES 140,087$ 180,800$ 180,800$ B.FRINGE BENEFITS 33,043$ 45,200$ 45,200$ TOTAL PERSONNEL (A+B)173,130$ 226,000$ 226,000$ C OPERATIONS C.1 Other Personnel 3,125$ -$ -$ C.2 Consultants and Subcontractors 88,610.00$ 40,000.00$ 20,000.00$ C.3 Occupancy*95,629$ 100,410$ 125,000$ C.4 Office and Communications 27,013$ 28,364$ 28,368$ C.5 Transportation & Travel 4,055$ 4,258$ 4,000$ Page 66 of 175 Ops. P lan 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2016/17 2016/17 2016/17 Description of Item Program/Function Status Quo New Funding Item# FTE Allocation Request Request FTE Total Funding SALARY AND BENEFITS Staffing (West) Reentry Success Center 5.2b 3.0 $ 173,130 $ 181,787 $ 44,213 3.0 $ 226,000 OPERA TING COSTS Reentry Success Center 5.2b $ 259,870 $ 226,870 $ 12,130 $ 239 I TOTALS $ . 433,000 $ 408,657 $ 56,343 $ 465 I ,000 ,000 New Funding Requests C.6 Welcome Home Packets -$ 2,200$ -$ C.7 Community Outreach -$ 6,000$ 2,000$ C.8 Restorative Circles -$ 40,000$ -$ C.9 Program and participant incidentals -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ C.10 Food -$ 5,000$ 2,200$ OPERATIONS SUBTOTAL 218,432$ 231,231$ 186,568$ D.INDIRECT EXPENSES 41,438$ 54,546$ 52,432$ TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (C+D) 259,870$ 285,777$ 239,000$ *Occupancy: Lease, Insurance, Electricity & Gas, Water, Garbage, Pest Control, Security, Safety Materials, Maintenance Service, Office Furnishings, Janitorial Service & Supplies 2016/17 Page 67 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 1 of 6) Budget Narrative: Proposals Made by CCP Community Advisory Board for Budget Year 2016 – 2017 I. Introduction and Recommendations NEW COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS FOR ALL AB 109 CONTRACTS CAB recognizes that AB 109 is moving into its fifth year of operations, and that many of the current contractors are completing their third year of operations. Thus, for the upcoming 2016-17 fiscal year, CAB recommends that for all contracts with contractors completing their third consecutive year of service at the end of 2015-16, the CCP direct all agencies holding such a contract funded through AB 109 to put the contract out to a competitive bidding process for a new multi-year contract. Sole source contracts such as the one for the reentry resource guide should be exempt from this requirement unless a competitive bidding process now makes sense. INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE NETWORK SYSTEM OF SERVICES & REENTRY SUCCESS CENTER For both of the programs, CAB is recommending a small 7% increase to these programs in the amount of $85k that will go to increased staffing and operations costs. This will result in the Network being funded an additional $20k, and the Reentry Success Center being funding an additional $65k. ONE-TIME RFP INCREASE FOR SERVICES CAB comes into 2016-17 with a baseline budget of $3.995M to fund the Community Programs. CAB also recognizes that the CCP has amassed significant reserves to date. Coming into 2015-16 the reserves stood at around $20M. This year’s budget is about $1M less than the expected base allocation from the state, but this will be more than made up by the two growth allocations for this year that will amount to an additional $6M for a net surplus of another $5M. As the CCP enters 2016-17 with $25M in reserves, the CAB is recommending that the CCP set aside $2.31M for a one-time additional investment in the following: •Housing •County First Stops •Civil Legal Services •Employment The additional investment in these community based services over the next three years will allow for increased amounts for the RFP’s as listed below. This is listed here as one-time funding because it doesn’t seek to disturb the baseline funding amounts already requested, and is to be provided with no promise it extends beyond three years, and that there is the expectation that each funded entity will support efforts of the county to determine the return on investment in each CCP budget item. In determining the amount of recommended funding for each service, CAB recognizes RDA’s finding that both housing and employment remain in high demand. CAB also recognizes that $80k has proven ineffective in ensuring needed civil legal services are available to each region of the County. Because these are being recommended for a competitive bid process, CAB has also included slight increases to account for increased costs that have occurred since the first time Requests for Proposals (RFP) were made. Page 68 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 2 of 6) 2016-17 RECOMMENDED FUNDING AMOUNTS Employment Services $ 2,200,000 Housing Services $ 1,0 00,000 Network System of Services $ 820,000 Reentry Success Center $ 465,000 Mentoring Services $ 110,000 Family Reunification Services $ 90,000 Civil Legal Services $ 70,000 Reentry Resource Guide $ 15,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Total CAB Recommendation $ 4,850,000 II.Contracting Process CAB recommends that the County enter into a new RFP process for AB 109 service provider contracts that will start in fiscal year 2016-17. While CAB supports the work that has been done thus far, it also believes that the upcoming fiscal year marks an ideal moment to put an end to the perpetual, yet uncertain, year to year contract renewal process. All AB 109 funded contracts where contractors and subcontractors have been providing services should be put up for competitive bidding. CAB believes this should include the data evaluation contracts, and Sheriff’s Jail to Community contracts. As part of this new RFP process, the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) should seek to at least include the Network Manager, Success Center Director, County Reentry Coordinator, and a member from both the CCP and CAB in the RFP development and review processes. CAB intends for this RFP process to award contracts for the provision of services to formerly incarcerated individuals and their families in the areas of employment, housing, civil legal services, family reunification, and mentoring. These services should be equally available to individuals in each region of the county. The amount of the contracts should be at least in the amounts described below to ensure continued investment in the services available to individuals while they are supervised in the community. The awarded contracts should also be a multi-year contract lasting 3 years to give organizations a more consistent funding source to plan on, while also providing the County with a set evaluation period. This multi- year strategy should give time to account for initial periods of program implementation when seeking to review the implementation of each program. This approach also provides the CCP and CAB a better ability to take on much needed multi-year strategies and plans. As stated in the CAB’s included policy recommendations, the CAO should either make trauma informed principles, practices, and competencies contractual requirements or provide preference points during the RFP process to organizations and/or service designs that prove to be trauma informed. Organizations should also be required to show they have the cultural competency needed to effectively engage and provide services to Contra Costa’s formerly incarcerated population and their families. The RFP process should also seek to encourage meaningful collaboration among organizations so that the delivery of services will be more integrated and efficient. This might even mean allowing a proposal to respond to more than one service area the proposal includes multiple partners, and adequately evidences one agencies capacity to act as the lead on the project. The County should also commit to implementing a robust capacity building program, outside of what is budgeted here, that seeks to improve the ability of future contractors to implement high quality evidence based reentry programs and services. Page 69 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 3 of 6) Finally, where it makes sense to do so, the CAO should also consider allowing other County agencies to take the lead on certain contracts that match the department’s area of expertise. While the CAO would still hold fiscal responsibility for the contracts, the partner agency could use its content knowledge to better support and monitor the programs and services provided under the contract. For instance, the Housing Authority or Behavioral Health Homeless Programs might be better situated to advise a service provider implementing a housing program, or Workforce Development Board’s intimate knowledge of the labor market should uniquely position it to best guide and augment the development of an employment service provider’s program. While CAB acknowledges that not every service fits so with the work of an existing county department, CAB believes that leveraging this expertise where it does exist will work to improve the partnership between the county and its contractors while preventing any unintended duplication of services. III.Reentry Services A. Status Quo Request As part of its status quo budget request, CAB recommends that the CCP Executive Committee fund each of the funded reentry service areas at an amount that is no less than what is being received in the current fiscal year to establish this amount as the ongoing baseline budget for the Community Programs. NETWORK AND CENTER While CAB is not recommending that the partnership provide any new services, CAB does recommend that both the Network and the Center budgets be increased as outlined in their requests. The CAB supports the Network’s request for a 4% cost of living adjustment (COLA) to be provided to the Network Manager and Field Operations Coordinators. Additionally, the CAB supports the Center’s request for additional funds that will go towards operational costs and personnel to at least partially cover the budget shortfall for staffing. MENTORING AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION The mentoring program (including family reunification) has undergone significant shifts in each previous year. Initially, this $200k contract was awarded the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) who then withheld costs for administration and subcontracted the remaining funds with three organizations (including the two current contractors) to provide the identified services. When CCCOE decided not to renew their contracts for the following fiscal year, one of the three contractors filled the administrative void created by CCCOE’s departure and funding was split between the 3 three of them equally – resulting in a modest increase in funding for each organization. In the current year, the administrative function was removed and the $200k was again split between one contractor for mentoring and a second for family reunification. The effect of these shifts in contracting has led CAB to forgo recommended any additional funding for either mentoring or family reunification services at this time. REENTRY RESOURCE GUIDE With development of a new user-friendly resource guide and mobile application during the current fiscal year, CAB recommends continuing funding with the current contractor to ensure fully support and implementation of the new reentry guide platform. This new contract should include the ability of having the contractor provide in person trainings for Page 70 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 4 of 6) the new platform, and might also include written documentation on how to use the guide’s mobile application once it is fully developed. B. New Funding Requests In making the following new funding requests, CAB has been guided by information provided by current service providers, past findings of RDA, the expertise of CAB Members, and CAB’s own independent investigations. Each of the programs included in this recommended budget could benefit from exponential increases in the funding currently being provided. However, assessing the current funding need for a particular program, other funding opportunities that may exist, and the existence of similar services in the community has led CAB to developing the following recommendations for increased funding. While each of these items are of high priority to CAB, it places the highest priority in housing, followed by the first-stops, with civil legal services next in priority, and employment as the least prioritized service when all things were considered. HOUSING Housing continues to be a service that is in high demand. RDA reported in May 2015 that the current housing provider was only able to enroll for services less than half of those referred to its program. Conversations with the provider have indicated that this is because resources for this service are so scarce. Right now with the current $500k being funded, the current provider offers tenant education, rental assistance, placement services, and operates one house in West and another in the Central region of the County for shared living arrangements. Leveraging the administrative costs of running this program, the Network has been able to secure nearly triple the amount of homes for about $350k in additional funding. Expecting to benefit from similar economies of scale, CAB is recommending that the CCP double the existing housing budget by providing another $500k for this service. Without this additional funding it is unlikely that anything more than trivial housing assistance will be available to the AB 109 population. Even with the service expansion of services to the non-AB 109 population, housing has remained the sole contracted service that remains available exclusively for the AB 109 population due to the limited availability and high levels of demand. Furthermore CAB recognizes that the individuals intended to be served under this program are attempting to overcome significant barriers to housing in an unfriendly housing market. This increased level of investment is consistent with the County’s recidivism reduction strategies, but should only be seen as a starting point of a larger conversation around the availability of affordable housing throughout the County. CAB expects to keep housing as one of its focus areas for the upcoming year, to ensure it gets the level of focus fitting its label as the highest priority funding item for the upcoming year. FIRST-STOPS While housing is CAB’s highest priority item, it also recognizes the significant investment and important role the First-Stops play in the County’s reentry system. Modest increases are also therefore being requested to support the ongoing and growing efforts of both the Network System of Services and the Reentry Success Center. In addition to the $16k being requested by the Network for COLA, CAB also requests an additional $4k to support the Page 71 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 5 of 6) additional operating costs of the system. In the past year the Network has added the task of managing six transitional houses in its region of responsibility and seeks to use this money for the operating expenses related to ongoing management of these homes. Likewise, the Reentry Success Center is asking for $65k to support its ongoing efforts for the next year. The first $53k will go to personnel costs. While COLA increases are about $8k, the additional $45k is what is needed to meet all actual payroll expenses. The final $12k is half of what is expected in increased facility costs. All previous costs were mere projections, and the budget now submitted by the Center reflects actual costs. CAB recognizes that in years past when designing and funding these programs there has been the desire to ensure that each region is equally funded. CAB has chosen to depart from this precedent with this current set of recommendations to instead seek to fund the expressed needs of each particular program. CAB is of the opinion that while an equal funding approach is ideal for the design phase of a project, when little tangible information usually exists to fairly fund projects in equitable amounts, at the implementation stage funding projects according to need effectively places the good of the entire community at large before that of independent regional desires. Putting equality before equity risks either denying the needs of one region should it be higher than another, or providing a region with unneeded resources because simply because another evidences a higher level of need. Putting equity over equality prevents programmatic failure and wasting resources. Understanding the above, both the Network and Center were provided with opportunities to present budget requests to the CAB based on what each system needed. Under these auspices, the Center not only reduced a previous request for funding by almost half, but has explained that everything left, including the increased yet required personnel and facilities costs, were needed to run any semblance of the program that was initially envisioned. Likewise, the Network provided CAB with an initial budget requesting $40k to be split between COLA and housing operations costs. Aligned with the Center’s ability, and CAB’s own directive, to reduce budget where possible, the Network’s budget request was reduced by half to allow for COLA and some additional funding to support management of the Network’s housing component. Because CAB is already requesting $500k for housing access across the County that the Network will also benefit from, it felt limiting the Network’s request to $20k in this instance would not cause a substantial impact to the system’s ability to function. Finally, because CAB hopes any increase to the Network budget will only be a proscriptive as necessary. Instead of splitting any additional funding received proportionately between the Network Reentry Team, this additional funding should also be allowed to be used in it’s entirely to support the ongoing management of the Network housing program. CAB is making these above listed requests on behalf of the Network in a good faith understanding of what is needed by the Network to successfully function for the clients it serves. Should more budget information become available or be required for the CCP to endorse this recommendation, CAB trusts the network will make such information readily available. CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES The County only directly contracts with a service provider to provide civil legal services to Central County. In year’s past, civil legal services were provided in the other two region of the County through subcontracts of the housing employment providers. Over the past few years, a variety of difficulties (such resource limitations, referral concerns, etc.) have resulted in these subcontracts either being dissolved or significantly reduced. To maximize the use of money allocated to housing and employment, and to ensure that individuals in each reach of Page 72 of 175 2016-17 CAB Budget Narrative (Page 6 of 6) the County has access to this service, CAB recommends increasing funding for this service by $70k. Civil legal services have proven to be an indispensable tool in helping formerly incarcerated individuals resolved issues around suspended driver’s licenses, unlawful housing practices, and credit disputes. While the need to preserve an individual’s housing is supported by previous components of this narrative, both housing and employment tie into credit issues and access to transportation. In evaluating the AB 109 program last summer, RDA echoed the sentiments of reentry experts, advocates, and academics nationwide in recognizing how much of a barrier to employment suspended licenses are. With California’s amnesty program for traffic fines and fees in full swing, ensuring access to civil legal services is something that should not be undervalued. Just as importantly, individually and collectively, these legal services serve to empower individuals to become more law abiding through their enjoyment and exercise of the civil legal protections (and relief) the law provides. EMPLOYMENT While generally among the highest priority items for CAB, access to job training and employment placement services are far from being unimportant as they play an integral role in a person’s successful journey towards full community reintegration. Because of employment’s importance, CAB is recommending that the CCP invest an additional $200k in the employment related reentry services of the County. However, recognizing that there may be additional sources of funding and services that can be leveraged, and that significant resources are already being put towards this service, CAB has placed a higher priority on the other recommendations being made. Consistent with its reasoning above, CAB further recommends that the CCP work with Executive Committee member, and Director of the Employment and Human Services Department, to strongly encourage, facilitate, and provide funding if needed to ensure the County’s expedited enrollment in the CalFresh Employment and Training program. Through this program the County can seek reimbursement for 50% of the money spent on administration of employment programs CalFresh recipients are involved in, and 50% of reimbursements provided to these CalFresh recipients for employment and training related expenses that can be reinvested through future allocations to employment providers. With recent changes in the law that allow individuals with past drug convictions to received CalFresh benefits, involvement in this program could make the County eligible for reimbursement of a significant portion of the money spent on employment programs for the formerly incarcerated if we work to ensure each person’s timely enrolment in CalFresh where eligible. Use of the reimbursed funds for use in employment programs of subsequent years should increase the return on investment in these programs. Also, there seems to be ample opportunity to better leverage the services provided by the County’s Workforce Investment Board. Better utilization and integration of the services provided through the County’s various job centers could also enhance the utilization of the money the funds provided for these services. There are also a multitude of grant opportunities on the horizon that may offer additional funding opportunities for employment and education related programs for the reentry and incarcerated populations. The County should strongly considers supporting an application for these funds where it makes sense to do so. Page 73 of 175 Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item  #Quantity /FTERequested 2015/16 1‐time Allocation2016/17 Status Quo Request12016/17 New Funding Request22016/17 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITSCourtroom Clerk II, Step 3 Pretrial release calendar supportObjectives 1.1.; 1.2.2 (March ‐ June 2016) $66,801.73$200,405.18 $200,405.18Veterans Court case manager Needs assessment & supportive services1 (April ‐ June 2016) $33,287.40$133,149.60 $133,149.60Clerk III, Step 3Program support ‐ liaison with VA1 (April ‐ June 2016) $18,557.74$74,230.96 $74,230.96Subtotal0$118,646.87 $0.00 $407,785.74 $407,785.74OPERATING COSTSSubtotal0$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)Subtotal0$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Total0$118,646.87 $0.00 $407,785.74 $407,785.74Objectives 2.1; 2.3; 4.1; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 6.2Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2016/17 AB109 Budget Proposal FormRequestor: Contra Costa Superior CourtPage 74 of 175 PROGRAM NARRATIVE:Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above.2016/17 Status Quo Request2016/17 New Funding RequestThe Court requests ongoing funding in the amount of $407,785.74 for the two proposals identified above.The Contra Costa Superior Court respectfully requests one‐time funding from the County’s FY 2015‐16 AB 109 allocation in the amount of $118,646.87. The funding described under Program 1 would address the extra workload associated with PRCS cases, parole violation petitions, and the Pretrial Release Program by funding two dedicated arraignment courtroom clerks whose sole focus is on capturing court proceedings, and entering the appropriate case information timely. This portion of the proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including:• Objective 1.1. Increase public safety • Objective 1.2. Following arrest, better identify persons who can safely be released and those who should be held in physical custody pretrial so as to reduce the pretrial jail population to maximize capacity for the sentenced AB 109 population.The Program 2 request would allow the court to establish a Veteran’s Court Intensive Support Program beginning in April 2016. This proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including:• Objective 2.1.Provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all cases• Objective 2.3. Utilize evidence‐‐‐based practices in sentencing • Objective 4.1. Establish and maintain an entry point to an integrated reentry system of care• Objective 5.1. Maximize public safety, accountability, and service referrals• Objective 5.2. Assist in providing access to a full continuum of reentry and reintegration services• Objective 5.3. Provide and enhance integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB 109 Population• Objective 5.4. Increase mentoring, encourage family and community engagement in reentry and reintegration• Objective 6.2. Maximize interagency coordination Page 75 of 175 1 | Page SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA P.O. Box 911 Martinez, CA 94553 BUDGET NARRATIVE FY 15-16 and FY 16-17 AB 109 Funding Request from the Contra Costa Superior Court Summary: The Contra Costa Superior Court respectfully requests one-time funding from the County’s FY 2015-16 AB 109 allocation, and ongoing funding beginning in FY 2016-17. The one-time and ongoing funding described under Program 1 would address the extra workload associated with PRCS cases, parole violation petitions, and the Pretrial Release Program by funding two dedicated arraignment courtroom clerks whose sole focus is on capturing court proceedings, and entering the appropriate case information timely. This portion of the proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including: • Objective 1.1. Increase public safety • Objective 1.2. Following arrest, better identify persons who can safely be released and those who should be held in physical custody pretrial so as to reduce the pretrial jail population to maximize capacity for the sentenced AB 109 population The Program 2 request would allow the court to establish a Veteran’s Court Intensive Support Program beginning in April 2016. This proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including: • Objective 2.1.Provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all cases • Objective 2.3. Utilize evidence--‐based practices in sentencing • Objective 4.1. Establish and maintain an entry point to an integrated reentry system of care • Objective 5.1. Maximize public safety, accountability, and service referrals • Objective 5.2. Assist in providing access to a full continuum of reentry and reintegration services • Objective 5.3. Provide and enhance integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB 109 Population • Objective 5.4. Increase mentoring, encourage family and community engagement in reentry and reintegration • Objective 6.2. Maximize interagency coordination Page 76 of 175 2 | Page PROGRAM 1 Relieving AB 109-related impacts on the Court Implementation of AB 109 has had a variety of impacts on the Contra Costa Superior Court that stem from new Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) violation filings, Parole Violation petitions, and Parole Revocation hearings. This impact was compounded with the recent addition of the Pretrial Release Program. Increased pressure on the arraignment departments AB 109 established an entirely new case type when it began sending “non-non-non” offenders back to their home jurisdictions on Post Release Community Supervision. Since the inception of this program, the court has calendared approximately 3,580 PRCS arraignment hearings. When combined with another 2,000 new parole violation arraignments, this added workload exceeded that which could reasonably be handled by a single arraignment clerk. In response, the court allocated a second “floater” clerk to each of the two arraignment calendars, and although it is sometimes not achievable, has placed a high priority on preserving each clerk’s presence in the courtroom—often at the expense of other high- volume calendars. Given the bare-bones staffing levels dictated by ongoing budget reductions, unexpected absences and extended leaves periodically force the court to reassign one or both of the “floater” clerks to prevent other judicial departments from “going dark.” With the increased number of cases on each of these calendars, and uneven contribution from clerks who are not permanently assigned to these specific departments, the court finds it difficult to complete all post-hearing paperwork and enter relevant information into the criminal case management system. These delays, which can last up to one week, place a burden on the attorneys and defendants who may need this information earlier. Together with the District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff, and our other justice partners, the Court heartily endorses the goals of the Pretrial Release program. That said, the structure of this program has also added pressure to the arraignment calendars by creating additional delays. These delays occur because Probation must interview and assess individual defendants while in custody. Because many of these individuals require special segregation from the general population, the interview logistics can be complicated and time consuming. Once completed, the probation officer faxes their recommendation documents to the courtroom, and the courtroom clerk collects and distributes them to the Public Defender and District Attorney. Hearings on these matters can only begin after the two attorneys have had a chance to consider probation’s recommendations. Although the individuals participating in the Pretrial Release program do not represent a new population to be served, the additional steps associated with this program introduce significant delays. Some 15% - 20% of these matters require a second pretrial release conference. New calendar to conduct parole violation hearings With the advent of Parole Violation hearings, the court hired a part time Commissioner, and had to divert an existing courtroom clerk, court reporter, and calendar clerk to support the new calendar. The impact of this new case type is not limited to the Commissioner’s calendar Page 77 of 175 3 | Page however, because each of the nearly 2,000 individuals set on the Parole Violation calendar between July 1, 2013 and September 30, 2015 had to be arraigned before the Violation hearing. Workload impacts from the Parole Violation calendar weigh heavily on the criminal clerk’s office as well because Parole agents come to the department as many as three times a day throughout the week to file petitions, and police agencies visit the department throughout the day to secure warrants. Combined, the clerk’s office must allocate one to two hours of one staff person’s time each day to process these requests. Although the court receives a $94,000 annual allocation to cover AB 109-related costs, these funds only pay for the Commissioner’s time, and a portion of the time spent by existing courtroom and calendar clerks and the court reporter. PROGRAM 2 Establishment of a Veterans Court Intensive Support Program Some of our nation’s veterans have experienced extreme trauma during their military service that severely compounds other individual and societal problems such as substance abuse, domestic violence, or other criminal activity. These defining experiences often set veterans apart and complicate their participation in treatment and social service programs. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and other debilitating factors can make it very difficult for veterans to address mental illness, domestic violence prevention or substance abuse treatment in the same way as others who have not experienced military service. For this reason, approximately 24 of the state’s 58 courts have established Veteran’s Courts to provide a judicially supervised regimen of treatment and other interventions that are tailored to meet the specialized needs of this population. After meeting with representatives of the Contra Costa Veteran’s Administration office and learning about and observing Veteran’s Court proceedings in other jurisdictions, the Superior Court is eager to establish a similar court in Contra Costa County. This court would be operated in a manner that is consistent with California Penal Code section 1170.9. Although the Veteran’s Administration is willing to assign a service liaison who can support the operation of this program, they cannot fund either a court case manager or the administrative support needed to handle the substantial increases in paperwork and networking among the various service providers needed to administer this program. Preliminary estimates of the population to be served indicate a likely population of 50 – 80 veterans each year. As with the other two grant-funded ISP programs sponsored by the court, participation in this program would be voluntary, and it would be focused on veterans with a criminal history who are also battling some form of mental illness, and may have co- occurring substance abuse issues. Participants’ social service needs would be assessed by the court case manager, and together they will fashion an Individual Service Plan. VA-appointed mentors would then assist each participant on a more frequent basis to pursue and participate in needed programs and services, and succeed in implementing their Individual Service Plan. Please find more detailed information from the Veteran’s Administration attached to this request. Page 78 of 175 Eligibility Criteria for eleven California Veterans Treatment Courts (in addition to the requirements of PC 1170.9) Criteria Alameda County Placer Riverside & San Bernardino Sacramento San Diego San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Tulare Ventura Death, great bodily injury, permanent disability Excluded Excluded Excluded (GBI case by case) Excluded Violent felony (PC 667.5) Presumptively excluded (willing to consider) Excluded Excluded Excluded (incl. past) Excluded Strike excluded Excluded Excluded Arson (PC 457.1) Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Serious felony (PC 1192.7) Presumptively excluded Presumptively excluded(willing to consider) Excluded Presumptively excluded(willing to consider) Strike excluded Excluded Excluded DUI Any DUI presumptively excluded Third DUI presumptively excluded Exclude felony DUI or DUI w/injury Felony DUI excluded Danger or substantial risk to others Excluded Excluded Excluded 290 registrant Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Gang member (documented) Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded County resident Preferred Required Required Required Required VA Eligibility Required Required Required Required Persons on active military duty Eligible Eligible Eligible Eligible Excluded Other Criteria Felony only Exclude strike- eligible offenses (unless DA dismisses strike) Felony only Exclude child/ elder abuse Exclude furnishing to minor Consider victim impact Combat preference Selection by DA Discharge “other than dishonorable” required Must accept VA Exclude strike- eligible offenses Exclude others* Combat experience Approval of victim Honorable to OTH discharge Selection by DA *Felony DV; Realigned except with split sentence probation <3 years; Drug sales unless only for own habit. DMV 06/03/15 Notes: 1. Orange County accepts only combat or Military Sexual Trauma veterans. 2. Solano County imposes no eligibility criteria beyond those of PC 1170.9. Page 79 of 175 CALIFORNIA VETERANS LEGAL TASK FORCE 3755 Avocado Boulevard #293 La Mesa, California 91941 Office: 619-540-4056 Fax: 619-550-3145 www.CVLTF.org Summary of Penal Code Section 1001.80 Diversion for Troubled Veterans Accused of Misdemeanors Eligibility criteria 1. Accused of a misdemeanor. 2. Veteran. 3. Mental health issue stemming from military service. 4. Defendant consents to diversion. 5. Defendant waives right to speedy trial. Central element 6. Pretrial diversion to rehabilitative therapy instead of trial, possible conviction and incarceration. Other provisions 7. Period of diversion can last up to two years. 8. The court must receive reports at least every six months from agencies providing rehabilitation. 9. If performance in the program is unsatisfactory, the court can, following a hearing, end diversion and order resumption of criminal proceedings. 10. Counties are required to provide mental health services only to the extent that such services are available and that they fall within the counties’ traditional scope of services. Rights 11. If performance in program is satisfactory, criminal charges will be dismissed. 12. Upon completion of program, arrest records are sealed, and the defendant is permitted to say that the arrest “never occurred” unless applying for law enforcement position. Page 80 of 175 CALIFORNIA VETERANS LEGAL TASK FORCE 333 Nutmeg Street San Diego, California 92103 Office: 619-234-3707 Fax: 619-550-3145 www.CVLTF.org Summary of Penal Code Section 1170.9 Alternative Sentencing for Troubled Veterans Eligibility criteria Sentencing judge must find all these to be true, on the record. 1. Veteran. 2. Mental health issue stemming from military service. 3. Defendant alleges that the offense resulted from the mental health issue. Legal criteria 4. Convicted of a probation-eligible offense or able to overcome the presumption of ineligibility. 5. Placed on probation. 6. Defendant must agree to court-supervised treatment as prescribed in the treatment plan, including psychological treatment, in addition to release of otherwise protected information to the court (and usually to the prosecutor). Central element 7. Judge can order therapy in lieu of other measures, providing that an appropriate treatment program is available, and offender must volunteer for this treatment. Status upon graduation Defense must file and serve prosecutor and any victims with a formal written motion for restoration under PC1170.9(h). This is not automatic, but requires evidence and findings in a written order after hearing. 8. Possible early termination of probation. 9. Fines and fees can be set aside. 10. Some felonies can be reduced to misdemeanors. 11. Charges can be dismissed and police and court records can be sealed; veteran can answer “no” to questions about arrest or conviction for this offense, even under oath, except when applying for a position in law enforcement. 12. Possible restoration of rights (voting, jury service, employment). 13. Can still be considered a prior offense later for sentencing purposes if defendant does not remain law abiding. Other provisions 14. County is not required to expend incremental funds in order to fulfill treatment programs. 15. Treatment program used should be expert in the specific mental health issue. 16. VA is a recommended treatment provider. 17. Time in residential treatment receives day-for-day sentence credit. Page 81 of 175 Veterans Treatment Courts:The Right Approach for CaliforniaDuncan MacVicarCalifornia Veterans Legal Task Force650-969-8814 duncanmv@aol.comPage 82 of 175 Since 2008, Over 300 Veterans Treatment Courts in the NationPage 83 of 175 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Most combat veterans suffer post-traumatic stress. But symptoms of some are serious enough to warrant the PTSD diagnosis•Constellation of symptoms: Nightmares, flashbacks, hypersensitivity, aggression, …•Depression and sleep disorders•Intense safety needs: physical settings, weapons•Onset of symptoms is often delayed•Self-medication (alcohol is the drug of choice)Page 84 of 175 PTSD: Results of Research•About 30% of OEF/OIF veterans have PTSD•PTSD accompanies most Traumatic Brain Injury•Soldiers avoid: admitting mental problems, talking about combat, anything that reminds of combat•Co-occurrence of addiction is common•VA/DoD have developed effective therapy•Early intervention is key to successful treatment•Family support is key to rehabilitation•Awareness and knowledge of military culture is important for caregiversPage 85 of 175 Why are Veterans Treatment Courts Needed?•Many soldiers return from combat traumatized–PTSD, TBI, depression, …–Need mental health therapy•But veterans often deny these problems–Untreated, they get worse–Sometimes leads to crime•Veterans Treatment Court is the mechanism to turn them around–Address underlying mental health issues–Issue: Participation is voluntary, so incentives neededPage 86 of 175 To enhance public safety by providing a judicially supervised regimen of treatment intervention to justice-involved veterans with unique mental health conditions stemming from military service. Mission of the Veterans Treatment Court(VTC)Page 87 of 175 Goals of the Veterans Treatment Court•Reduce further criminal behavior–Public safety is always the chief concern•Keep troubled veterans out of jail–They can live with family, have jobs, receive VA benefits•Help troubled veterans turn their lives around–Get them the therapy and other assistance they needPage 88 of 175 Key Attributes of the Veterans Treatment Court•Collaborative team model–Hybrid of drug court and mental health court•Provide treatment in lieu of jail/prison–Judicial monitoring for 12-18 months•Integrated alcohol and drug treatment–Abstinence monitored via frequent testing•Graduated system of incentives and sanctions–Guide participants’ compliance & VTC response•Peer mentors ensure cooperation of participants–Differentiating characteristic of VTCPage 89 of 175 Benefits to Society of VTCs•Lower two-year recidivism–Misdemeanors (VTC 0-15% vs. 40-50%)–Felonies (VTC 0-15% vs. 70%)–Note: Only initial data so far•Lower cost of incarceration–Prison/jail costs about $50,000 per year–Supervision and therapy cost much less•Local taxpayers save with VTCs since most therapy is VA (“free”)Page 90 of 175 California’s Alternative Sentencing Law•California Penal Code Section 1170.9•Eligibility:–Veteran–Service-related mental health problem–Defendant: Crime arose from mental health problem–Offense is eligible for probation (post plea bargain)•Guilty finding, placed on probation•Therapy in lieu of incarceration–Therapy by VA, local government, or nonprofit•Residential treatment earns sentence credit•Note: Can be implemented in any court, not just a Veterans Treatment CourtPage 91 of 175 CPC 1170.9 after January 1, 2013Upon completion of supervision:•Judge may reduce most felonies to misdemeanors•Rights can be restored and record expunged•On employment applications, veteran may answer “No” to questions re: arrest and conviction–Exception: Law enforcement positions•If new criminal conduct occurs, can be considered a prior convictionPage 92 of 175 California’s Diversion Law, new in 2015 Penal Code Section 1001.80•Diversion for veterans accused of misdemeanors•Eligibility:–Veteran–Service-related mental health problem•Pre-trial diversion to rehabilitative therapy in lieu of trial, possible conviction, and incarceration•Up to two years, with reports from therapists at least twice per year•Upon satisfactory completion, charges dismissed and arrest record sealed (“never occurred”)•Some jurisdictions incorporate into VTC, and some do notPage 93 of 175 Typical Offenses of Veterans•Anything high risk, e.g.–High-speed driving–Robberies•DUI•Drug possession•Bar fights/assaults•Possession/brandishing of firearms•Domestic ViolencePage 94 of 175 Veterans Treatment Courtsin California•24 courts operating: Alameda, Butte, El Dorado, Kings, Lake, Los Angeles (2), Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara (2), Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Tulare, Ventura•Many other jurisdictions in discussion•Some jurisdictions inventing alternatives•Based on CPC 1170.9, but use all existing lawPage 95 of 175 Veterans Treatment Court Core Team•Judge•Public Defender•District Attorney•Team coordinator•Probation officer•Law enforcement (jail inmate services)•Veterans Justice Outreach specialist of VA•County Mental Health Department•Peer mentoring organization•Court analyst/evaluatorPage 96 of 175 Veterans Treatment Courts Are Efficient•Key is the VTC team–Team has all necessary veteran-related knowledge–Team gets to know each other well and works fast–Team gathers only during court and pre-court staffing –Team develops expertise in dealing with military-specific mental health problems•Team is supplemented by other local veteran-related resources–Housing–Therapy–Employment–Education–EntitlementsPage 97 of 175 VTC Innovation in an Era of LimitedResources•Volunteer labor, for example--–Peer mentors (now usually volunteer)–Team coordinator–Court analyst–Probation–Case management•Shared labor–Use personnel from existing courts–Case management by housing/therapy providers•Large veterans organizations–For funds, transportation, etc.•Other nonprofits–Housing, employment, trauma-informed therapyPage 98 of 175 Alternatives to VTC for Smaller Counties•Direct veteran defendants to specific judge who can choose to implement PC1170.9 (Example: Sonoma County in the past)–Need champion, involvement of local VA•Implement PC 1170.9 via existing drug court or mental health court (Amador County)–Team exists•Select eligible veteran defendants for PC 1170.9 sentencing; any courtroom (Trinity County)–Need champion, involvement of local VAPage 99 of 175 Getting a VTC Started•Start identifying veterans at county jail•District Attorney, Public Defender, and Judge define operating principles:–Will this court accept PC1001.80 diversion veterans?–Defendant eligibility–Eligible offenses•Series of meetings to plan court operation–Indentify Core Team ASAP•Identify and educate other local resources•Proposal to presiding judge•Assemble cadre of peer mentors•Core Team attend Justice For Vets trainingPage 100 of 175 Questions and DiscussionPage 101 of 175 January 2016 | 1 Contra Costa County AB 109 Evaluation Review of AB 109-Funded Department Performance Prepared by: Resource Development Associates January 15, 2016 Page 102 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Organization of the Report .......................................................................................................................... 8 Cross System Findings ................................................................................................................................ 10 Behavioral Health Services ........................................................................................................................ 16 County Administrator’s Office ................................................................................................................... 26 Detention Health Services ......................................................................................................................... 31 District Attorney’s Office ........................................................................................................................... 35 Office of the Public Defender .................................................................................................................... 42 Probation Department ............................................................................................................................... 49 Sheriff’s Office ........................................................................................................................................... 56 Workforce Development Board ................................................................................................................. 65 Appendix A: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................... 70 Appendix B: Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................ 71 Page 103 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 2 Executive Summary Introduction Since November 2013, RDA has worked with Contra Costa County to support the County’s AB 109 implementation and operations through a series of evaluation and data collection-related activities, including the following activities: • An assessment of the County’s AB 109-related data capacity and infrastructure; • An evaluation of the County’s preliminary implementation of the AB 109 Operational Plan; • An evaluation of the AB 109-contracted community-based service providers; and • An analysis of the impact of the County’s AB 109 programs and services on client recidivism. This report builds on those efforts by assessing the performance of County departments receiving AB 109 funding and involved in AB 109 program implementation in relation to the goals and objectives of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, as delineated in the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan, and in relation to best practices in the fields of criminal justice and reentry. In order to establish performance measures for each department and for the County overall, RDA reviewed a range of countywide and department-specific documentation related to AB 109, including the County’s Strategic Reentry Plan, the AB 109 Operational Plan, department funding requests, past evaluation reports, and best practices in reentry programs and services. Additionally, RDA worked with the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) and representatives from each AB 109-funded department to develop department-specific and countywide performance measures across four domains - direct services, communication and coordination, data capacity, and training – that align with the goals set forth in the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan. Methods In order to assess the performance of AB 109-funded County departments involved in AB 109 implementation, RDA collected a range of quantitative and qualitative data, including department- specific and countywide documentation related to AB 109 planning and implementation, quantitative data from department’s data systems or other data tracking collection tools, interviews with both leadership and staff from each County Department, and focus groups with AB 109 individuals in custody and post release. Cross System Findings Below we provide an overview of evaluation findings across Contra Costa County’s AB 109 departments. The full report provides additional information on findings for each department included in this review. Page 104 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 3 Direct Services Across County Departments, there has been an increased use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and best practices across domains including community corrections, sentencing, and more. EBP’s used across the County’s AB 109 system include Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Graduated Responses to Supervision Infractions, Motivational Interviewing, Thinking for a Change, Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument, and the Wellness Recovery Action Plan. AB 109 clients overwhelmingly report positive experiences with the post-release system of care. AB 109 clients, most of whom have previous experience under probation and/or parole supervision, repeatedly noted that AB 109 supervision is substantively different from past community supervision experiences in a way that clearly aligns with the County’s AB 109 objectives as well as the language in the AB 109 and associated legislation. There is limited continuity between in-custody and community-based services as well as little-to-no coordinated pre-release planning. Because individuals are not assessed for criminogenic risk and need factors upon entry to custody, there is no process by which to ensure that they receive in-custody programs and services that are aligned with their criminogenic risks and needs or with the programs and services they may receive upon release. Pre-release planning is conducted almost exclusively by the Probation Department Communication and Coordination Over the 4+ years since AB 109 started, Contra Costa County has built a more collaborative criminal justice and reentry system than previously existed. The availability of funding for community-based services has clearly increased the extent to which community supervision occurs alongside community services; in addition, the Pretrial Services program and ACER also indicate that increased communication and coordination occur at numerous junctures across the County criminal justice system, including during the adjudication processes. Despite enormous progress toward building a County-wide reentry system, there are additional opportunities for additional coordination and collaboration. For example, pre-release planning is limited and does not usually involve collaboration between a multidisciplinary group of relevant partners, such as DHS, BHS, and CBOs; this is one area of opportunity for greater collaboration and coordination. There are also opportunities for greater collaboration between AB 109 partner departments post-release. There is some divergence about the relationship between County-wide AB 109 goals and department- level AB 109 goals. Both within and between Departments, the County’s AB 109 operations have evolved enormously in the last three years. Almost all CCP members interviewed for this report noted Page 105 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 4 that the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan, which was approved in November 2012, may no longer be the most appropriate guiding document for Countywide or department-specific AB 109 operations Data Capacity The County has developed multiple systems and processes for collecting and reviewing AB 109 data on a regular basis. The implementation of the ServicePoint data system for AB 109-funded CBOs with limited data capacity has been critical for the County’s understanding of the service delivery infrastructure; moreover, electronic case management systems (CMS) have been developed or are in the development process across multiple AB 109 partner agencies, including the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, and the Office of the Public Defender. Many Departments still lack sufficient data capacity. Delays in data system implementation or procurement and limitations to preexisting data systems have resulted in several partner departments lacking sufficient capacity to collect and report important data on AB 109 and AB 109 individuals. Training Almost all Departments have participated in trainings related to increasing their capacity to implement their AB 109-related operations. Different County departments have widely varying training needs related to AB 109. Nonetheless, almost all departments have demonstrated a commitment to understanding the impact of AB 109 on their operations and on the County by participating in trainings, conferences, and other learning opportunities. Recommendations v Update the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan to reflect changes to the County’s AB 109 system and processes over the last several years. v Establish greater continuity between in-custody and post-release supervision and services, including an in-custody needs assessment, comprehensive data collection on in-custody services, and more coordinated pre-release planning processes. v Continue to build the County’s data infrastructure by implementing updated data systems for those departments with limited data capacity. v Increase eligibility criteria for the Pretrial Services program, so that more defendants can be screened for pretrial release. v Increase the County’s operational capacity for cross-department planning and implementation efforts by adding additional staffing to support this work. Page 106 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 5 Introduction Since November 2013, RDA has worked with Contra Costa County to support the County’s AB 109 implementation and operations through a series of evaluation and data collection-related activities. To date, RDA has worked with Contra Costa County to evaluate the implementation and efficacy of various components of the County’s AB 109 system through the following activities: • An assessment of the County’s AB 109-related data capacity and infrastructure; • An evaluation of the County’s preliminary implementation of the AB 109 Operational Plan; • An evaluation of the AB 109-contracted community-based service providers; and • An analysis of the impact of the County’s AB 109 programs and services on client recidivism. This report builds on those efforts by assessing the performance of County departments receiving AB 109 funding and involved in AB 109 program implementation in relation to the goals and objectives of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, as delineated in the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan, and in relation to best practices in the fields of criminal justice and reentry. This report examines both countywide and department-specific progress across four domains of AB 109 implementation: direct services, communication and coordination, data capacity, and training. Because there were not pre-established performance measures by which to assess County or department performance related to AB 109, RDA began this effort by facilitating a collaborative planning process to establish performance measures for each department and for the County overall. Toward this end, RDA reviewed a range of countywide and department-specific documentation related to AB 109, including the County’s Strategic Reentry Plan, the AB 109 Operational Plan, department funding requests, past evaluation reports, and best practices in reentry programs and services. Additionally, RDA worked with the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) and representatives from each AB 109-funded department to agree on performance measures across the four domains. It is important to note that County departments have widely varying roles in AB 109 implementation in terms of both the scope of their AB 109-related activities and the degree to which their AB 109-related activities differ from those provided to other County residents. For example, the Probation Department interacts with the vast majority of AB 109 clients and has an AB 109-specific supervision unit, which is able to provide a wider range of supportive services to AB 109 clients than have traditionally been available to other clients (although the County is making efforts to make these services available to other formerly incarcerated individuals). By contrast, Detention Health Services, although providing services to all locally sentenced (1170(h)) AB 109 individuals, does not interact with these clients any differently from their interactions with other individuals incarcerated in County detention facilities. These differences impact the nature of departments’ AB 109-related activities and are thus reflected in this report. Page 107 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 6 Methods In order to assess the performance of AB 109-funded County Departments involved in AB 109 implementation, RDA collected a range of quantitative and qualitative data, including department- specific and countywide documentation related to AB 109 planning and implementation, quantitative data from departments’ data systems or other data tracking collection tools, interviews with both leadership and staff from each County Department, and focus groups with AB 109 individuals in custody and post release. Tables 1 – 3 below provide greater detail on data collected for this evaluation. Table 1: Focus Groups with AB 109 Clients Custody Status Participants Community Central County Supervisees (5) East County Supervisees (7) West County Supervisees (5) Pretrial Release Supervisees (3) Supervisees referred to Diablo Valley Ranch, AODS (7) Supervisees referred to Forensic Mental Health (5) Custody West County Detention Facility (4) Marsh Creek Detention Facility (10) Table 2: Department Staff Interviewed Department Participants Behavioral Health Services Forensic Mental Health, Program Manager Forensic Mental Health, Program Manager Homeless Program, Chief of Homeless Services Homeless Program, Supportive Housing Manager Alcohol and Other Drug Services, Program Manager County Administrator’s Office Senior Deputy County Administrator Senior Deputy County Administrator Detention Health Services Health Services Administrator District Attorney’s Office Senior Deputy District Attorney Deputy District Attorney Arraignment Court Attorney Revocation Attorney Office of the Public Defender Chief Public Defender Supervising Attorney Page 108 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 7 Arraignment Court Attorney Reentry Coordinator Probation Department AB 109 Unit Supervisor Assistant Chief Probation Officer AB 109 Unit Probation Officers (4) Sheriff’s Office Captain, Custody Bureau Assistant Sheriff AB 109 Administrative Services Assistant Deputy Officer, Classification Unit Workforce Development Board Executive Director Business Services Representative Table 3: Quantitative Data Sources Department Data Sources Behavioral Health Services Forensic Mental Health Client Log Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Alcohol and Other Drug PSP Billing System Contra Costa County Superior Court Court Database Detention Health Services Electronic Health Records (EHR) Database Office of the Public Defender Case Management System Probation Department AB 109 Access Database Pretrial Services Access Database Sheriff’s Office AB 109 Inmate Excel Tracking Workbook Limitations There are a few important limitations to take into account when reviewing the findings presented in this report. First, the performance measures RDA developed with the County for the AB 109 Department performance reviews were not established prior to this endeavor. Despite not having concrete and specific performance measures in place, County Departments were performing activities in accordance with the AB 109 Operational Plan, and RDA vetted performance measures with each County Department to corroborate the department-specific and countywide AB 109 performance measures that are used to frame our findings. Second, because different County Departments have variously defined roles in AB 109 implementation, there is no standardized benchmark for measuring department performance. As a Page 109 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 8 result, as noted above we measure department-specific performance around AB 109 implementation according to agreed upon measures that reflect department-specific and countywide goals outlined in the AB 109 Operational Plan. This allows us to maintain focus on the extent to which County Departments are able to engage in activities that help the County achieve the goals outlined in this Plan. Finally, Contra Costa County’s AB 109 infrastructure has evolved significantly over the past four years, and continued to evolve during the evaluation period, making it difficult to delineate a discrete timeframe for the evaluation to address. As a result, the data we collected covers periods for which AB 109 implementation had been adopted to varying degrees. Nevertheless, because our evaluation team conducted key informant interviews with representatives from each County Department in November and December of 2015, recent Department developments related to AB 109 performance measures were likely reported on by our participants and reflected in our findings. Organization of the Report The report begins with an overview of key evaluation findings across Contra Costa County AB 109 partners departments in each of the four domains identified for this analysis—direct services, communication and coordination, data capacity, and training—followed by a series of cross-system recommendations. These cross system findings and recommendations are followed by department- specific findings and recommendations for the eight departments include in this evaluation. These departments, listed in alphabetical order, are: • Behavioral Health Services • County Administrator’s Office • Detention Health Services • District Attorney’s Office • Office of the Public Defender • Probation Department • Sheriff’s Office • Workforce Development Board Each department section begins with a brief overview of that department’s role in the County’s AB 109 system, as well as an overview of the department’s AB 109 budget allocation for fiscal years 2013/14 and 2014/15. While this evaluation is not an audit or an assessment of each department’s fiscal operations, these budget details are included to provide some context related to that department’s scope of responsibilities for AB 109. These department overviews are followed by department-specific findings in each of the four domains discussed above. Finally, each department section concludes with a set of recommendations to support improved AB 109 operations. A summary of all recommendations is provided in Appendix B. Page 110 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 9 A Note on Abbreviations and Acronyms Due to the number of departments and programs included in this evaluation and the multiplicity of services provided therein, there are many abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the report. The first time an abbreviation or acronym is used it is spelled out to ensure that the reader understands what it refers to. For additional reference, Appendix A provides a list of all abbreviations and acronyms used in this report. Page 111 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 10 Cross System Findings Direct Services Across County Departments, there has been an increased use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and best practices across domains including community corrections, sentencing, and more. Both the State’s AB 109 legislation and Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Operational Plan explicitly call for the use of EBPs as part of AB 109 implementation. Contra Costa County has made huge strides toward this end, using a number of EBPs within and across departments. A number of County Departments either implement or support the implementation of cognitive behavioral programming, with both Probation and Behavioral Health Services (BHS) using cognitive behavioral approaches, and the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) supporting community based organizations’ (CBO) use of cognitive behavioral programming in some CBO service contracts. The Probation Department also uses the validated Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) tool to determine appropriate levels of supervision based on risk to reoffend and, to a lesser extent, to inform service referrals. In addition, Probation uses a graduated response approach to supervision violations, including using flash incarcerations of Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) clients to reduce the likelihood of supervision revocations. Several departments, including the Office of the Public Defender, the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation Department, have worked together to implement the Pretrial Services (PTS) program, using the evidence-based Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), a modified version of which is currently being validated for Contra Costa County’s local population. Table 4. Evidence Based Practices Used across Contra Costa County’s AB 109 System Evidence Based Practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) Dialectical Behavioral Therapy Graduated Response to Supervision Infractions Motivational Interviewing Thinking for Change (T4C) Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) Thinking for a Change (T4C) Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP Page 112 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 11 Contra Costa County has also consistently increased the use of split sentences, over the 4+ years since AB 109 began. The use of split sentencing, while not a research-established EBP, is increasingly recognized as a best practice in sentencing because of the importance of community supervision in linking formerly incarcerated individuals to services in the community. Figure 1: AB 109 Sentences (Split, Jail Only, and Supervision Only), by Quarter AB 109 clients overwhelmingly report positive experiences with the post-release system of care. Focus groups with clients under AB 109 supervision for this report as well as for several past reports have almost unanimously indicated positive experiences with the County’s post-release AB 109 reentry system. AB 109 clients, most of whom have previous experience under probation and/or parole supervision, repeatedly noted that AB 109 supervision is substantively different from past community supervision experiences in a way that clearly aligns with the County’s AB 109 objectives as well as the language in the AB 109 and associated legislation. In particular, clients spoke about positive and supportive relationships with Probation Officers, as well as with BHS staff, BHS providers, and AB 109 contracted service providers. In addition, clients reported appreciating the tangible supports they were accessing through AB 109 service referrals, including supports for behavioral health, housing, jobs, and legal assistance. There is limited continuity between in-custody and community-based services as well as little-to-no coordinated pre-release planning. Despite impressive progress in the post-release system of care, there has been less progress toward establishing a true custody-to-community continuum of care and comprehensive pre-release planning. Because individuals are not assessed for criminogenic risk and need factors upon entry to custody, there is no process by which to ensure that they receive in-custody programs and services that are aligned 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Percent of AB 109 Sentences Supervision Only Jail Only Split Sentences Data Source: Office of the Public Defender Page 113 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 12 with their criminogenic risks and needs or with the programs and services they may receive upon release. Some of the County’s pre-AB 109 service infrastructure does support a continuum of care; for example, the education programs run by the County Department of Education use the same entry assessments and curricula as the County’s non-custodial adult education programs to ease inmates’ transition into school upon release. In addition, the Department of Education has a transition specialist available to help inmates enroll in school upon release. That said, there has been no comprehensive effort to align in-custody services with inmate needs or best practices in custodial program and services. In addition, pre-release planning is conducted almost exclusively by the Probation Department, which sends a Deputy Probation Officer to meet with AB 109 inmates prior to release to administer the CAIS assessment and assign a supervisory Probation Officer. There is limited participation by other AB 109 partners in this effort, despite the potential value of their participation. For example, Detention Health Services (DHS) currently provides a two-week supply of medication for individuals with chronic health or mental health issues only if those individuals know their release date and reach out to make the request. Establishing a formal, collaborative pre-release planning process could standardize this practices for all inmates with medication needs. Communication and Coordination Over the 4+ years since AB 109 started, Contra Costa County has built a more collaborative criminal justice and reentry system than previously existed. As the discussion above demonstrates, over the past four years, Contra Costa County has built a collaborative reentry system that is much more robust and coordinated than what existed before. Although Probation Officers report always having encouraged clients’ service participation, the availability of funding for community-based services has clearly increased the extent to which community supervision occurs alongside community services. In addition, Probation and BHS both report increased coordination and collaboration. The PTS program and Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) also indicate that increased communication and coordination are not limited to community supervision, but occur at numerous junctures across the County criminal justice system, including during the adjudication processes. Despite enormous progress toward building a countywide reentry system, there are opportunities for additional coordination and collaboration. Despite the impressive progress Contra Costa County has made, there are opportunities for additional collaborative endeavors to meet the County’s stated AB 109 objectives and to support improved client outcomes. As noted above, pre-release planning is limited and does not usually involve collaboration between a multidisciplinary group of relevant partners, such as DHS, BHS, and CBOs. Given the high Page 114 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 13 volume of in-custody programs operated by the County Department of Education, they might also be an important partner for pre-release planning. There are also opportunities for greater collaboration between AB 109 partner departments post- release. Of all departments included in this report, Workforce Development Board (WDB) appears to be the least integrated into the reentry system, despite the importance of employment for clients’ success. Although WDB provides a range of services that could be of use for AB 109 clients, other AB 109 partner departments—and thus AB 109 clients—did not demonstrate an awareness of these services, indicating an opportunity for greater collaboration and coordination. In addition, over the past two and a half years, RDA’s evaluations have found that a number of behavioral health clients engage in services through self-referral or other non-AB 109 referral mechanisms, which indicates an opportunity for the Probation Department and BHS to work together to improve their processes for identifying, referring, and engaging clients with behavioral health needs. There is some divergence about the relationship between countywide AB 109 goals and department- level AB 109 goals. Almost all Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) members interviewed for this report noted that the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan, which was approved in November 2012, may no longer be the most appropriate guiding document for countywide or department-specific AB 109 operations. Both within and between departments, the County’s AB 109 operations have evolved enormously in the last three years, which likely makes some of the County’s objectives in the Operational Plan less relevant. Data Capacity The County has developed multiple systems and processes for collecting and reviewing AB 109 data on a regular basis. Since the start of AB 109, the County has developed a number of different systems and processes for collecting and reporting a wide range of AB 109-related data. The implementation of the ServicePoint data system for AB 109-funded CBOs with limited data capacity has been critical for the County’s understanding of the service delivery infrastructure. In addition, new electronic case management systems (CMS) have been developed or are in the development process across multiple AB 109 partner agencies, including the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, and the Office of the Public Defender. Although these systems will take time for full implementation, they are a critical step toward countywide capacity of AB 109 data collection and reporting. Processes such as the Quarterly Reports from all AB 109-funded departments and CBOs have also supported the County’s data collection goals, creating a mechanism for ongoing reporting of AB 109 related activities and establishing a standard of regular data collection and reporting. These reporting processes have also been revised and refined based on department feedback, although processes for Page 115 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 14 reviewing these reports and providing feedback to the departments and providers who submit them on an ongoing basis have yet to be developed. Many departments still lack sufficient data capacity. Although the County has made progress toward implementing data collection and reporting processes, because of delays in data system implementation or procurement, or because of limitations to preexisting data systems, several partner departments lack sufficient capacity to collect and report important data on AB 109 and AB 109 individuals. The Sheriff’s Office outdated jail management system (JMS) is a major barrier to assessing the impact of AB 109 on the County’s custodial population, despite clear efforts by the Sheriff’s Office to manually track data on AB 109 clients. The WDB’s statewide CalJobs Information System also does not allow for the tracking of AB 109 clients. Training Almost all departments have participated in trainings related to increasing their capacity to implement their AB 109-related operations. Different County departments have widely varying training needs related to AB 109. For the Office of the Public Defender and the District Attorney’s Office, AB 109 has had a direct impact on what they do and how they do it, which has required training and education for their attorneys about how the new statutory environment impacts adjudicatory processes. Other departments, such as the Sheriff’s Office and DHS, have participated in less AB 109-specific training, largely because the work they do has changed less as a result of AB 109. Nonetheless, almost all departments have demonstrated a commitment to understanding the impact of AB 109 on their operations and on the County by participating in trainings, conferences, and other learning opportunities. Cross System Recommendations v Update the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan to reflect changes to the County’s AB 109 system and processes over the last several years. Updating the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan would also be an opportunity to revisit the County’s primary goals and objectives related to AB 109 and ensure that there is a common vision across AB 109 partners. v Establish greater continuity between in-custody and post-release supervision and services, including an in-custody needs assessment, comprehensive data collection on in-custody services, and more coordinated pre-release planning processes. This should include reviewing the programs and services available at each County Detention Facility to ensure their alignment with the criminogenic needs of the custodial population and with best practices in the field. Page 116 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 15 v Continue to build the County’s data infrastructure by implementing updated data systems for those departments with limited data capacity. The CAO is currently supporting an extensive planning and implementation process to update the data systems used by many criminal justice partners, including the District Attorney (DA), Office of the Public Defender (PD), and Probation Department. The DA’s system went live this year and the Probation Department’s system is now in the development phase, with the PD’s system slated to begin development when Probation’s has progressed further. As this process progresses and additional systems begin to come online, it will be important for the County to continue to engage in collaborative data review and planning processes to make sure that newly available data is being used to inform decision- making. In addition, those departments that are not included in this effort, including the Sheriff’s Office and BHS, should continue to upgrade their data systems and processes. v Increase eligibility criteria for the PTS program, so that more defendants can be screened for pretrial release. Data on the PTS program indicates that this effort is successfully reducing the County’s custodial pretrial, without negatively impacting public safety or court appearance rates. Given this success, the County should expand the eligibility criteria to allow screening of additional defendants. v Increase the County’s operational capacity for cross-department planning and implementation efforts. As the two primary positions that oversee cross-department AB 109-related efforts, the Senior Deputy County Administrator and the Reentry Coordinator support and/or facilitate a wide range of AB 109 operational efforts related to direct services, communication and coordination, data capacity, and training. As the County continues to build its AB 109 service and supervision systems and processes, it may be necessary to increase operational capacity for cross-system efforts. For example, there is already limited capacity for some cross-department data-related efforts, such as reviewing Quarterly Reports and maintaining web-based data dashboards. Over the next year or two, the County will also need to identify entities to oversee the development of Annual Reports, to support the implementation of evaluation recommendations, and to oversee the implementation of an updated AB 109 Operational Plan. Increasing operational capacity for cross-department planning and implementation though additional staff positions would go a long way toward supporting these efforts. Page 117 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 16 Behavioral Health Services Department Role in AB 109 Contra Costa County’s BHS provides and contracts a number of services in the County’s AB 109 continuum of care, integrating three programs: Forensic Mental Health (FMH), Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AOD), and the Homeless Program (HP). FMH is a program of the County’s Mental Health Services, providing comprehensive programs and crisis services for AB 109 clients with mental health needs. AOD provides outpatient and residential treatment services to the AB 109 population. The County’s HP links AB 109 clients with emergency shelter and housing placement services to provide the stability that enables them to launch a successful reentry into the community. Although FMS, AOD, and HP are all part of the larger Behavioral Health Division, they have somewhat distinct regulations, operations, including decision-making processes and data system. Below, we provide a brief overview of BHS Department-wide findings, followed by more detailed discussions of each of the three programs. The table below provides an overview of this department’s AB 109 funding for fiscal years 2013/14 and 2014/15. Table 5. Behavioral Health Services Division AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits $716,083 $725,011 Operating Costs $127,000 $120,524 Contracts $1,391,775 $1,388,880 Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance $9,018 $ 9,018 Total AB 109 Budget $2,243,876 $ 2,243,433 BHS Department-wide Findings BHS has established procedures and protocols to coordinate care plans for AB 109 clients with other County departments and community-based providers, but does not have a coordinated data system to enable cross-division data sharing, care coordination, and reporting on client outcomes. BHS has established internal meetings with leadership from all divisions to plan and communicate regarding client cases. In addition, all BHS divisions coordinate with Probation to participate in case conferences that include the full range of AB 109 service providers. However, differing confidentiality requirements regarding substance abuse diagnoses, mental health care, and physical health status have impeded BHS’s ability to integrate data systems to report holistically on client needs and outcomes. Although care managers from each division coordinate case plans for AB 109 clients with dual diagnoses, each division maintains its own case files for the clients. To Page 118 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 17 date, BHS has not implemented a department wide waiver of confidentiality for clients who are willing to have their data shared either within or outside of the department, although doing so could increase care coordination. The lack of coordinated pre-release case planning interferes with BHS’ ability to support the County’s objective to develop an integrated AB 109 custody-to-community continuum of care. Because the County does not have a centralized approach to release, pre-release care plans for BHS clients are developed only infrequently and, even when developed, are often incomplete. Although AOD was able to successfully negotiate pre-release contact to assess AB 109 clients for treatment needs, FMH relies upon referrals from Probation to conduct in-custody mental health assessments. HP did not report evaluating AB 109 clients for housing needs pre-release. These elements of a client’s reentry plan occur after the client leaves custody. In addition, existing delays between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation, and FMH regarding a client’s release date interrupts the seamless delivery of reentry services and destabilizes a key moment in an AB 109 client’s reentry. “This is the problem: if you don’t have comprehensive pre-release planning you are always scrambling. And that is the current standard.” – BHS staff As such, staff observed that the vast majority of contact with AB 109 clients occurs post-release. Findings: Forensic Mental Health Direct Services In accordance with the County’s goal to provide access to a full continuum of reentry services, FMH expanded mental health services during AB 109 implementation to meet the needs of AB 109 individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. FMH provides services to AB 109 individuals who require mental health care to support their successful reintegration into the community, including outreach, engagement, case management, and referral to community-based mental health providers. During the County’s implementation of AB 109, FMH added staff to support the increased care needs of the justice-involved population. In addition, FMH provides health care navigation to assist AB 109 clients with accessing a comprehensive range of health services provided by the County. FMH staff screen clients for Medi-Cal enrollment and FMH service eligibility, and, if needed, connect the client to the outpatient provider network, County primary care physicians, or other community-based organizations providing services to the AB 109 population. In line with the Board of Supervisors’ AB 109 objective to further the use of evidence-based recovery practices, staff report utilizing the validated Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) to help consumers plan for their mental health stability, substance abuse, and healthy interactions with others. Mental Page 119 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 18 health providers also employ Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, motivational interviewing, and various cognitive behavioral therapy approaches with AB 109 clients. “Here [FMH] they have been great. They provided me transportation to appointments. At one point we were working on a WRAP plan. A few weeks before I was leaving the Farm [March Creek Detention Facility] one of the people that came to me was my forensic case worker. In the first two weeks they gave me all of the contacts to people I would need to talk to. They even picked me up from the BART station and I have been here ever since. They have referred me to everything and taken me to all of my appointments and I can’t complain about that at all.” – AB 109 FMH Client The perception of mental health stigmatization can prevent AB 109 clients from seeking out needed services, limiting FMH’s ability to facilitate access to the County’s AB 109 continuum of care. Because mental health services are voluntary, an individual’s readiness and desire to change is a major indicator of success in mental health treatment. A probation officer can refer an AB 109 individual to FMH services, but the client must affirmatively seek out the service. Because of this, FMH staff indicated that fear of stigmatization, as well as other underlying issues such as substance abuse, can prevent clients from engaging in mental health services consistently and continuously. Additionally, several AB 109 clients noted that they do not want to acknowledge having mental health diagnoses while in custody at the County’s detention facilities, which in turn can reduce the likelihood that they will be referred for FMH upon release. As noted in the Sheriff’s Office section of this report, in focus groups with AB 109 clients, several respondents reported not seeking mental health services while in custody out of concern that they would be transferred to the most restrictive wing of Martinez Detention Facility (MDF), the County’s maximum-security jail facility, where they would have less access to the programs, services, and privileges available at the County’s other detention facilities. “When I got there I never told them that I took a pill because then they stress me out and that caused me to have a stroke while I was in the jail. I never tell them I have mental health and I take a pill. I learned that if I say I have a problem they take you right away to Martinez.” – AB 109 client To the extent that this is the case, it impedes AB 109 partners from identifying clients in need of mental health services. In general, fear of stigma both in custody and in the community can be a barrier to delivering FMH services as part of the County’s AB 109 custody-to-community continuum of care, which is designed to help clients resolve the individual factors that lead to recidivism, prevent successful stabilization, and prevent positive reentry outcomes. Page 120 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 19 Communication and Coordination To the extent currently possible, FMH coordinates mental health care services with other County departments and community-based providers to promote the seamless delivery of wraparound services that further the County’s AB 109 objective to reduce recidivism by reducing barriers to successful reentry. If an AB 109 client has identified mental health needs and has already established contact with FMH, the program’s staff can coordinate with Probation to establish a release date, when available from the Sheriff, and coordinate pre-release care plans. Staff coordinate two weeks of take-home medication with DHS to ensure no post-release break in psychotropic medications, and with Probation to ensure the client has an appointment with a mental health service provider, as well as with AODS if the client has a dual diagnosis. However, staff report that the vast majority of contact with AB 109 clients occurs post- release. Toward this end, FMH participates in monthly case conferences for high-needs clients and maintains hours at Probation to ensure adequate and regular case coordination with other AB 109 providers. Like other Behavioral Health services, FMH coordinates client care through an initial referral from Probation. However, if a community-based provider identifies a client with potential psychiatric need, the CBO can contact FMH, who can then request the referral from Probation. AB 109 hastened the need to emphasize risk assessment for the increased justice-involved mental health consumer population. In line with the Board’s AB 109 Operational Plan goal to protect client and staff safety, FMH collaborated with the Sheriff’s Office to establish safety plans and protocols to respond to mental health crises and possible violent outbursts in custody. The lack of coordinated pre-release case planning limits FMH’s ability to coordinate transition plans for clients with serious mental illness. Because FMH services are voluntary, clients opt-in to FMH contact, assessment, and treatment. If the client does not initiate first contact, there are no existing mechanisms to screen AB 109 clients for mental health needs or connect them with a FMH case manager. Along these lines, FMH staff emphasized that the “toughest part [to coordinating care] is the release date.” Staff from multiple County departments observed that the Sheriff may release AB 109 clients after hours, limiting the client’s ability to seek emergency services. As noted above, the County’s lack of a centralized approach to release, and the lack of information regarding release dates can lead to chaos and disruptions in care for FMH clients. Page 121 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 20 Data Capacity FMH does not have the capacity to comprehensively track client data or share information with other Behavioral Health divisions, limiting its ability to coordinate with County departments and community-based providers within the County’s AB 109 continuum of care and to report on client outcomes. Although the Mental Health Program uses the PSP data system to track client diagnoses and services, FMH has also created an Excel-based tracking log to monitor AB 109 client services and progresses. Although these worksheets make it easy for FMH staff to track AB 109 clients in a discrete place, they do preclude more extensive data querying or data analysis. In addition, concerns about legal statutes (such as HIPPA & 42 CFR) preclude AOD and FMH from sharing client data with the Homeless Program or other CBOs, although this data could be shared if the program received client consent via a signed waiver. Training FMH has supported an integrated AB 109 continuum of care by conducting and attending trainings on the mental health-related criminogenic factors that lead to recidivism. FMH has conducted trainings for Probation and other County departments on Trauma Informed Care, de- escalation of violence, risk assessment, safety planning, and motivational interviewing. FMH staff have also attended trainings on criminogenic risk factors to increase their expertise for working with reentry populations. Findings: Alcohol and Other Drug Services Direct Services In order to provide quality AODS services as part of the County’s AB 109 continuum of care, AODS adapted its service model during AB 109 implementation to meet the population’s unique needs. Before AB 109, AODS-contracted service providers discharged clients rapidly for small rules infractions. When AODS staff recognized many AB 109 clients were being discharged early for this type of infractions and, thus not receiving sufficient services, AODS staff worked with treatment providers to change their internal policies and procedures to meet the needs of this difficult-to-engage population. AODS also provided utilization review to reveal the increased need for intensive case management for those individuals with severe acuity and chronic relapsing conditions, and consequently diverted funding to contractors to provide that service for the highest-needs AB 109 individuals. AODS added a substance abuse counselor to the staff team to provide mobile case management for AB 109 clients and care coordination. Staff convey that within 72 hours of receiving a referral and the Page 122 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 21 coordinator screens incarcerated AB 109 individuals at the detention facility to reduce or eliminate waiting periods for treatment upon release. The AODS coordinator schedules on-site dates with CBOs so clients can access AODS screenings and services where they already are. The coordinator also serves as a liaison between AB 109 clients and other community services, providing referrals to HP, FMH, and other CBOs, or assisting with necessary paperwork and identification. Though AODS does not currently include EBPs in their contracts with service providers, both staff and CBOs utilize motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, and the matrix model. AODS is currently working on a planning process that includes adjustments to the contracting model that will mandate the use of EBPs in client service delivery. As is true for other Behavioral Health divisions, individual readiness for change is a determining factor in an individual’s AODS success. “Another barrier is clients that don’t want to come down and refusing the screening. There has been a lot of that. They didn’t volunteer for a referral—Probation or the Court insisted on treatment—but they are not motivated.” – AODS staff Internal to AODS, leadership initiated a coordinated AB 109 AODS provider meeting to collaborate and troubleshoot client issues. It also serves as an opportunity to disseminate information regarding reporting procedures and other AB 109 requirements. 0 1 6 8 6 11 26 18 22 17 38 30 39 17 22 24 5 13 19 5 13 20 13 16 23 28 25 26 37 29 27 14 0 10 20 30 40 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 Number of AB 109 Clients Pre-release Assessments Post-release Assessments Figure 2: AB 109 Clients Assessed for AODS Needs Pre- and Post-release, by Quarter Data Source: Alcohol and Other Drug Services Page 123 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 22 Communication and Coordination AODS has effectively coordinated services with other County departments and community-based providers to promote the seamless delivery of custody-to-community services that further the County’s AB 109 objective to reduce recidivism by reducing barriers to successful reentry. AODS staff have cooperated with the Sheriff’s Office to gain entry to all three detention facilities to be able to coordinate face-to-face contact with incarcerated AB 109 individuals who report substance abuse or seek treatment. These in-person connections build client rapport before release, increasing a client’s receptiveness to treatment, and thus leading to more successful AODS outcomes. Several AB 109 clients affirmed positive relationships developed with the AODS coordinator while still in jail, and described the provider’s help successfully linking them with AODS treatment directly from jail. As shown in Figure 2, AODS has screened roughly equal numbers of pre-release AB 109 clients (averaging 18 per quarter) and post-release AB 109 clients (averaging 20 per quarter) for AODS need. In addition to in-person screenings, AODS staff participate in the monthly regional case conferences with the East and Central Network and the West County Reentry Center and have a standing on-site day with FMH to ensure the coordination of care within the Behavioral Health Division. AODS staff expressed a desire to have better communication with HP so they can know when a client is exhibiting substance abuse behaviors prior to the shelter dismissing the client. Data Capacity AOD utilizes technology to comprehensively track and report on client data and outcomes, but confidentiality requirements limit the ability to coordinate with County departments and community- based providers within the County’s AB 109 continuum of care and report on client outcomes. Although AB 109 did not provide the funds for AODS to implement ServicePoint, they decided to implement the technology after seeing the benefit to tracking unique and returning clients and referrals. Unlike the CBOs, AODS cannot share client information with other CBOs or County departments due to stringent confidentiality requirements surrounding substance abuse. Training AODS has supported an integrated AB 109 continuum of care by conducting and attending trainings on behavioral health-related topics including client confidentiality, specialty populations, and de- escalation. Because AODS clients are protected by more stringent confidentiality requirements, staff have attended trainings on confidentiality of client information conducted by UCLA. Staff also attended trainings on trauma-informed care and invited all the AODS community providers to attend. Page 124 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 23 Findings: Homeless Program Direct Services Although temporary and permanent housing resources are limited, the County’s HP connects AB 109 clients to available emergency housing shelters and the supportive housing programs that assist clients with obtaining the stable environment that will enable successful community reentry. HP has received on average, 18 unique client referrals per quarter for an emergency shelter since the beginning of AB 109 implementation in the County. Unfortunately, staff predict that while housing provides stability to AB 109 clients and alleviates criminogenic factors that can lead to recidivism, these referrals do not meet the emergency or permanent housing needs for the AB 109 population. County- wide housing resources are scarce, market competition is increasing, and AB 109 client legal or credit histories become huge barriers. Housing is a critical issue for many AB 109 clients, but the County does not currently have the housing resources to meet the demand. Figure 3: Number of AB 109 Shelter Referrals and Clients Served, with Average Number of Quarterly Bednights per Client, by Quarter Regarding the use of EBPs, the HP’s approach to client care focuses on harm reduction, trauma- informed care, and motivational interviewing to ensure the services meet the individual needs of each AB 109 client. Data Source: Homeless Program 17 17 25 33 32 30 33 43 48 41 37 33 30 19 15 21 40 53 40 43 46 42 50 36 33 36 26 40 45 48 39 29 0 10 20 30 40 50 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 Average Number of Bednights Per AB 109 Client Number of AB 109 Clients Unduplicated AB 109 Clients Served by Homeless Programs Page 125 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 24 Communication and Coordination The HP coordinates with other BHS divisions and contracted CBOs to coordinate care plans for high- needs clients, but due to low client utilization of emergency shelter services, X have participated less at the case conference meetings hosted by Probation. HP staff report participating in the weekly BHS meetings to go through each client’s needs and care plans, and coordinate with Mental Health, AODS, and community-based providers working with a particular AB 109 client. HP staff have been less likely to participate in case conferencing with Probation than have staff from FMS or AODS, although fewer AB 109 clients appear to use the County’s shelter services than FMH and AODS services. Data Capacity The HP utilizes the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to track clients and coordinate data with community homeless providers, but the lack of an integrated enterprise data warehouse prevents HP from tracking AB 109 clients that receive services from multiple County departments and other BHS divisions. When HP staff make contact with a client, they enter that individual’s information into HMIS, and case managers consistently monitor and update client data. Staff conduct an exit assessment to capture client outcomes, which enables HP to report on AB 109 client outcomes in the quarterly reports. HP has also supported countywide data capacity by promoting the use of HMIS by AB 109-contracted CBOs, including developing reports and providing technical assistance. Data sharing continues to be a main barrier with other BHS divisions. Staff throughout BHS reported that BHS leadership are currently working on a universal release, but that has not yet been implemented. Confidentiality requirements with FMH and AODS are more stringent than with Homeless Services. HP staff indicated a desire to look more deeply at cross-system client case management and data sharing. Training The Homeless Program has supported an integrated AB 109 continuum of care by conducting and attending trainings on behavioral health factors including trauma-informed care, crisis intervention, and de-escalation. Although Homeless Program staff do not report attending AB 109-specific trainings, they regularly attend a range of trainings on issues of relevance for AB 109 clients, such as trauma, crisis intervention, and de-escalation. Page 126 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 25 Recommendations v Work with the Sheriff’s Office, Detention Health Services, and the Probation Department to develop a collaborative pre-release planning process. This should include the development of protocols regarding communication to partners related to inmates’ impending release dates, clear roles and responsibilities for different departments, timeframes for planning, and protocols for linking clients to post-release services and supports. v Implement a universal information-sharing waiver for clients so that the three divisions can begin to coordinate more efficiently regarding client cases and outcomes. Despite robust data systems in AOD and Homeless Program and consistent data collection by Forensic Mental Health, the department struggles with internal data sharing, which limits the efficacy of client care planning. Page 127 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 26 County Administrator’s Office Department Role in AB 109 The County Administrator’s Office functions within Contra Costa County’s AB 109 implementation to coordinate, communicate, administer, and oversee execution of the directives of the County’s Board of Supervisors. The CAO provides staffing for the County’s AB 109-related committees including the Community Corrections Partnership and the Public Protection Committee (PPC), and also provides representation at the CCP’s Quality Assurance Committee and Community Advisory Board meetings, including the CAB’s Data and Evaluation Subcommittee (DEC). Their role is to provide administrative and oversight functions to ensure the County implements the goals and objectives of the Board of Supervisors, as well as to provide a conduit from AB 109 partners to the Board. (As a part of these functions, the CAO also holds the contract with RDA for this and previous evaluation efforts.) Table 6. County Administrator’s Office AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits $252,000 $225,000 Data Collection/Program Overview $198,000 $225,000 Total AB 109 Budget $450,000 $450,000 Findings Direct Services As the administrator of the Board’s AB 109 directives, the CAO supports the County’s custody-to- community continuum of care by contracting with and overseeing community-based organizations (CBOs) that provide direct services to the AB 109 population. To learn and adopt best practices in contracting for the direct provision of services to the reentry population, the CAO conducted benchmarking research from other counties across California to develop an RFP process and contracting language. Through this process, the CAO facilitates the County’s identification of appropriate organizations to support the County’s custody-to-community continuum of care. They also work with the Reentry Coordinator to coordinate communication between CBOs and the various County departments involved in AB 109. The CAO has helped the County achieve its objective of increasing the use of EBPs in service provision by assessing providers’ knowledge of EBPs and incorporating their use into service contracts. The County’s AB 109 Operational Plan outlines several goals that refer to the use of evidence-based practices within reentry services. Because the document represents the Board’s AB 109 objectives, in early phases of AB 109 CAO staff spoke with providers to assess their awareness of various EBPs. Subsequent to this early assessment, in following contract years the CAO incorporated the utilization of Page 128 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 27 EBPs in some contracts with CBOs, such as the Insight Prison Project curriculum with Men and Women of Purpose and Cognitive Behavior (CB) workshops with Goodwill Industries. Despite these efforts, the majority of provider contracts do not mandate the use of EBPs. Communication and Coordination By staffing Contra Costa County’s AB 109-related committees, the CAO facilitates communication and coordination between County departments, CBOs, legislative staff, and the Board of Supervisors to further the County’s AB 109 implementation goals. In partnership with the CCP, the CAO established meeting protocols and schedules, develops agendas on an ongoing basis, and provides committee members with all required documents and materials. Since the start of AB 109, CAO staff have also facilitated a quarterly administrative meeting to follow up on the implementation of AB 109 directives and to discuss system-wide issues, policies, practices, and programming with key staff from County departments and CBOs. Additionally, the County Administrator maintains regular communication with the County’s AB 109 partners through daily email distribution of AB 109 and general public safety clippings in policy, legislation, and politics. With contracted providers, the County Administrator and the Reentry Coordinator have established both formal and informal check-in processes to develop service plans and iron out contract specifics as needed. Although the CAO has served as an important conduit between the Board of Supervisors, the PPC, and the CCP, CCP-member departments indicate a need to revisit and update some of the County’s guiding documents related to AB 109 implementation and operations. The CAO has played a direct and engaged role in facilitating alignment between the Board of Supervisors, the PPC, and the CCP in the implementation of the County’s AB 109 policies, processes, and systems. For example, when the PPC revised the service receipt criteria for AB 109-funded services to allow all formerly incarcerated Contra Costa County residents to enroll in these services, the CAO took the lead in overseeing the implementation of this directive. The CAO worked with the CCP and the Reentry Coordinator to develop policies and processes that allowed non-AB 109 reentry clients to engage in these services, while still prioritizing the needs of AB 109 individuals; the CAO also worked with partners, including CBOs to ensure that data collection mechanisms were in place to differentiate between services provided to AB 109 clients and those provided to other formerly incarcerated individuals to ensure the County’s ability to track AB 109 implementation. Despite these efforts, interviews with CCP members indicated a lack of clarity regarding the County’s AB 109-related priorities, now that the legislation has been in effect for several years and the County has a better understanding of how the local public safety landscape has changed as a result. In discussing department-level AB 109 goals and objectives for this report, several CCP members expressed concern that the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan is no longer an appropriate document by which to assess Page 129 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 28 their performance, given that the Operational Plan is now three years old and the County’s AB 109 infrastructure has evolved significantly since its adoption in November 2012. Data Capacity The CAO has expanded the County’s AB 109 system-wide data capacity by supporting the implementation of the ServicePoint data system. The CAO has played an essential role in building the data capacity of AB 109 contracted CBOs, as well as of the County’s AB 109 data infrastructure more generally though the adoption of ServicePoint, a human-service-oriented data management system that was previously used only by the County’s Homeless Service Program as their Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The CAO supported a series of database demonstrations from database providers to give County partners the opportunity to see and give input on different database options. Once the County identified ServicePoint as the most appropriate database for AB 109 providers, the CAO supported the adoption and implementation of this system, working with the CCP to identify and allocate funding for licenses, planning, and training. As the contract administrator, the CAO has required CBOs that do not have a data management system to utilize ServicePoint through contract stipulations, and has provided extensive training to these providers to build up their capacity to use the system effectively. CAO staff collaborated with County AB 109 justice partners to identify, test, and plan for updated data systems to improve the criminal justice system’s data capacity, including tracking and reporting on AB 109 cases and outcomes; however full data system integration has been slow and key departments, such as the Sheriff’s Office, still lack a clear plan for implementing a data management system. As part of the County’s efforts to replace the outdated mainframe data system used by the Superior Court, DA, PD, and Probation Department, the CAO engaged in an extensive planning process to identify data system vendors and allocated funds for each department to implement the selected system. As part of a this planning process, the County agreed on a phased approach, whereby the DA is first implementing it CMS, followed by the Probation Department, and then the PD. Although the extensive planning and phased approach make sense for an extensive multi-department process like this one, it has also made for a lengthy process. At the time of this report only the DA had implemented a case management system and they are still not fully utilizing its capabilities, with DA staff reporting that they are still learning what their system is and how to use it. On the other hand, the Office of the Public Defender is eager to implement a defense case management system but do not report currently knowing the timeline for implementation, since their implementation will not begin until the Probation Department’s system is further along in implementation. The CAO aims to have a robust data infrastructure five to ten years down the road. To achieve that, all justice partners will need to implement and adopt integrated data systems, and the CAO will need to help coordinate data sharing protocols and processes between departments. Page 130 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 29 In addition, because the Sheriff’s Office has always maintained a separate Jail Management System (JMS) outside of the County mainframe system, they were have not been involved in the current modernization efforts. Although this may allow the Sheriff’s Office to identify a more tailored data system for their unique needs, in the meantime it does contribute to cumbersome and lengthy information sharing processes and duplication and error in data entry. Both of these present barriers to case coordination for AB 109 clients. Completing the foundation of departmental data systems will enable the County to more fully track client outcomes, refine and expedite collaboration processes, adjudicate all cases more quickly, and more successfully deliver services for an integrated custody-to- community continuum-of-care for the AB 109 population. In partnership with the CCP, the DEC, and the QAC, the CAO has implemented a number of processes and mechanisms by which to collect and review data on AB 109 implementation and impact. The County Administrator’s Office has overseen the implementation of a number of different data collection and reporting mechanisms, including the Quarterly Reports and a series of evaluation reports. The quarterly reporting process, which requires all CBOs and County departments that receive AB 109 funding, to report on client services, as well as broader issues including successes, challenges, and collaboration is designed to provide ongoing information on the implementation of AB 109-activities to ensure contract compliance and to inform county-wide decision making. Following concerns from County Departments and CBOs about the clarity of some of the questions on the Quarterly Reports, the CAO facilitated two processes to help refine them, first meeting with each County Department to help tailor their reports and then incorporating a review and refinement of the reports into RDA’s contract. Together, these activities have helped refine and clarify the Quarterly Reports, making them easier to complete and more tailored to different departments and CBOs. The CAO has also leveraged its contract with RDA to implement a number of different data collection and reporting processes, including evaluating CBO performance, analyzing AB 109 client recidivism, developing an Annual Report, and conducting this review of County departments. The biggest data gap in the CAO’s oversight of County AB 109 data reporting processes appears to be continuing uncertainty regarding a review process for the Quarterly Reports. RDA conducted a review and assessment of previously completed Quarterly Reports, there is yet not a clear process for reviewing these reports on an ongoing basis, although the QAC is in the process of developing one. In the meantime, both County Departments and CBOs have expressed frustration about dedicating a significant amount of time to completing the reports on a regular basis, but not having a clear understanding of whether and how they are being used. Training The CAO supports the County’s goal to increase professional training for AB 109 partners by advocating for funds to be allocated to education and training for partner departments, the QAC, and CBOs. Page 131 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 30 CAO staff report notifying County departments about training opportunities as they arise. Office staff suggest that a regional or County-wide convening of cities to talk through criminal justice reform issues, including AB 109, would benefit the County and the region or the County. Recommendations Because of its administrative role in AB 109 programming, the County Administrator’s Office has the unique opportunity to enhance existing practices and conduct new activities to further the County’s AB 109-related objectives: v Use the request for proposal (RFP) and contracting process to increase the use of EBPs by CBOs. Although some AB 109 contracted CBOs use EBPs, writing EBPs into service contracts could encourage their use more widely. Because some CBOs may not have training in EBPs, the CAO might consider leveraging available training funding to promote greater knowledge about EBPs among service providers. v Continue to support ongoing AB 109-related trainings throughout the County by centralizing administration and coordination of AB 109-related trainings. This can be accomplished by creating a protocol for community-based providers and County departments to communicate AB 109-related trainings to CAO staff, who could then outreach to the entire reentry system for greater participation and attendance. v Continue to support and enhance existing data collection and monitoring activities throughout all AB-109 related departments and providers, and system-wide, in order to refine County reentry services and supports. The office can encourage the CCP to assign review of the quarterly reports to the QAC so the committee can provide budgetary recommendations. If CBOs and County departments struggle to provide complete and accurate data through ServicePoint, the CAO should continue to provide technical assistance and additional training to both CBOs and departments to improve overall system-wide data collection and reporting. Additionally, the CAO should advocate for data systems implementation and upgrades for the Sherriff’s Office. v Engage in a comprehensive planning process to improve overall system coordination and provide for the regular updating of County-wide documents guiding AB 109 implementation, such as the Operational Plan. As AB 109 administration continues into the future, the County should emphasize continuous improvement and prioritize ongoing monitoring, planning, and evaluation. For example, the CAO can support County decision-making bodies to review and update these documents on a regular basis. Page 132 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 31 Detention Health Services Department Role in AB 109 Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services Department (DHS) is charged with providing a community standard of care to all inmates - including AB 109 inmates - housed at Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF), West County Detention Facility (WCDF), and Martinez Detention Facility (MDF). DHS provides the same services for all inmates, including AB 109 inmates. They are responsible for providing in-custody access to nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and psychiatrists who provide medical and mental health care for all AB 109 inmates. In addition, DHS supports the custody-to-community continuum of care by providing AB 109 inmates who request the following services at least two weeks prior to their release date with take home medications (two week supply), prescriptions, TB test results, Medi-Cal application assistance, medical records, and assistance scheduling outside appoints for inmates with chronic health conditions. Unlike some of the other County departments receiving AB 109 funding, the services that DHS provides to AB 109 clients do not differ from those services provided to any inmate. Table 7. Detention Health Services Division AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits - Family Nurse, WCD/MCD $180,324 $180,324 Salaries & Benefits - LVN, WCD $259,524 $283,376 Salaries & Benefits - RN, MCD $507,046 $475,004 Salaries & Benefits - MH Clinician, WCD/MCD $116,858 $116,858 Total AB 109 Budget $1,063,752 $1,055,562 Findings Direct Services DHS provides a comprehensive array of health services to inmates, including intake health screenings and multidisciplinary in-custody health services. Upon intake at Martinez Detention Facility, intake nurses conduct health screenings on each inmate and provide information to them on how to access in-custody health services. During each health screening, nurses assess the physical and mental health of AB 109 inmates to ensure that immediate needs are met right away and additional health needs are addressed throughout their incarcerations. After these initial health screenings, nurses connect with DHS staff to write necessary prescriptions for inmates with chronic medical issues as well as with a staffed psychiatrist to assist with making connections to mental health clinicians for individuals with verifiable mental health needs. Page 133 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 32 While in custody, AB 109 inmates have access to a multidisciplinary healthcare team including nurses, doctors, dentists, psychiatris, and mental health clinicians. The DHS Service Administrator noted that many AB 109 inmates (like many other incarcerated individuals) have little-to-no health care access— including mental health care or dental care—in the community prior to incarceration; thus for many AB 109 inmates, DHS meet a range of needs that were likely unmet for significant periods of time. Detention health service records, as shown in Table 8 below, support the notion that AB 109 inmates receive a high volume and diverse array of medical attention in custody. The data demonstrates that over the past 2+ years, AB 109 inmates have made over 13,000 total contacts with DHS services. Notably, a majority of contacts with the DHS healthcare team are with mental health clinicians who were seen over 4,000 times by AB 109 inmates since the start of fiscal year 13/14, comprising over half of all sick calls made by AB 109 inmates over this period. Table 8. Detention Health Services Provided to AB 109 Inmates FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 14/15* Total Intake Health Screenings 2,030 2,306 541 5,550 DHS Services Nursing 277 287 84 648 Medical Doctor 556 562 184 1,302 Dentist 373 349 89 811 Psychiatrist 378 422 90 890 Mental Health 934 770 204 1,908 Mental Health RN 1,221 1,009 229 2,459 Total Contacts with DHS 6,442 5,705 1,421 13,569 * Data available through 2015 Q1 and unavailable prior to FY 13/14 Despite a high number of DHS services received by AB 109 inmates, current and former AB 109 inmates reported difficulty accessing in-custody health services. AB 109 inmate and supervisee focus group respondents reported that they receive health screenings upon entering custody. Beyond intake health screenings, they suggested that it is difficult to access in- custody medical services. Many AB 109 inmates and supervisees expressed that they do not feel they are taken seriously when reporting medical issues to nursing staff. As a result, they often have to make numerous requests prior to receiving medical attention. Focus group participants also suggested that there are long waits for medical services, including over-the-counter or prescription medication, dental services, and surgical procedures. “I had a back injury...I called 15 times and they blew me off. The doctor came to see me and told me I needed a stronger dose and nothing happened. I couldn’t get anything until I could not move. Then they finally thought I wasn’t full of shit.” – AB 109 client Although DHS data could not verify wait times for various health services, recent DHS budget narratives and quarterly reports noted that DHS is having a difficult time finding and retaining qualified healthcare Page 134 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 33 staff and that the implementation of AB 109 has increased their workload, which may lead to a delay in access to services. Communication and Coordination The DHS Service Administrator provides a connection between the County’s health services and the Sheriff’s Office, working to deliver in-custody health services while maintaining the safety of inmates as well as healthcare and jail staff. DHS has always had a strong partnership with the Sheriff’s Office, working with them to provide transportation for inmates requiring off-site medical attention. Since AB 109 implementation, DHS has hired an additional mental health service provider to provide in-custody mental health services at MDF and WCDF. Individuals with mental health needs are not housed at MCDF because DHS does not support mental health service provision at MCDF. Additionally, in compliance with HIPPA regulations, DHS also works with Probation and community based organizations to help provide information about patients and/or verify medications. Despite an expressed interest in supporting the custody-to-community continuum of care, DHS is not currently involved in any pre-release transition planning. The DHS Service Administrator noted that his department does not participate in pre-release needs assessments and, because they are not notified about inmates’ releases in advance, they are not able to help plan for individual’s post release medication or other health needs. Although DHS can provide a two-week supply of medication, TB test results, Medi-Cal application assistance, medical records, and assistance scheduling outside appoints for inmates with chronic health conditions to any inmate prior to release, currently this only happens if an inmate knows his/her release data and makes a request to DHS. Unfortunately, few inmates are aware of and able to take advantage of these services. DHS noted the need to identify a multidisciplinary group, including individuals from County departments and CBOs, to help establish a transitional system of care for chronic care patients with immediate medical needs upon release from jail. Data Capacity DHS has an electronic medical records system that documents and tracks patient information, including AB 109 status. Using the electronic medical records system that they have in place, DHS has the capacity to extract AB 109 inmate data, including the number of outpatient contacts, in-custody clinician contacts, and medications administered. The department does not currently track patient outcomes or use data to help inform their service delivery, but the DHS Service Administrator suggested that moving forward he Page 135 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 34 would like to see data used in day-to-day service delivery so that AB 109 partners could work together to deliver services and track client outcomes. The AB 109 Service Administrator suggested that it would be useful, for instance, if DHS had a data system that could be integrated with CCBHS. If the two data systems were integrated, DHS could provide BHS with a list of all AB 109 inmates they provided with Medi-Cal application assistance and track who applied for and received Medi-Cal assistance upon release. This would facilitate coordination between county departments and enhance the County’s capacity to track referrals and services received. Moreover, an integrated data system could help streamline the Medi-Cal application process for AB 109 inmates by having AB 109 inmates complete the Medi-Cal application in custody and having DHS submit it electronically to CCBHS immediately upon release. Training DHS provides information at Community Advisory Board (CAB) meetings about the in-custody services they offer AB 109 inmates, as well as ways that they can assist with the custody-to-community transition. DHS staff also connects with AB 109 system partners at CAB meetings where they can coordinate to schedule appointments in order to learn more about in-custody and transitional services DHS provides AB 109 inmates. DHS staff attended a training related to the CAIS risk assessment tool in the early phases of AB 109 implementation, but since then have not attended any AB 109-specific trainings. Because the nature and array of in-custody health services that DHS provides do not differ for AB 109 inmates compared to other inmates, there does not appear to be a need for significant AB 109-specific trainings. Recommendations v Assess wait time for in-custody health services to ensure that inmates are getting health care in a timely manner. While DHS clearly provides a wide range and high volume of in-custody health services, individuals sentenced under AB 109 reported delays in receiving those services. Unfortunately, DHS was not able to verify the amount of time that passes between a health services request and an appointment. Further investigating this issue will help ensure that AB 109 inmates receive adequate access to health care while housed in county jail. v Participate in pre-release case planning to assist AB 109 inmates’ with accessing necessary medication and health services in the community. Because DHS can provide a two-week supply of medication, TB test results, Medi-Cal application assistance, medical records, and assistance scheduling outside appoints for inmates with chronic health conditions upon release, including them in pre-release case planning will help ensure AB 109 individuals have access to necessary medication and health services when they leave county jail. Page 136 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 35 District Attorney’s Office Department Role in AB 109 The District Attorney’s Office (DA) functions to protect the community by prosecuting crimes and recommending sentences that ensure public safety and reduce recidivism. To ensure these outcomes, the DA collaborates with other AB 109 criminal justice partners, including the Public Defender, the Courts, Probation, and the Sheriff’s Office. The District Attorney is independently elected to protect public safety, therefore the balance of the office’s objectives may be weighted differently than the Board’s AB 109 objectives and those of other County departments. Table 9. District Attorney’s Office AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Program $83,245 $83,245 Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Program $705,383 $705,383 Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Program $690,288 $690,288 Total AB 109 Budget $1,478,916 $1,478,916 Findings Direct Services The District Attorney’s Office has supported the County’s public safety and criminal justice goals for AB 109 by making adjustments to the Office’s staff and prosecution procedures in order to collaborate in the County’s new justice programs. The DA works with the Pretrial Services collaboration partners to negotiate custody release for defendants awaiting trial. PTS partners from the PD and Probation prepare validated assessments1 that identify a defendant’s risk of failure to appear in court. The DA utilizes these evidence-based reports to negotiate “own recognizance,” conditional, or supervised released with the PD and the Court. The DA’s inclusion of PTS reports into case proceedings represents a change in the Office’s prosecution procedures, which has served to help the County reduce the pretrial detention population by up to 50 - 100 defendants each quarter since the program launched in 2013. (It is likely that some of the individuals would have been released on recognizance without support from PTS, making it difficult to isolate the impact of PTS on defendant releases.) 1 Virginia Pre-trial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) Page 137 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 36 In addition to PTS, the DA provides AB 109- funded attorneys for the County’s Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program. The DA’s attorneys appointed to ACER represent the prosecution at arraignment in order to facilitate pre-trial dispositions. The County’s ACER collaboration provides an early opportunity for the prosecution and defense to come together to negotiate cases, thereby expediting the County’s adjudication proceedings. The DA’s participation in ACER leads to successful early dispositions, effectively reducing the pretrial detention population while preserving public safety. As shown in Figure 5, the DA’s ACER cooperation led the County to release roughly 250 to 350 defendants each quarter pre-trial. In addition, the data shows that ACER facilitated many pre-trial dispositions, expediting early adjudication for approximately 100 and 200 cases each quarter since the start of the program in 2013. Figure 5: ACER defendants, including the portion of ACER pre-trial releases and the portion of ACER dispositions, by Quarter Though participation in ACER formalized the DA’s approach to early dispositions, the DA has also used “felony expediters” to support the County’s AB 109 implementation. These attorneys primarily, although not funded by AB 109, do serve the County’s AB 109 goals by expediting dispositions by making plea bargain offers before preliminary hearings for cases that have progressed beyond arraignment and ACER stages. 1,056 1,253 1,483 1,328 1,415 1,717 1,500 2,016 1,015 1,086 920 254 265 332 311 406 605 487 388 358 381 367 24 98 210 158 127 149 186 167 204 117 75 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 Number of defendants Total Defendants Represented at Arraignment Porpon ACER Releases Porpon ACER Disposipons Data Source: Office of the Public Defender Data Source: Office of the Public Defender Figure 4: PTS Defendants Screened and Released Pre-trial, by Quarter 49 279 278 260 249 258 254 182 8 92 88 72 70 98 85 54 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 Number of Defendants Total Screened Porpon Released Page 138 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 37 The DA has promoted public safety within the County by collaborating with Probation to ensure supervision compliance, by prosecuting crimes to reduce criminal behavior, and by promoting evidence-based criminal justice practices. The DA supports probation revocations for AB 109 supervision clients by collaborating with Probation to perform compliance checks and by dedicating an attorney to revocation hearings. However, DA staff do not universally agree or disagree whether AB 109 has affected case filing and other prosecutorial decisions. One DA staff member reported that only a case’s individual evidence influence filing decisions. However, other staff reported that AB 109’s realigned sentences (as well as the reduced penalties from Proposition 47) do affect prosecutorial decisions. AB 109 increased the likelihood that certain offenders would serve little or no time in custody post-trial, which, according to some attorneys, lowered the incentives to file new charges and lowered the chance of dedicating DA resources toward a new case. On the other hand, AB 109 has bolstered the County’s reentry continuum-of-care, which increases the DA’s ability and incentive to forgo traditional incarceration-focused sentences in order to connect AB 109 individuals with programs and services that may help them reduce criminogenic factors. This led one DA staff member to report that AB 109 shifted the balance between violating and filing new charges, motivating prosecution to violate more frequently. Though the DA is committed to promoting public safety by prosecuting each case in accordance with that case’s individual factors, the office has also demonstrated leadership as a promoter of alternative AB 109 sentences. By promoting violence prevention programs, and by advocating for alternative dispositions such as treatment-involved sentences, split sentences, and evidence-based community supervision practices, the District attorney supports the County’s goal of implementing the evidence- based criminal justice practices shown to reduce recidivism. Figure 6: AB 109 Sentences (Split, Jail Only, and Supervision Only), by Quarter Contra Costa County has one of the state’s highest number of split sentences, due largely to the DA’s collaboration with the PD and the Court. Alternative disposition reports prepared by the Public Defender’s social worker team contribute to successful negotiations between the DA and the PD that 45 48 42 73 52 53 43 48 58 87 85 101 68 68 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Number of AB 109 Sentences Supervision Only Jail Only Split Sentences Data Source: Office of the Public Defender Page 139 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 38 support appropriately tailored dispositions for the defendant while at the same time preserving public safety. However, the data shows that the County could do more to reduce its pre-trial detention population and further other AB 109 objectives. Prosecutor ambivalence toward newer evidence-based justice practices and collaboration challenges between the DA and the PD impede broader success for the County’s AB 109-funded legal programs. Attorneys within the DA’s Office report growing awareness of the evidence that the PTS assessment tool (VPRAI) identifies defendants who can be safely released pre-trial, although some staff members express skepticism about VPRAI’s adequate accounting for public safety. The adversarial nature of the criminal justice system can lead some attorneys within the DA’s Office to resist folding PTS results into case negotiations, and DA prosecutors demonstrate varying levels of trust that the PTS model protects public safety. This ambivalence can form a barrier to collaboration between the DA and PD during court proceedings, impeding the success of PTS and ACER. However, other County staff attribute their ambivalence to a lack of sufficient education and training about the PTS model’s evidence regarding public safety. Staff from the District Attorney’s office also noted that they do not staff the Pittsburg courthouse for ACER, which means that the program is only available at the County’s other courthouses. DA staff also reported challenges sharing case information between the Pittsburg and Martinez offices, which may also obstruct the DA’s ability to participate in ACER negotiations. Communication and Coordination AB 109 has hastened closer collaborations between the DA and other County justice partners to promote public safety, reduce criminogenic factors, and support the appropriate and timely resolution of cases. Under AB 109, the DA has strengthened its relationships with Probation, the Public Defender, the Court, and the Sheriff because of new programs such as PTS, ACER, and enhanced community supervision. These relationships provide more opportunities for the DA to collaborate with the County’s justice partners, negotiate dispositions earlier in the process, and make collaborative decisions about whether to violate, flash incarcerate, file new charges, or settle out-of-court. By incorporating a defendant’s social history into case negotiations, the DA also coordinates more closely with the PD to utilize alternatives to traditional incarceration. Because AB 109 has provided more timely access to direct services for AB 109 individuals, the DA has worked with the PD to promote sentences that include referrals to treatment. Page 140 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 39 “We used to wonder how many weeks or months it would take to get a bed. [The defendant] would sit in custody and now that we have a good sense of the timeframe, we can sentence someone knowing they will have that bed because they have priority.” – DA staff Existing procedural obstructions limit the DA’s ability to coordinate with the County’s criminal justice partners and work toward optimal public safety outcomes. While the DA’s recommendation can impact whether a convicted individual will be considered for incarceration alternatives as part of his/her sentence, the decision to grant alternatives to custody after sentencing remains at the discretion of the Court and Sheriff. The Sheriff operates independent protocols to assess and grant electronic monitoring or other early release methods, but this impedes the DA’s ability to contribute to the proliferation of custody alternatives and communicate release dates to victims and witnesses of crimes. In addition, existing prosecutorial practices do not promote the use of the County’s specialized courts. DA staff do not report establishing a process to increase access to Homeless Court or other legal services that would remove legal barriers to successful reentry for AB 109 individuals. Data Capacity The District Attorney currently lacks sufficient data capacity to comprehensively gather and report on cases and outcomes, but is in the process of integrating electronic data tracking and reporting protocols into the prosecutorial workflow. The DA recently implemented a case management system (CMS) funded by the County in order to increase its ability to track cases and outcomes. At present, the DA manually maintains case metrics-- including violations, offers made, and outcomes—and reports being in early stages of transferring data and case information to the CMS. However, at present the DA does not analyze that data to revise or refine its prosecution model. DA attorneys express hope that the CMS’s improved data accuracy and reporting abilities will inform future prosecution decisions and improve public safety. “That is one of the big drivers of our new CMS. To get something that would allow us to put together info that might not be on someone’s rap sheet. Those aren’t always accurate.” – DA staff Staff also anticipate the CMS will reduce paperwork and improve internal workflows in the near future. Page 141 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 40 The DA does not plan to facilitate improved electronic case collaboration and coordination with other County justice partners. The County Administrator’s Office intends to fund and assist the PD, the Court, and Probation to implement different versions of the same CMS in order to facilitate electronic case coordination and increase system-wide data capacity and efficiency within the County’s criminal justice system. However, staff from the District Attorney’s Office did not report plans to utilize one of the key features of enterprise case management. The Office does not have protocols or plans to facilitate electronic discovery or case information sharing between justice partners, and ensured this split by requesting a separate server partition. Training The District Attorney has supported the integration of the County’s AB 109 justice system by providing professional trainings related to AB 109 and other related criminal justice issues, though not all attorneys report awareness of best and evidence-based criminal justice practices. In addition to changing statutory law, AB 109 and Proposition 47 indicate a new approach to criminal prosecution and sentencing in the State of California. Correspondingly, the DA has conducted trainings on AB 109 for attorneys to better understand and implement the range of sentencing options under AB 109. While some DA staff report learning about the evidence in support of public safety behind AB 109- funded programs such as PTS and ACER, the trainings have not changed prosecution strategies for all of the DA’s attorneys. Recommendations v Schedule trainings regarding the Pre-trial Services, the effectiveness of split and treatment- involved sentences, and AB 109 reentry services. The State and County’s AB 109 objective to implement and expand evidence-based justice practices requires continuous education on behalf of all justice partners. The DA should implement additional trainings to ensure all attorneys remain current on the law, the research behind County’s PTS model, and the effects of services on recidivism. v Expand ACER to the Pittsburg courthouse. The ACER Program currently exists only at the Martinez and Richmond Courthouses, where in-custody arraignments are heard. While early case resolution may be less pressing for defendants who are not in custody, expanding ACER to the Pittsburg would nonetheless increase the efficiency of the County’s criminal justice system and streamline the adjudication process. v Educate staff on the uses of specialized courts, and work with the PD to establish processes that increase client access. Specialized courts provide individualized responses to high-needs Page 142 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 41 clients, and reduce the overall burden on the system by addressing the unique criminogenic factors that lead to recidivism. For example, Homeless Court and Traffic Court can address some of the financial, identification, and misdemeanor burdens that obstruct successful reentry into the community. Page 143 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 42 Office of the Public Defender Department Role in AB 109 The main role of Contra Costa County’s Office of the Public Defender (PD) within AB 109 implementation is to provide legal representation, assistance, and services for indigent persons accused of crimes in the County. Before the adjudication process begins, the County’s AB 109 funds enable the office to provide paralegal and attorney staffing for the Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) and Pre-trial Services (PTS) programs. While cases are pending adjudication, attorneys from the Public Defender’s Office provide representation to any and all indigent clients—including but not limited to potential AB 109 clients—through each phase, from arraignment through sentencing. After adjudication, the office provides a suite of post-disposition Clean Slate and other reentry services for returning citizens and for clients within the community. In addition, AB 109 also funds a Social Worker to provide social service assessments and referrals for clients needing additional supports, and prepare social history reports for court negotiations. Apart from direct client services, the Office of the Public Defender also provides education and outreach to the County’s criminal justice partners and to the public about changes in the law, emerging and evidence-based legal practices, and the rights of those they represent. Table 10. Office of the Public Defender’s AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits - Paralegal/Social Worker $209,000 $209,000 Salaries & Benefits - Arraignment Program $665,000 $665,000 Salaries & Benefits - DV Representation $250,000 $250,000 Vehicle Purchase $28,129 -- iPad $1,367 -- Total AB 109 Budget $1,153,496 $1,124,000 Findings Direct Services The Office of the Public Defender has furthered the County’s AB 109 objectives through its contributions to the Pretrial Services program. Page 144 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 43 49 279 278 260 249 258 254 182 8 92 88 72 70 98 85 54 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 Number of Defendants Total Screened Porpon Released Figure 7: PTS Defendants Screened and Released Pre-trial, by Quarter Data Source: Office of the Public Defender The AB-109 funded Pretrial Services program was developed through a collaborative process made up of the Sheriff’s Office, the Probation Department, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Court, and the Office of the Public Defender. The pretrial program uses a risk assessment tool to identify defendants who are eligible to be safely released from custody while awaiting trial, thereby reducing the pre-trial detention population. As part of the program design, two public defender legal assistants staff the in- custody arraignment courts. Each morning of the Arraignment Court calendar, the legal assistants screen all defendants for initial PTS eligibility and conduct preliminary interviews of those who are eligible for screening. This preliminary information is provided to a probation officer, who then completes the research-based tool (a modified version of the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument or VPRAI) that assesses the defendant’s risk of reoffending or failure to appear in court. The probation department then forwards a completed report to the court that provides the court with a risk score and release recommendations. PD attorneys utilize the pretrial reports to advocate with the court for “own recognizance,” conditional, or supervised release. Through this process, PTS has successfully reduced the County’s pre-trial detention population by up to 70 -100 individuals each quarter since initiated in March 2013 (although the exact impact of PTS is difficult to measure, since some of these clients likely would have been released on recognizance or posted bail even without the PTS program). The low levels of pretrial re- offense indicate the program’s further success, especially considering most released defendants were assessed to be average (29%) or above average (44%) risk. The PD’s Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program has furthered the County’s AB 109 goals to reduce the detention population and expedite adjudication. Through ACER, the Office of the Public Defender provides legal representation to defendants at their first court appearance. Prior to ACER, the Court would delay a case for several days between the first appearance and the arraignment date. By providing representation for all in-custody clients at the first court appearance, the Public Defender has successfully expedited adjudication of low level felony cases and has reduced the overall number of days that clients spend in custody pretrial. “ACER was designed to see if we can deal with cases without a lengthy period of litigation—to get to the place where everyone agrees the case should resolve.” – PD staff Page 145 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 44 Each quarter since the start of this AB 109-funded program, public defenders have secured the release several hundred pre-trial clients at the first appearance, roughly between 20% and 40% of all detained defendants. Additionally, ACER dispositions expedited adjudication for roughly 10% of all cases since the start of the program, further reducing overall time spent in custody. Both of these ACER successes reduce the County’s jail populations, thereby limiting jail overcrowding and costs. Collaboration challenges between the PD and the DA and the lack of ACER guidelines have inhibited ACER’s ability to further the County’s AB 109 objectives. ACER is still new in Contra Costa County. The District Attorney has faced difficulties staffing both ACER courts consistently. In addition, the adversarial nature of the justice system make it difficult for PDs and DAs to develop guidelines for the appropriate cases to adjudicate at arraignment. Finally, ACER’s ability to further the AB 109goals of expediting adjudication and reducing the detention population depends heavily on the individual attorneys and judges in the arraignment court departments. “I think that they need to set out clear parameters clear as to what cases should be designated and what resolution we should be expecting. ACER depends too much on the players and if everyone had more guidance we could be able to figure this out a little better.” – PD staff PD staff report that uneven DA staffing at the County’s two arraignment courts negatively affect the program’s success because ACER can only further the County’s goals when both attorneys are present. In alignment with the Board’s goals for AB 109, the Office of Public Defender has reduced criminogenic factors that lead to recidivism by providing linkages to the County’s continuum-of-care, promoting alternative and treatment-based sentences, and remedying legal barriers. AB 109 enabled the PD to hire a social worker who works with a team of social work interns that conduct client needs assessments and provide referrals to community services during the pretrial and trial phases in order to help clients navigate complex social service systems, initiate benefits enrollment, and coordinate post-release care plans. In so doing, the PD helps AB 109 clients alleviate criminogenic barriers to successful reentry, including housing needs and substance abuse issues. The social worker can identify placement and service opportunities before and after adjudication to assist clients with their integration back into society. In addition, the Public Defender promotes alternatives to traditional incarceration sentences by providing alternative disposition reports that factor a client’s social history and service needs into sentencing recommendations. At the attorney’s request, the social worker assesses a defendant’s “social history,” including criminal, mental health, and/or substance abuse histories. The team prepares an alternative disposition report for the Court, which the PD and DA can utilize to negotiate appropriately tailored sentences that account for an individual’s specific rehabilitation needs. Attorneys from both the defense and the prosecution agree this information benefits the adjudication process. As Page 146 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 45 one defense attorney commented, these social histories provide “meaningful and relevant information for the Court and prosecution to achieve fair and equitable sentences for our clients.” By advocating for the inclusion of alternative disposition reports into case negotiations, and by providing ongoing education to the prosecution and the bench about their importance, the PD has successfully promoted evidence-based criminal justice policies that lead to detention population decreases and support the County’s goals for AB 109. Figure 8: Clients Assessed and Referred to Services by Public Defender Social Worker, by Quarter In addition to a defense attorney referring clients to the social worker for additional service needs, the Public Defender also participates in Homeless Court to provide clean slate services to homeless court clients to further positive recidivism outcomes. The Office’s Clean Slate program provides a range of post-conviction legal services, including advocacy for misdemeanor charge removal, expungement and record sealing, obtainment of certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early termination, and petitions for factual innocence. Currently, the Office of the Public Defender does not have sufficient resources to address all the queued Clean Slate services, leading to a backlog of work. On the other hand, the demand for post-conviction legal assistance demonstrates the Office’s successful community outreach promoting Clean Slate services. As one example of the type of advocacy outreach conducted, the Public Defender currently reports looking into a way to notify the thousands individuals who may be eligible for traffic amnesty in 167,000 eligible cases. 11 34 20 26 24 26 37 26 26 47 35 11 34 20 20 19 20 21 20 21 40 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4* Number of Clients Clients Assessed by Social Worker Clients Referred to Service Providers * 2015 Q4 values until reporting date Data Source: Public Defender Page 147 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 46 Communication and Coordination Since the start of the County’s AB 109 planning, the PD has collaborated with other County and community partners to promote and provide the legal defense services that further the County’s AB 109 objectives. The Public Defender provides education and outreach to Probation, the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), and other County departments to promote the Clean Slate services to AB 109 clients and other County residents. The Public Defender collaborates with Probation for expungement cases, and with EHSD for job program participants who seek to clean up their legal records to obtain successful employment outcomes. Staff report that the AB 109 expansion of the Office’s reentry services, including Clean Slate and Homeless Court services, enhanced the PD’s relationships with Contra Costa County’s AB 109 community providers, including Bay Area Legal Aid, Rubicon, and Goodwill. The Office of the Public Defender collaborates with County Departments and community-based organizations to provide a range of post-release services to the whole client population that remedy and remove barriers to successful reentry. PD attorneys serve on several of the County’s AB 109 committees including the CCP and the CAB. PD staff also attend the monthly “Reentry Solutions” working group and, in collaboration with Bay Area Legal Aid and the County’s AB 109 Coordinator, are working to expand the use of specialized courts. For example, this group looks at procedures and protocols from other jurisdictions and brainstorms ways to remove traffic-related legal barriers for AB 109 clients. Staff also report working with the Court to develop a model for implementing a Veteran’s Court and a model to expand Homeless Court services beyond infractions into misdemeanor and low-level felony cases. “As the county has grown to recognize the importance of reentry services to reduce recidivism, it has caused all the partners to communicate more effectively. The CCP and CAB bring folks together, which has been transformational.” – PD staff The PD has supported the development of several new collaborative programs aimed at achieving the County’s AB 109 goals, including Pre-trial Services and ACER. The PD successfully developed a PTS program along with the Probation Department, the DA’s Office, the County Reentry Coordinator and the Sheriff’s Office to incorporate the use of evidence-based decision making to pretrial releases while maintaining public safety. Additionally, through the ACER program the PD coordinated new procedures and timelines with the DA and the Court to enable early adjudication of cases and expedited client representation. Page 148 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 47 Due to the adversarial nature of the justice system, the PD and the DA can only collaborate a limited amount. As noted above, the differing objectives of the defense and the prosecution can lead to cooperation challenges. For example, the PD, DA, and the Court have not coordinated specific protocols guiding the identification of appropriate cases to adjudicate early. Clearer guidelines would help advance ACER goals, defense outcomes, and the County’s AB 109 goals Data Capacity The Office of the Public Defender lacks sufficient data capacity and infrastructure to comprehensively gather and report on AB 109 client cases, referrals, and outcomes. The County Administrator’s Office has queued the Public Defender to receive CMS implementation and technical assistance following the completion of CMS implementation for both the District Attorney’s Office and the Probation Department. . Because there are no comprehensive reporting systems, there are no department-wide procedures for reviewing AB 109 client data and outcomes, due in part to not having cohesive and comprehensive data systems. Some staff within the office track AB 109 clients and cases manually in Excel spreadsheets, and others retain physical case files. These methods affect productivity and are prone to error. Staff remain optimistic about the opportunities a CMS will provide, including tracking court appearances, workloads, caseloads, dispositions, and the ability to produce a variety of reports in a timely and efficient manner. “It will give us a greater capacity to collect and utilize data. It will allow us to track case progress, our numbers and volume, the sentencing outcomes we are achieving, how long it is taking us to process cases, and how better to deploy our limited resources in our office in different ways. [It could] improve communication between us and the DA and Probation.” – PD staff In the future, the method the DA, the Court, and the PD will utilize to share client data and case information remains unknown. Though the County plans for all justice partners to implement different versions of the same CMS, enabling rapid data coordination and sharing, the DA requested a partitioned server, citing legal concerns regarding electronic discovery. Page 149 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 48 Training The Public Defender has supported integration of the County’s AB 109 justice and service systems by providing professional trainings related to AB 109 and other related criminal justice issues. Though the PD does not officially track the number and variety of trainings, the Office’s ten-member Training Committee implements a regular, comprehensive series of trainings on AB 109 statutory law and related topics throughout the year among the juvenile, misdemeanor, and felony units. Multiple PD staff report both conducting and attending a variety of AB 109-related trainings including topics such as the ACER program, Pretrial Services, Clean Slate and immigration services, alternatives to custody, and Proposition 47. Additionally, PD attorneys have attended and presented at national and regional conferences regarding pretrial services and evidence-based practices in sentencing. Attorneys also provide community trainings in collaboration with CBOs to educate the community about record expungement, Proposition 47, AB 109 client rights, and the PD’s other legal services. Regarding the pretrial services program, PD staff report variation in buy-in from DAs and judges, and “are working on setting up a lunchtime training to give them additional info about PTS, the science behind it... and who are the partners in the process.” Staff report working with these justice partners to provide education about PTS, ACER, and alternative sentencing practices. Recommendations v Increase eligibility for Pre-trial Services so more clients can be evaluated for release before trial. PTS appears to be a very successful collaboration between the PD and other departments. Given its success, the Public Defender’s Office should work with other partners to expand eligibility criteria to allow for the assessment of additional defendants. v Collaborate with the DA to develop additional protocols for the ACER program, including guidelines and parameters for cases that would be good candidates for early resolution at arraignment. This would increase the success of the ACER program, expedite adjudication, decrease the in-custody population, free up County resources, and provide better client outcomes. v Collaborate with justice partners for clearer Homeless Court protocols and processes and educate partner departments about available Homeless Court and other alternative court services. Advocate for the expansion of Homeless Court services, including services for misdemeanor cases and, potentially, low-level felonies. Page 150 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 49 Probation Department Department Role in AB 109 The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109 clients, including Post Release Community Supervisees (PRCS) and locally sentenced (1170(h)) individuals with split sentences, upon their return from custody to the community. As part of this process, AB 109 Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) assess their clients for both criminogenic risk and need factors and for general reentry needs, and then refer interested clients to a range of supportive services. In addition, Probation Officers are responsible for ensuring their clients’ compliance with the conditions of their release and, if appropriate, use sanctions or initiate revocation proceedings. To achieve these support and supervision goals, AB 109 DPOs are responsible for coordinating with a number of partner departments and agencies, including BHS, local law enforcement agencies, and the District Attorney’s Office. In addition, the Probation Department supports the County’s Pretrial Services program by assessing defendants’ risk for failure to appear or commit a new crime with a modified version of the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), and then reporting those results to PTS partners. Table 11. Probation Department’s AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits $2,375,093 $2,435,818 Operating Costs $307,925 $247,200 Radios $4,787 -- Vests $648 -- DPO Outfitting $148 -- Desktop PCs $889 -- iPads $847 -- Cell Phones $85 -- Total AB 109 Budget $2,690,422 $2,683,018 Findings Direct Services The Probation Department plays an integral role supporting the custody-to-community transition by having a dedicated probation officer who conducts pre-release interviews with AB 109 inmates. One probation officer from the AB 109 unit is assigned to conduct pre-release risk assessments on AB 109 inmates who are being released from state prison or county jail and will be under AB 109 Probation supervision. (Time constraints preclude this officer from meeting with individuals who are incarcerated in state prison that are difficult to reach.) This probation officer conducts an interview and uses the Page 151 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 50 Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) risk assessment tool, an evidence based risk assessment tool used to determine each client’s risk for recidivism and associated risk-factors, to determine each AB 109 client’s appropriate level of supervision intensity and to help identify immediate service needs upon clients’ release from custody. The probation officer who interviews AB 109 inmates prior to their release seeks to meet with them at least 30 days prior to release to help ease the transition back into the community. During this process the DPO completes required paperwork with AB 109 inmates and the client is assigned a supervisory probation officer. If AB 109 clients have immediate needs, such as behavioral health or housing needs that are identified during the interview, the DPO begins the referral process with BHS or AB 109- contracted service providers to connect the client with support services as soon as possible during their transition back to the community. In focus groups, AB 109 clients reported mixed experiences with the pre-release planning process. Several clients expressed appreciation for the process, while others noted that despite getting the pre- release assessment, they were not linked to services or benefits until after they were released. “I had an assessment in custody. The PO came in and helped me while I was locked up, she helped me get my license, which was great because I never got one before. I got it for five bucks when I got out then I got the food stamps thing set up. One thing though was that somebody that came and saw me inside was not my probation officer when I got out. It switched like three times so that kind of slowed down the process because we had to start the process over.” – AB 109 Client “I think they should start that process [service connection] earlier. They start it too late, but it should begin 3 or 4 weeks before you get out... It takes too long. It should start before you get out and need that referral from the PO. It would be nice to get the paperwork for food stamps in jail too, that would be helpful because that transition time is crucial that’s when you are most likely to say ‘I am just going to go back to using’ and commit crimes or whatever.” – AB 109 Client Probation contributes to the County’s goal of fostering successful reintegration of individuals back into the community by using cognitive based intervention strategies and connecting clients with BHS and AB 109-contracted CBOs that provide reentry support. Probation officers in the AB 109 unit use cognitive based strategies such as motivational interviewing and Thinking for a Change (T4C) to provide support for their clients. Motivational interviewing is a goal oriented, client centered counseling style that seeks to elicit behavioral change be helping clients explore their ambivalence towards making behavioral changes; T4C focuses on cognitive restructuring and the development of social skills and problem solving skills to elicit behavioral change. Using these Page 152 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 51 techniques allows clients to explore the motivations behind their actions and to develop skills in support of their successful reintegration into the community. In addition to using cognitive based techniques to support AB 109 clients, Probation Officers provide referrals for AB 109 clients to BHS and other AB 109-contracted service providers such as Men and Women of Purpose, Brighter Beginnings, Reach Fellowship International, the Center for Human Development, Bay Area Legal Aid, Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and SHELTER Inc. that provide behavioral health support as well as housing, employment, mentoring, and legal services, among others. While support services have long been in place for individuals under Probation supervision in Contra Costa County, members of the AB 109 reentry population receive priority for enrolling in AB 109 services. As a result, more AB 109 clients have access services that facilitate stability in the custody-to- community transition. Figure 9 below demonstrates the number of referrals probation officers have made for AB 109 clients. Figure 9: AB 109 Client Service Referrals, by Quarter A majority of individuals we spoke with under AB 109 Probation supervision expressed that they feel supported by probation officers in a way they have not in the past. They suggested that most Probation Officers appear to genuinely care about their well-being, and that resources are available if they need them. “When I talked to my PO for first time, she asked what I needed because I was homeless. She hooked me up to a housing service and AOD program. Whatever my PO officer has put in a referral for, it has happened immediately.” – AB 109 Client Despite this overarching sentiment among AB 109 clients, some individuals mentioned that they were not aware of all the services available to them, and that it was sometimes difficult to utilize available 53 48 91 84 72 120 196 281 376 375 373 390 492 401 394 393 0 100 200 300 400 500 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 Number of AB 109 Referrals Benefits Other Mental Health Housing Employment AODS Page 153 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 52 services because they lack transportation. In addition, some AB 109 clients expressed that in their experiences there have been long waiting lists for receiving some integral support services, including housing from Shelter Inc.; as a result, there are AB 109 clients that do not have some of their basic needs met upon being released from custody. Although Probation Officers connect AB 109 clients with a network of service providers, they do not develop formal and collaborative case plans with clients to additionally support their community reentry. Although Probation Officers regularly meet with AB 109 clients and discuss their service needs, they do not develop service-oriented case plans that detail the appropriate services or supports for clients to participate in, nor do they proactively coordinate with CBOs to validate whether or not referred clients are engaging in services or making progress through this service engagement. If clients report engaging in CBO services, their Probation Officers do reach out to the providers to receive a copy of the clients’ case plans, although AB 109 Unit Probation Officers who we spoke with suggested that beyond receiving a copy of the plan, they only informally monitor their clients’ participation and completion of program services. In accordance with the County’s operational plan, the Probation Department uses EBPs in their provision of AB 109 client supervision. As noted above, Probation Officers use evidence based cognitive intervention strategies to support their clients with the custody-to-community transition. In addition to using CBT and motivational interviewing, Probation uses clients’ risk, as measured by the validated CAIS, to determine supervision intensity. Individuals who assess as high risk must report every two weeks, while individuals who score moderate report monthly, and those who score low report every three months. This allows individuals with little risk of recidivating to reintegrate into their community without having to check-in with their PO frequently, while others who are at greater risk are required to check-in more often and demonstrate they are meeting the conditions of their supervision. Probation officers also routinely reassess their clients to determine changes and change supervision requirements as appropriate. Probation officers also use graduated sanctions with AB 109 clients. For instance when clients have dirty drug tests they are typically referred to inpatient or outpatient treatment rather than having their supervision term revoked, and returned to custody. This allows them to receive treatment without further justice involvement. AB 109 Probation Officers may also use flash incarcerations of up to ten days in county jail for PRCS clients. This serves as an intermediate sanction where individuals must serve a short period of time in county jail, but do not have further criminal charges filed against them. Despite using a number of EBPs, Probation Officers in the AB 109 unit have caseloads of 60-65 clients, which is somewhat higher than the best practice of approximately 40 moderate-to-high risk clients. The AB 109 Probation Supervisor acknowledged that this is not a best practice, and noted that as a result Page 154 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 53 they rarely schedule meetings with AB 109 clients who have low CAIS recidivism risk scores. He suggested that he would like to see a few more Probation Officers hired in the future for the AB 109 unit in order to reduce caseloads and be able to provide increased support for the AB 109 reentry population in the future. Communication and Coordination The Probation Department has increased coordination and communication with a number of County Departments and AB 109-contracted service providers to help improve the continuum of care for AB 109 inmates while enhancing public safety. As noted above, since the start of AB 109 Probation has played an integral role in the custody-to- community transition by conducting pre-release interviews with AB 109 inmates to streamline the process of connecting them with Probation Officers and services providers. Probation has also developed stronger partnerships with AB 109-contracted service providers and BHS, which has allowed them to electronically send referrals for AB 109 clients who are prioritized for enrollment within these programs. Moreover, staff from FMH reported that they maintain hours at Probation to ensure adequate and regular case coordination with AB 109 clients. These partnerships have helped minimize the amount of time it takes to connect clients to critical services that provide stability in the custody-to- community transition. Probation also holds monthly case conferences that provide a structured opportunity for AB 109 partners, including representatives from Probation, BHS, and AB 109-contracted service providers, to discuss client progress and challenges. This provides a structured opportunity for collaboration, and to discuss how partners can improve client utilization of services, and communicate lessons learned in order to more effectively provide services for the AB 109 reentry population moving forward. Another way Probation collaborates with other County departments is through the County’s Pretrial Services Program. Probation develops a report from a modified version of the VPRAI that is based on information from interviews conducted by paralegals from the Public Defender’s Office. Probation then provides the score from this assessment to the Court, which is then used to guide their recommendation for pretrial release. Individuals who are released into the Pretrial Services program, are then supervised by deputies from the Probation Department at various levels based on their risk score. By participating in this process, and supervising individuals who are released, Probation supports the County’s goal to lower the pre-trial detention population. Finally, Probation also works with local law enforcement and BHS to conduct home verification compliance checks and warrant sweeps. In these instance, to maintain the safety of community members and officers alike, Probation officers typically receive support from local law enforcement officers; in instances when they are seeking AB 109 clients with severe mental health disorders, they do extensive pre-planning with FMH to coordinate safe field strategies. Page 155 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 54 Despite increasing coordination between AB 109 partners, especially in the community, there is only limited coordination for prerelease planning. As noted above, prerelease planning is conducted by one AB 109 DPO, who assesses clients to determine the appropriate level of supervision intensity, as well as to do limited service need planning. In some circumstances, these clients are referred to BHS for additional pre-release planning related to mental health, substance use, and/or housing needs. Nonetheless, staff from BHS and DHS staff as well as AB 109 clients interviewed for this report indicated that this pre-release planning is limited, as did CBOs interviewed for a prior evaluation report. Data Capacity The Probation Department has a high overall data capacity; however because they do not have access to the ServicePoint data system that AB 109-contracted service providers use, they do not track AB 109 client service receipt and outcomes. The Probation Department has developed a series of Microsoft Access databases to collect and analyze data on different clients, while they await the development of a more comprehensive client management system (CMS). At the start of AB 109, the Probation Department developed a Microsoft Access database to collect data on AB 109 clients, and since then they have developed a database for Pretrial Services clients and for General Supervision clients. Using the AB 109 Database, the Probation Department is able to track most important information about their AB 109 clients enter and exit supervision and whether they successfully or unsuccessfully complete the terms of their supervision. They also track AB 109 revocations and flash incarcerations, among other AB 109-specific data points. While Probation is able to track quite a bit of information, the Probation Department does not have a data analyst dedicated to working with the information to inform decision making. As a result, despite having a fairly high overall data capacity, members of the Probation Department and AB 109 unit we spoke with suggested they mostly use data to determine caseloads for Probation Officers. In addition, because client service receipt is tracked in BHS databases or in ServicePoint, Probation Officers do not have access to AB 109 client service data. As a result, Probation Officers from the AB 109 unit suggested that they do not formally monitor the services AB 109 clients receive after referrals are made. This suggests that Probation Officers are likely unaware of situations when AB 109 clients are not able to enroll in services because of long wait lists, or when they do not engage in services that would support their reintegration into the community. Page 156 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 55 Training The Probation Department conducts trainings for Probation Officers each year; the majority of these trainings are not AB 109-specific because general Felony Probation Officers and AB 109 Probation Officers use similar practices working with clients. The Assistant Chief Probation Officer and the Supervisor of the AB 109 unit suggested that the majority of training done within the Probation Department is targeted towards all Probation Officers. Each probation officer receives a minimum of 40 hours of training including training focused on cognitive based interviewing techniques such as T4C and motivational interviewing, as well as assault management and defense tactic techniques. Probation Officers from some units, including AB 109, also receive firearms trainings since Officers in these units are armed. Aside from these trainings, members of the Probation Department attend regularly scheduled AB 109 meetings such as the CCP, QAC, DEC, etc. and occasionally attend conferences that are related to AB 109 and reentry related topics to varying degrees. Recommendations v Work with the Sheriff’s Office, Detention Health Services, and the Behavioral Health Services to develop a collaborative pre-release planning process. This should include the development of protocols regarding communication to partners related to inmates’ impending release dates, clear roles and responsibilities for different departments, timeframes for planning, and protocols for linking clients to post-release services and supports. v Work with CBOs to track clients’ service engagement to encourage clients to engage in recommended services and to help the County identify service gaps. Although the Probation Department does not have the ability to track client service receipt in ServicePoint, following up with clients and providers to find out whether or not service referrals are resulting in service engagement would increase Probation Officers’ ability to support their clients’ service participation. In addition, if service shortage is identified as a barrier to engagement, this information can inform County decision-making related to service funding allocations. v Reduce AB 109 caseloads, in alignment with best practices in supervision. Probation data indicates that almost half of AB 109 supervisees are high-risk, which means that they require frequent supervision contact. Reducing Probation Officers’ caseloads would allow increased supervision as well as greater capacity to track service receipt. Page 157 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 56 Sheriff’s Office Department Role in AB 109 The Sheriff’s Office (S0) primary role in AB 109 implementation is to provide safe and secure housing and facilitate access to in-custody services for all inmates, including AB 109 inmates. The Sheriff’s Office operates the County’s three detention facilities—Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF), West County Detention Facility (WCDF), and Martinez Detention Facility (MDF)--and is also responsible for supervising AB 109 inmates referred to Custody Alternative Facilities (CAF), such as the Work Alternative Program, Electronic Home Detention Program, and County Parole, while maintaining the safety of the community. The Sheriff’s Office supports in-custody service provision and AB 109 inmates’ custody-to-community transition by facilitating access to county jails for service providers and county personnel who work with AB 109 inmates to support their rehabilitation and community reentry process. Table 12. Sheriff’s Office AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits $5,488,080 $5,712,230 Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp $391,700 $391,700 Monitoring Costs $54,750 $54,750 IT Support $40,000 $40,000 Vehicle Maintenance/Depreciation $47,000 $47,000 Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs $80,492 $80,492 Behavioral Health Court/ Deputy Sheriff $224,150 -- Transport Bus Maintenance $79,032 $79,032 "Jail to Community" Program $200,000 $200,000 Facility Maintenance/ improvements (WCDF, MDF) $1,600,000 $1,100,000 Total AB 109 Budget $8,205,204 $7,705,204 Findings Direct Services AB 109 has resulted in a greater number of inmates, including parole violators, spending longer periods of time in county jail; to maintain safe and secure jail facilities, the Sheriff’s Office has increased their use of the special classification system to separate inmates from the general population who pose safety risks to the facility or who are at risk of becoming victims of violence. Since the start of AB 109, Contra Costa County’s inmate population—like those of other California counties—has shifted somewhat, and is comprised of a larger number offenders spending increased Page 158 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 57 time in county jail. In order to maintain the safety and security of the County’s jails, the Sheriff’s Office uses the special classification system to separate inmates who pose potential safety risks to the general inmate population or who themselves might be at risk of violence. Although the Sheriff’s Office’s Jail Management System does not allow them to track whether and to what extent the overall classification risk levels have changed since the start of AB 109, interviews with staff from the Sheriff’s Office indicate that more inmates are being classified as high risk. This is corroborated by the addition of a new module at WCDF for high risk inmates who are not housed with the general population. In order to determine which inmates to separate from the general population the Sheriff’s Office evaluates the current charges, as well as prior histories in custody, gang affiliations, and mental health risks among other factors. Inmates who are specially classified and separated from the general inmate population typically include inmates with gang affiliations and mental health needs, among other inmates involved with in- custody batteries and assaults (victims and offenders). Although classifying inmates to separate them from the general inmate population helps maintain safer and more secure facilities, it is worth noting that the intake and classification process does not include the use of a validated criminogenic risk and needs assessment, which would take into account dynamic risk factors that can be addressed through services. Although the vast majority of inmates are classified as general population, where they have access to programs and services, separating out inmates considered a safety risk likely means that some of the individuals with the greatest risk to reoffend have the most limited access to rehabilitative in- custody services. In order to reduce the County’s detention population Contra Costa County maintains a progressive release policy; nevertheless, very few AB 109 inmates are released to CAF. In addition to ensuring the safety and security of county jails, the Sheriff’s Office supports a progressive release policy for sentenced inmates posing little risk to the community (in addition to the cite and release program). Inmates who are released to CAF are supervised by deputy officers from the Sheriff’s Office, but as demonstrated in Figure 10 below very few are AB 109 inmates because AB 109 individuals tend to be classified as higher risk. Nevertheless, AB 109 inmates, like all inmates, can request to be assessed for a custody alternative program. Page 159 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 58 Figure 10: Average Daily AB 109 Population at the County’s Detention Facilities, by Quarter Consistent with the County’s AB 109 goals, the Sheriff’s Office has increased the number and type of in-custody services provided since the start of AB 109, contracting with new providers and relaxing their jail clearance restrictions to allow access for formerly incarcerated individuals to serve as mentors to AB 109 inmates. The Sheriff’s Office has always facilitated access for service providers and County personnel into each of the County’s jails to work with inmates so that they can gain skills and prepare for transitioning back into the community. Since AB 109 began, the Sheriff’s Office has relaxed some of their jail clearance restrictions and increased their partnerships with community based organizations to provide inmates including AB 109 inmates with additional opportunities to receive support from a diverse array of contracted service providers. Relaxing visitation restrictions has allowed formerly incarcerated individuals working with contracted CBOs, such as Men and Women of Purpose, to provide in-custody mentoring services to AB 109 inmates; prior to AB 109 it was very unlikely that formerly incarcerated individuals would have been granted access to county jail facilities. Currently Men and Women of Purpose, Brighter Beginnings, Reach Fellowship International, the Center for Human Development, Bay Area Legal Aid, Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and SHELTER Inc. have the ability to provide in-custody services as AB 109-funded programs. Other in-custody programs include a cognitive based substance abuse program called Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DUECE); Computer Applications in Web Design; Adult Education; GED/High School Diploma test preparation; Independent Study; and English as a Second Language. MCDF also offers vocational programming including wood shop and landscaping, while WCDF offers landscaping, frame shape and an Data Source: Sheriff’s Office 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 Average Daily AB 109 Populapon Marpnez Detenpon Facility West County Detenpon Facility Marsh Creek Detenpon Facility Custody Alternapve Page 160 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 59 engraving/sign shop as well. Additionally, county department personnel from Probation, DHS, BHS, and Child Protective Services have access to each of the county’s jail facilities. Despite increasing the number and type of services available in custody, access to programs— especially vocational programs—continues to be an issue for AB 109 inmates. In addition, there is almost no programming available to those inmates who likely need it the most, the highest risk clients housed at MDF While the Sheriff’s Office has helped facilitate greater access to County jails for service providers, AB 109 inmates from focus groups held at MCDF and WCDF, as well as focus groups with individuals under Probation supervision expressed concerns that there are still not enough opportunities to participate in meaningful programs in County jail. Inmates at MCDF noted that there are long waiting lists to enroll in vocational programs that have a limited number of spaces, such as woodshop. In addition, because many of the County’s vocational programs, such as woodshop and the engraving/sign shop involve using power tools, there is strict eligibility criteria that limits the number of inmates who can access these programs. Finally, space and time constraints limit the number and type of services that can be offered across detention facilities, especially at MDF. There have also been challenges seamlessly implementing some of the AB 109-contracted programs. As noted in RDA’s FY 2014/2015 evaluation of the County’s AB 109-contracted programs, there is not agreement between the Sheriff’s Office and some of the CBOs about the amount of time with and access to inmates the programs need to appropriately deliver services. According to the AB 109 Administrative Assistant, over the last year, several of the AB 109-contracted service providers that only have access to jail facilities during visiting hours have not been visiting the jail on a consistent basis because they do not believe this access is sufficient for high quality service delivery. In addition to these challenges, there are even fewer services available to AB 109 inmates housed at MDF because the maximum-security facility does not have adequate space for a large number of specially classified inmates to attend programs or services in group settings. As a result, AB 109 inmates at MDF have almost no access to rehabilitative services that could help increase their likelihood of successfully reentering the community upon release from jail. This is especially troubling given that those inmates who are classified as high risk for safety infractions in custody are likely to also be at high risk to recidivate and thus most in need of services. In focus groups with AB 109 supervision clients, multiple respondents discussed program restrictions and general isolation while in custody, especially at MDF. Several clients reported that the Sheriff’s Office transfers identified consumers of mental health care to the most restrictive wing of the MDF, where they have limited access to the programs, services, and privileges available at the County’s other detention facilities. Because of this concern, individuals with mental health needs noted not wanting to seek appropriate mental health care, which in turn increases the opportunity for mental health crises. Page 161 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 60 “When I got there I never told them that I took a pill because then they stress me out and that caused me to have a stroke while I was in the jail. I never tell them I have mental health and I take a pill. I learned that if I say I have a problem they take you right away to Martinez.” – AB 109 client Although other data make clear that not all individuals with mental health diagnoses are incarcerated at MDF, clients participating in Forensic Mental Health services indicated feeling like they have to choose between receiving mental health services and participating in in-custody programming. Because the Sheriff’s Office does not use a criminogenic needs assessment to determine AB 109 inmates’ service needs, there is no way to ensure that individuals are receiving programs and services that align with their individual needs, as delineated in the County’s Operational Plan. Although the Sheriff’s Office coordinates with the County Office of Education and CBOs to provide a wide array in custody programs and services, neither the Sheriff’s Office nor any of the in-custody service providers conducts a comprehensive, validated criminogenic risk and needs assessment of AB 109 inmates—or other inmates—when they enter custody. Because of this, there is no process for identifying the particular needs of each inmate and ensuring that he/she has access to the appropriate programs and services to address those needs. Using a criminogenic risk/need assessment tool, such as the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS), at booking would allow the Sheriff’s Office and in-custody service partners such as the County Office Education, CBOs, and DHS to ensure that inmates are referred to in-custody programs and services that align with their recidivism-related risk/need areas. Communication and Coordination The Sheriff’s Office has increased coordination and communication with a number of County Departments and community based service providers to improve the continuum of care for AB 109 inmates in accordance with the County’s goals. The Sherriff’s Office has an established partnership with DHS to provide health care services to all inmates while maintaining safe and secure facilities. Since the start of AB 109, and especially over the course of the last two years, the Sheriff’s Office has placed greater emphasis on providing appropriate services to inmates with mental health needs. To that end, the Sheriff’s Office has strengthened their collaborative partnership with CCBHS. A Captain from the Sheriff’s Office discussed recently meeting with mental health services to work on streamlining the process for individuals with mental health needs to receive proper medication upon entering custody. Moreover, the Sheriff Office’s classification unit collaborates with mental health services to ensure that inmates with mental health needs are classified correctly and have access to necessary medication in custody. Another way the Sheriff’s Office collaborates with other county departments is through the County’s pretrial services program. The Sheriff’s Office provides the Public Defender’s Office a list of inmates to Page 162 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 61 assess for pretrial release each day, as well as time and space in court holding for paralegals to conduct risk assessments and interviews to determine the candidacy of inmates for pretrial release. The Center for Human Development, Bay Area Legal Aid, Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and SHELTER Inc. are also all cleared to provide services during visiting hours and MWP, Brighter Beginnings, and Reach Fellowship International all have scheduled service times at WCDF. MWP has scheduled time to provide in-custody services at MCDF and MDF as well. Disagreements between the Sheriff’s Office and AB 109-contracted service providers about the amount of time and extent of access necessary to provide in-custody services has resulted in some AB 109-contracted service providers not delivering in-custody services at all. As noted above, while all AB 109-contracted service providers are cleared to provide services during visiting hours at county jail facilities, only MWP, Brighter Beginnings, and Reach have scheduled times to deliver in-custody services. In the past AB 109-contracted service providers suggested that they needed greater access to county jails, beyond visiting hours, to provide in-custody services; at the same time the Sheriff’s Office maintains that a number of AB 109-contracted service providers could spend time providing useful information and beginning the enrollment processes for AB 109 inmates during currently allocated visiting hours. As a result of this disagreement, it appears a number of AB 109- contracted service providers do not utilize visiting hours to deliver services to AB 109 inmates. Despite increased communication and coordination with County departments and AB 109-contracted service providers, there is very limited pre-release case planning for AB 109 inmates. Pre-release case planning for AB 109 inmates is not a formalized collaborative process in Contra Costa County; staff from the Sheriff’s Office, Detention Health Services, or other AB 109 partners do not typically participate in pre-release case planning. Instead, the Probation Department is notified by the Sheriff’s Office about individuals who are being released from custody and a designated probation officer from the AB 109 unit is assigned to conduct pre-release interviews with all AB 109 inmates prior to their release from custody. This probation officer conducts interviews with these individuals and uses the CAIS assessment tool—an evidence based risk assessment tool used to generate recidivism risk scores—to determine the needs of each AB 109 inmate who is about to be released. If immediate needs are identified, such as behavioral health or housing needs, the probation officer can begin the referral process to help connect AB 109 clients with services upon their release. In addition, the probation officer completes required paperwork and assign a probation officers to AB 109 inmates at this time. Despite having a probation officer who conducts pre-release interviews with as many AB 109 inmates as he can, a number of AB 109 clients are not interviewed because the County does not have a formal collaborative pre-release case planning process in place for AB 109 inmates. As a result there is not always sufficient time for Probation to schedule pre-release interviews if they are notified of release dates too late; in addition, because there is no multidisciplinary team in place to provide case planning, Page 163 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 62 a number of AB 109 clients’ needs, such as medical needs, may remain unaddressed prior to their release. Data Capacity An outdated jail management system (JMS) has limited the Sheriff Office’s ability to track data on AB 109 inmates. The Sheriff’s Office’s JMS was developed by a vendor who has since gone out of business; as a consequence, the data system has not been updated in several years, and cannot be used to track any data specific to the AB 109 population. Because the JMS cannot be programmed to track AB 109- individuals in custody, this system also cannot provide data on how AB 109 has affected the inmate population, such as length of stay, severity of offense, and more. To address some of the gaps created by the JMS, the Sheriff’s Office has developed a manual process for tracking data on AB 109 individuals in custody using a Microsoft Excel workbook. A Deputy from the jail classification unit maintains this workbook, reviewing the JMS and Court reports on a daily basis to identify newly booked and/or committed individuals who fall under AB 109. This process is inefficient and inevitably results in missing data; moreover, because of the inefficiency of this system, the Sheriff’s Office only collects minimal data on AB 109 individuals. The Sheriff’s Office is aware of the shortcomings of the existing JMS and of the Department’s ability to collect, analyze, and report on the AB 109 custodial populations. The Sheriff’s Office is in the process of choosing a vendor to update their JMS so they can efficiently collect data and run queries on AB 109 inmates (and other inmates). The Sheriff’s Office does not track AB 109 inmates’ service participation in a systematic way. In addition to the JMS shortcomings noted above, the Sheriff’s Office is not currently able to track service participation by AB 109 inmates. Although in-custody service providers—including CBOs and the County Office of Education—do track participation in their programs, there is not currently a systematic process for collecting data on all service participation for all individuals incarcerated in County detention facilities. Although the Sheriff’s Office does collect data on inmate program participation from contracted CBOs, the absence of a unified place for collecting all inmate service participation data limits the County’s ability to assess the efficacy of in custody programs. Training The Sheriff’s Office conducts trainings for deputy officers and service providers each year; these trainings are not AB 109-specific because inmates are not treated differently based on AB 109 status. The Sheriff’s Office conducts trainings for all new deputies, and also provides continuous training in areas such as crisis intervention to teach deputies how to respond to dangerous situations. In addition Page 164 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 63 to conducting trainings for deputy sheriff’s officers, the Sheriff’s Office also provides monthly civilian orientations to service providers approved for any level of jail clearance so that they learn general safety and facility rules. These trainings are not specific to AB 109, but they do include information about the fact that AB 109 has resulted in more individuals, including parole violators, spending more time in County jail and how this may impact security within each jail facility. Representatives from the Sheriff’s Office attend regularly scheduled AB 109 meetings as well as other conferences and trainings that are held intermittently and related to AB 109 to varying degrees. Representatives from the Sheriff’s Office consistently attend scheduled AB 109 meetings such as Reentry Guide Workshops, Pretrial Workgroups, CCP, CAB, DEC, PPC, and QAC meetings, among others. Active participation in these meetings is important for the County because these meetings provide a space for County departments and contracted service providers to come together and discuss what is and is not working with AB 109 implementation, and how they can work together to improve processes. In addition to attending regularly scheduled meetings, representatives from the Sheriff’s Office also attend conferences such as the 4th Annual Conference on Public Safety Realignment and the California Association of Pretrial Services’ 29th Annual Training Conference, among others, that are related to AB 109 to varying degrees. Recommendations v Assess inmates for criminogenic risk/needs upon intake to ensure programming aligns with needs. Conducting validated criminogenic risk/need assessments is an established evidence- based practice for all correctional settings. The COMPAS and other tools are designed specifically for in-custody needs assessments and subsequent service delivery and would help ensure in custody service align to inmates needs and to their post-release services. v Continue to increase access to and availability of programming, especially vocational programming and programming MDF. The Sheriff’s Office has made a clear effort to increase access to programing through CBO contracts and the County Department of Education provides a wide array of additional programming. Still, there are few openings in many of the vocational education programs, particularly for inmates with a high risk classification, including many AB 109 individuals. In addition, the lack of programming at MDF is a shortcoming that has been acknowledged by all County stakeholders. The Sheriff’s Office should look to expand vocational education opportunities in all facilities and work to ensure that all inmates—including those with the greatest risks and needs—have access to the programs and services that have demonstrated efficacy at reducing recidivism. v Work with Probation, BHS, and DHS to develop a formal and collaborative pre-release case planning process for AB 109 inmates who are going to be released from custody. Identifying a multidisciplinary group, including individuals from County departments and CBOs, to help Page 165 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 64 establish a transitional system of care for inmates being released from custody will help ensure AB 109 inmates have necessary support during the custody-to-community transition. v Prioritize the purchase of a data system that can run queries on AB 109 inmates and be integrated with systems used by other county agencies. Doing so will allow the Sheriff’s Office to streamline the data entry process with the Courts, and enhance coordination among county departments tracking AB 109 inmate service receipt and outcomes. Moreover, this will allow the Sheriff’s Office to analyze AB 109 inmate trends and outcomes. v Build an Access Database or some other interim data collection system for collecting date on AB 109 inmates. The current manual AB 109 data tracking system has become increasingly difficult to use as the AB 109 population has increased. Although the Sheriff’s Office has taken initial steps to purchase an updated JMS, the procurement, development, and implementation process will be lengthy. In the meantime, creating a Microsoft Access database would be a relatively simple and inexpensive interim step for tracking data on AB 109 inmates. Page 166 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 65 Workforce Development Board Department Role in AB 109 The role of the Workforce Development Board (WDB) in Contra Costa County is to strengthen local workforce development efforts by bringing together leaders from public, private, and non-profit sectors to align a variety of resources and organizations to help meet the needs of businesses and job seekers. Although the WDB provides a number of resources that are available to the AB 109 reentry population, the WDB does not offer AB 109-specific direct services and/or programming; instead, the primary role of the WDB in AB 109 implementation is to broker opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population and coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of and are able to effectively access services and resources available to the AB 109 reentry population. Some of these services include career counseling and skill-building workshops provided at one of four career centers located in Contra Costa County, on-site recruitment opportunities where employers hire job seekers, and career fairs held throughout the County. Table 13. Workforce Development Board’s AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget AB 109 Expenditures FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Salaries & Benefits $200,000 $200,000 Total AB 109 Budget $200,000 $200,000 Findings Direct Services The WDB contributes to the County’s post-release system of care by offering a range of employment- related resources that are available to the AB 109 reentry population; however, the WDB has not adapted or customized its programming to specifically target AB 109 individuals. The WDB provides a range of employment-related services for Contra Costa County residents, including organizing career fairs and overseeing the operations of five (5) career centers across the county where individuals can to learn about vocational training and employment opportunities. Although all of these services are available for AB 109 individuals living in the County, there are not specific services exclusively for the AB 109 reentry population. The WDB looks to generate opportunities for job seekers by organizing career fairs where large numbers of employers and service providers distribute information about local employment opportunities and career development services. In addition, the WDB organizes a number of on-site recruitment opportunities held at each of the career centers throughout the year. Here employers deliver presentations and conduct interviews with individuals who are interested in being hired for one of their Page 167 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 66 positions. The Executive Director and Business Services Representative expressed that the WDB has made a number of connections with employers who hire individuals with criminal records, and that job ready AB 109 individuals can always participate in on-site recruitments. However, attendance records do not specifically identify AB 109 clients who might be attending these on-site recruitments, as there are not adequate systems to track them separately from other job seekers. The WDB enlists the AB 109- funded community partners and service providers to outreach to inform AB 109 individuals about the on-site recruitments or employers who are willing to hire individuals with criminal records. County residents can also connect with career case managers and other One-Stop Career Center staff who work with clients to attain pre-employment documentation (e.g., driver’s license, identification card, and social security card) and to provide basic skills and career interest assessments and referrals to basic skills and career technical education programs. In addition, case managers help clients access online credential and certification programs as well as online job boards. Figure 11: Resources and Services Provided to AB 109 Reentry Population Despite providing an array of important opportunities for job seekers, there are insufficient tracking mechanisms to validate the extent to which AB 109 individuals are receiving these services, as indicated by Error! Reference source not found. above. Only one AB 109 client from our focus groups reported awareness of the WDB or their services, although many noted that finding employment is one of the largest obstacles for establishing stability while transitioning back to the community. The WDB’s Business Services Representative also suggested that very few AB 109 individuals utilize their career centers, noting that this is likely because a majority of the AB 109 reentry population have hurdles such as housing, substance use, and transportation issues to address first. Focus groups with AB 109 clients and probation officers also indicate that AB 109 clients are more likely to be referred to CBOs providing employment services than to WDB. Because the WDB does not have a database that enables it to disaggregate AB 109 status, there is currently no efficient way of more effectively tracking the extent to which AB 109 individuals access the WDB’s resources. According to the WDB’s Executive Director and the Business Services Representative, the WDB does not provide direct services to the AB 109 reentry population because the WDB made a conscious decision 133 95 3 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Employer partnerships idenpfied by WDB as suitable for AB 109 clients On-side recruitments at Career Centers Contra Costa County Career Fairs Idenpfied AB 109 clients receiving job training Idenpfied AB 109 clients assessed for job readiness Page 168 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 67 not to try and duplicate services or compete for AB 109 funding against community-based organizations that may have better capacity to provide the more intensive and specialized services required by the reentry population (interestingly, the CAB has recommended that the WDB take a larger role in the employment contracts in the future, perhaps even holding them to ensure that contracted providers are able to leverage programs around services that are readily available through the WDB). Instead, the WDB maintains focus on brokering opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population by developing partnerships with employers willing to hire applicants with criminal records and communicating with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of the WDB’s resources available to the AB 109 population. The WDB does not provide in-custody services for AB 109 inmates in county jail facilities despite the SO being able to facilitate access into county jails. Although the WDB has provided substantive material to AB 109 partners in order to help individuals in custody become aware of services that they can access when they are released, WDB staff do not themselves go into the County’s detention facilities to provide services or information to AB 109 inmates about resources that are available through the WDB. Communication and Coordination The WDB’s Business Services Representative supports the post-release system of care by serving as a liaison between the WDB and AB 109 partners; however, not all partners are aware of resources available to the AB 109 reentry population. The WDB’s Business Services Representative coordinates with AB 109 partners to help ensure that all partners are aware of resources the WDB offers the AB 109 reentry population. The WDB also works to develop employment opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population by leveraging established relationships and making new connections with employers open to hiring applicants with criminal records. The WDB’s Business Services Representative and other WDB staff communicate employment opportunities to AB 109 Network Field Operations Coordinators when employers who hire applicants with criminal records are hiring. In this way, the WDB helps make connections for the AB 109 reentry population with potential employers. The WDB’s Business Services Representative (and on occasion, other WDB staff) also attends regularly scheduled meetings such as the QAC and CCP where service providers can connect with him to schedule meetings at career centers and learn more about them. Despite this regular attendance at collaborative meetings, several AB 109 partners reported having little information about WDB services, and members of the AB 109 reentry population we spoke with were not aware of resources available to them through the WDB either. Page 169 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 68 The WDB has not received a consistent pipeline of AB 109 referrals from the Probation Department. AB 109 individuals are connected to AB 109 services mostly through referrals from Probation. The WDB expressed that they do not often receive AB 109 referrals from Probation; this is at least in part due to the fact that a large percentage of the AB 109 reentry population is not job ready and other AB 109- contracted CBOs provide job readiness training. WDB staff suggested that AB 109 referrals who are most likely to experience success using their services would have stable housing, reliable transportation, and stable mental health in addition to pre- employment documentation and a high school diploma. While a large portion of the AB 109 reentry population do not meet these criteria, the WDB can help overcome some of these obstacles by making referrals to educational and vocational training opportunities. Moreover, the local EASTBAY Works One- Stop Career Center system is useful for anyone from the AB 109 reentry population seeking employment. Thus, it is imperative that the WDB and Probation Department maintain a collaborative partnership. Data Capacity The WDB has strong overall data capacity; however, their dependence on the State’s CalJOBS Information System limits their ability to track data on AB 109 specifically, since this statewide system does not have capacity to separately track AB 109 status. The WDB does not have the database capacity to track the number of AB 109 individuals they serve, as the State of California’s CalJOBS system (www.caljobs.ca.gov) only tracks whether or not individuals have criminal records and not the category of their offense/status. Neither AB 109 individuals nor other job seekers are obliged to and often do not disclose their status relative to criminal history. In short, tracking the extent to which AB 109 individuals utilize their resources has not been possible; as a result, the WDB is unable to evaluate their effectiveness working with the AB 109 population. The WDB uses data to identify growing industries and employment opportunities for job seekers. Separate from its work related to AB 109, the WDB conducts research to identify industries that are growing as well as declining in order ensure they are connecting with industries and employers that are able to provide opportunities for job seekers. The WDB has currently designated six (6) priority industry sectors for specific investment and focus, including: advanced manufacturing, healthcare, biomedical/bioscience, transportation/logistics, information communication technology (ICT), and construction. While maintaining up to date knowledge about the ins and outs of the local labor market is imperative for helping job seekers to gain employment, the WDB could better assist the AB 109 population by tracking whether growth industries for the reentry population align with growth industries of the Page 170 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 69 general market, since traditionally individuals with criminal records have been relegated to specific fields and professions. Training Members of the WDB attend regularly scheduled AB 109 meetings but they do not conduct or attend AB 109 specific trainings. Members of the WDB attend regularly scheduled AB 109 meetings where they distribute information to service providers about vocational training and employment opportunities for the reentry population. Network Coordinators have been to Antioch, Concord and Brentwood to provide training on AB109 and the Network, and all One-Stop/AJCC staff receives training on the work of the CCP and CCP Community Advisory Board (CAB). Because the nature and services the WDB provides do not differ for the AB 109 reentry population compared to other individuals, they do not conduct or attend other AB 109-specific trainings beyond this, though there is willingness and interest to do so if and when appropriate Recommendations v Take advantage of visiting hours at each jail facility to offer regular opportunities for inmates to learn about resources available to them through the WDB. Conducting outreach in county jails would provide a great opportunity for AB 109 inmates to learn about resources available to them upon release. v Increase coordination with the Probation Department and AB 109 CBOs to increase their awareness of WDB services. Despite the fact that WDB provides a range of services that could be of use to AB 109 clients, there is little indication that AB 109 partners are aware of their services, which are thus underutilized by AB 109 clients. v Tailor job development and outreach for AB 109 and other reentry clients. As numerous AB 109 clients noted, obtaining employment is a huge challenge for individuals with felony convictions and traditional workforce development and programming is often not applicable. The WDB should continue to develop employment partners who will hire individuals with felony convictions and conduct targeted outreach so that these individuals can learn about viable employment opportunities as well as the opportunity to receive on-site job interviews. Identifying industries that are growing for the reentry population will help to ensure that the WDB can connect the AB 109 population with industries and employers that are able to provide opportunities for job seekers with criminal records. Page 171 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 70 Appendix A: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviation or Acronym Full Name AODS Alcohol and Other Drugs Services ACER Arraignment Court Early Representation AB 109 Assembly Bill 109 BHS Behavioral Health Services CMS Case Management System CBT Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CAB Community Advisory Board CBO Community Based Organization CCP Community Corrections Partnership CAIS Correctional Assessment and Intervention System CAO County Administrator’s Office CAF Custody Alternative Facility DEC Data Evaluation Subcommittee DPO Deputy Probation Officer DHS Detention Health Services DA District Attorney’s Office DUECE Drinking, Education, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation EHSD Employment and Human Services Department EBP Evidence Based Practice FY Fiscal Year FMH Forensic Mental Health HMIS Homeless Management Information System HP Homeless Program JMS Jail Management System MCDF Marsh Creek Detention Facility MDF Martinez Detention Facility MWP Men and Women of Purpose PD Office of the Public Defender PTS Pretrial Services PRCS Post Release Community Supervision PPC Public Protection Committee RN Registered Nurse QAC Quality Assurance Committee RDA Resource Development Associates T4C Thinking for Change VPRAI Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument WCDF West County Detention Facility WDB Workforce Development Board WRAP Wellness Recovery Action Plan Page 172 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 71 Appendix B: Summary of Recommendations Recommendations Cross System Update the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan to reflect changes to the County’s AB 109 system and processes over the last several years. Establish greater continuity between in-custody and post-release supervision and services, including an in-custody needs assessment, comprehensive data collection on in-custody services, and more coordinated pre-release planning processes. Continue to build the County’s data infrastructure by implementing updated data systems for those departments with limited data capacity. Increase eligibility criteria for the Pretrial Services program, so that more defendants can be screened for pretrial release. Increase the County’s operational capacity for cross-department planning and implementation efforts. Behavioral Health Services Work with the Sheriff’s Office, Detention Health Services, and the Probation Department to develop a collaborative pre-release planning process. Implement a universal information sharing waiver for clients so that the three divisions can begin to coordinate more efficiently regarding client cases and outcomes. County Administrator’s Office Use the RFP and contracting process to increase the use of EBPs by CBOs. Continue to support ongoing AB 109-related trainings throughout the County by centralizing administration and coordination of AB 109-related trainings. Continue to support and enhance existing data collection and monitoring activities throughout all AB- 109 related departments and providers, and system-wide, in order to refine County reentry services and supports. Engage in a comprehensive planning process to improve overall system coordination and provide for the regular updating of County-wide documents guiding AB 109 implementation, such as the Operational Plan. Detention Health Services Assess wait time for in-custody health services to ensure that inmates are getting health care in a timely manner. Participate in pre-release case planning to assist AB 109 inmates’ with accessing necessary medication and health services in the community District Attorney’s Office Page 173 of 175 Contra Costa County County Department AB 109 Performance Review January 2016 | 72 Schedule trainings regarding the Pre-trial Services, the effectiveness of split and treatment-involved sentences, and AB 109 reentry services. Expand ACER to the Pittsburg courthouse. Educate staff on the uses of specialized courts, and work with the PD to establish processes that increase client access Office of the Public Defender Increase eligibility for Pretrial Services so more clients can be evaluated for release before trial. Collaborate with the DA to develop additional protocols for the ACER program, including guidelines and parameters for cases that would be good candidates for early resolution at arraignment. Collaborate with justice partners for clearer Homeless Court protocols and processes and educate partner departments about available Homeless Court and other alternative court services Probation Department Work with the Sheriff’s Office, Detention Health Services, and the Behavioral Health Services to develop a collaborative pre-release planning process. Work with CBOs to track clients’ service engagement to encourage clients to engage in recommended services and to help the County identify service gaps. Reduce AB 109 caseloads, in alignment with best practices in supervision. Sheriff’s Office Assess inmates for criminogenic risk/needs upon intake to ensure programming aligns with needs. Continue to increase access to and availability of programming, especially vocational programming and programming MDF. Work with Probation, BHS, and DHS to develop a formal and collaborative pre-release case planning process for AB 109 inmates who are going to be released from custody Prioritize the purchase of a data system that can run queries on AB 109 inmates and be integrated with systems used by other county agencies. Build an Access Database or some other interim data collection system for collecting date on AB 109 inmates. Workforce Development Board Take advantage of visiting hours at each jail facility to offer regular opportunities for inmates to learn about resources available to them through the WDB. Increase coordination with the Probation Department and AB 109 CBOs to increase their awareness of WDB services. Tailor job development and outreach for AB 109 and other reentry clients Page 174 of 175  2011 Realignment Estimate at 2016‐17 Governor's Budget ATTACHMENT F In Millions 2014‐15 2014‐15  Growth 2015‐16 2015‐16  Growth 2016‐17 2016‐17  Growth Law Enforcement Services 2,078.30 2,289.10 2,418.20    Trial Court Security Subaccount 518.1 14.5 532.5 12.9 545.4 13.8    Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities 489.9 57.8 489.9 80.5 489.9 99.3    Community Corrections Subaccount 934.1 173.4 1,107.5 96.8 1,204.3 103.4    District Attorney/Public Defender 15.8 8.5 24.3 6.5 30.8 6.9    Juvenile Justice Subaccount 120.4 14.5 134.9 12.9 147.8 13.8 Growth, Law Enforcement Services 268.7 209.6 237.2 Mental Health 1,120.60 13.4 1,120.60 12 1,120.60 12.8 Support Services 3,022 3,277.60 3505.2    Protective Services Subaccount 1,970.70 138.5 2,109.20 107.8 2,217.00 115.2    Behavioral Health Subaccount 1,051.40 117 1,168.40 119.8 1,288.20 128 Growth, Support Services 268.9 239.6 256 Account Total and Growth $6,758.60 $7,136.50 $7,537.20 Revenue      1.0625% Sales Tax 6,210.9 6,566.1 6,948.0      Motor Vehicle License Fee 547.7 570.4 589.2 Revenue Total $6,758.60 $7,136.50 $7,537.20  Based on Department of Finance estimate Statewide 2016/17 Est. Allocation Contra Costa Allocation Factor Contra Costa Estimate 1,204,300,000 1.8809%  $                  22,651,679  Contra Costa Community Corrections Allocation estimate Page 175 of 175