HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04252016 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
April 25, 2016
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, 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 February 29, 2016 meeting. (Page 4)
4. CONSIDER reviewing and approving a proposed recruitment process to fill seven
community based organization/public member seats on the Contra Costa County
Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff)
(Page 9)
5. RECEIVE the FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report assembled by Resource Development
Associates and approved by the Community Corrections Partnership. (Lara DeLaney,
County Administrator's Office) (Page 12)
6. CONSIDER accepting a report on AB 109 Community Programs request for
proposals/qualifications contract award recommendations from various review panels
and recommend contract awards to the Board of Supervisors. (Lara DeLaney, County
Administrator's Office) (Page 51)
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 23, 2016 at 9:00 AM.
8.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:04/25/2016
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - February 29, 2016
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - February 29, 2016
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 February 29, 2016
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the February 29, 2016 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - February 29, 2016
Page 4 of 87
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
***RECORD OF ACTION***
February 29, 2016
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, 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
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator - Committee Staff
1. Introductions
Convene - 9:00 AM
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the February 8, 2016 meeting.
Approved as presented.
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
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 comments and direction to staff:
1. Clarify that the three school district seats on the proposed Task Force would be filled
by representatives from:
a) Mount Diablo Unified School District
b) West Contra Costa Unified School District
c) Antioch Unified School District;
Page 5 of 87
2. Direct staff to forward recommendations for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors;
3. Should the Board of Supervisors approve implementation of a Task Force, then
return to PPC with a process for recruiting five community based organization
members.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5. 1. Recognize that the total allocation approved for community programs in fiscal year
2016-17 is currently $4,680,036. Unless additional funding is contemplated, round this
amount down to $4,680,000 to make developing and responding to forthcoming RFP’s
less cumbersome.
2. Approve CAB’s recommended services and allocation amounts for the AB 109 2016-17
fiscal year community programs as follows ($4,680,000 in total):
a. Employment Support and Placement - $2,000,000
b. Short and Long Term Housing - $1,030,000
c. Implementation of Reentry First Stops - $1,285,000
d. Mentoring and Family Reunification - $200,000
e. Civil Legal Services - $150,000
f. Reentry Resource Guide - $15,000
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Continue to track West, Central and East County residents served;
2. Continue to evaluate service parity between the three regions of the County during
the AB 109 data evaluation process.
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6. 1. REVIEW the Draft RFP/RFQs and PROVIDE input and direction to staff on their
content and distribution.
2. CONSIDER the issue of the distribution of funding for Employment and Housing
services: Should the $2M for Employment and $1,030,000 for Housing be distributed
regionally utilizing the same formula as in the past (40% to East, 30% to Central, 30% to
West); updated to reflect current population numbers (Approximately 41% reside in East
County, approximately 28% reside in West County, approximately 20% reside in Central
County); or based on need. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs.Page 6 of 87
3. CONSIDER the issue of the extent to which a respondent identifies matching funds for
their program. Should there be explicit preference for providing leveraged resources in the
Budget? If so, at what level. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final
RFPs.
4. CONSIDER the term of the contracts: Are contracts for 3 years, or one year with 2 one-
year renewal options? PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs.
5. CONSIDER the recommendation of staff to commence the development and
distribution of the RFQ for Planning and Facilitation Services related to the update of the
County’s Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operational Plan after the current RFPs and
RFQ are issued.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Consider building in additional points in the request for proposals for matching
funds offered by respondents;
2. The resulting contracts should be one-year in length with options to renew up to the
length contemplated in the request for proposals;
3. Supervisor Gioia noted that, considering the transient population within the
population being served, all regions of the County are receiving an equitable level of
program support from AB 109 funds.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
0. 1. APPROVE calendar year 2015 Public Protection Committee Annual Report for
submission to the Board of Supervisors;
2. APPROVE calendar year 2016 Public Protection Committee work plan;
3. PROVIDE direction to staff as appropriate.
Approved as presented
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
7. The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM.
8. Adjourn
Adjourned Page 7 of 87
For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
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 8 of 87
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:04/25/2016
Subject:RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR SEATS ON THE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT TASK FORCE
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: CCC RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION LETTER
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036
Referral History:
Over the past year, the Public Protection Committee (PPC) held five public meetings on this
issue. Below is an outline of events, commencing with receipt of a letter from the Contra Costa
County Racial Justice Coalition (the"Coalition"):
On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) received a letter from the Coalition requesting
the review of certain topics within the local criminal justice system. The PPC generally hears all
matters related to public safety within the County and was tasked with reviewing this referral by
the BOS.
On July 6, 2015, the PPC initiated discussion regarding this referral and directed staff to research
certain items identified in the Coalition's letter to the BOS and return to the PPC in September
2015. Specifically, this was with regard to current workplace diversity training for county
employees and current data on race in the County criminal justice system.
On September 14, 2015, the PPC received a comprehensive report from staff on current data
related to race in the County criminal justice system, information regarding the County workplace
diversity training and examples of diversity and implicit bias trainings from across the country.
At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the PPC received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral
and providing an update on how a 2008 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) report
compares with the statistical data presented at the September meeting. Following discussion, the
PPC directed staff to return in December 2015, following discussions between the County
Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender, with thoughts about how to approach a
new DMC study initiative in the County.
On December 14, 2015, the PPC received an update from the County Probation Officer, District
Page 9 of 87
On December 14, 2015, the PPC received an update from the County Probation Officer, District
Attorney and Public Defender on how best to proceed with an update to the 2008 DMC report;
including, establishing a task force to review and update findings from the 2008 report. During
the 2008 study, the concept of establishing a new task force was discussed; however, the task
force was not formed at that time. The PPC directed the three departments above to provide a
written project scope and proposed task force composition for final review.
On February 29, 2016, the PPC received written description of the proposed task force discussed
at the December 2015 meeting from the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public
Defender. The PPC accepted the proposed task force composition and clarified that the three
school district seats should be represented by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, the
Mount Diablo Unified School District and the Antioch Unified School District. The PPC directed
staff to prepare a report for consideration by the full Board of Supervisors and schedule for early
April 2016.
Referral Update:
On April 12, 2016, the PPC recommended formation of the Task Force to the Board of
Supervisors for consideration. Following a presentation from Committee staff and discussion by
the Board members, the Board ultimately approved the recommendations from the PPC, with the
following additional items and clarifications:
1. The (5) five community based organization seats will include at least one representative from
the faith community
2. Add (1) one additional Mental Health representative seat. The seat shall not be filled by an
employee of the County providing mental health services.
3. Add (1) one Public member seat to allow for a representative outside of government, but not
affiliated with a community based organization.
Following the actions of the Board of Supervisors, staff is recommending the following
recruitment schedules to the PPC for consideration today:
7-Week Application Period:
April 25: Issue press release advertising vacancies
June 13: Application Deadline (7 week application period)
June 27: PPC Committee Meeting: Interviews
July 12: Board consideration of PPC nominations
3-Week Application Period:
April 25: Issue press release advertising vacancies
May 16: Application Deadline (3 week application period)
May 23: PPC Committee Meeting: Interviews
June 7: Board consideration of PPC nominations
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW and APPROVE a proposed recruitment process to fill seven community based
organization/public member seats on the Contra Costa County Disproportionate Minority Contact
Task Force.
Page 10 of 87
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 11 of 87
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:04/25/2016
Subject:FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.:
Referral Name: FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: Lara DeLaney
Referral History:
The Community Corrections Partnership has allocated funding in the County Administrators'
Office to provide for comprehensive data collection and program evaluation services. The County
conducted a public request for proposals process and secured the services of resource
Development Associates in 2013.
Since that time, RDA has been assisting the County and the CCP with critical AB 109 program
review and analysis. The focus for FY 2014/15 had been program services provided by
community based organizations and the development of data dashboards for use by certain AB
109 stakeholders. For FY 2015/16, RDA has been focusing on program reviews of county
departments.
Referral Update:
Attached is a copy of the FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report, as approved by the Community
Corrections Partnership at the March 2016 regular meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE the FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report assembled by Resource Development
Associates and approved by the Community Corrections Partnership.
Attachments
FY 2014/15 AB109 Annual Report
Page 12 of 87
Public Safety Realignment in Contra
Costa County
AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2014/15
Page 13 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 1
The following AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Annual Report was prepared by Resource Development
Associates (RDA), with oversight from the Community Corrections Partnership of Contra Costa County.
Community Corrections Partnership of Contra Costa County
Staff Assigned to CCP
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Donte Blue, County Reentry Coordinator
Philip Kader, Chief Probation Officer, Chair Stephen Baiter, Workforce Development Director
David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County Roosevelt Terry, Community Based Organizations
Representative
Brian Addington, Pittsburg Police Chief Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human
Services Director
Mark Peterson, District Attorney Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Health Director
Mimi Lyster-Zemmelman, Superior Court
designee David Twa, County Administrator
Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Fatima Matal Sol, Alcohol and Other Drugs
Director
Devorah Levine, Victim's Representative Karen Sakata, County Superintendent of Schools
Page 14 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 2
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Report ............................................................................................................................ 5
Realignment in Contra Costa County ............................................................................................................ 6
County Department Impacts......................................................................................................................... 9
Behavioral Health Services............................................................................................................... 9
Detention Health Services ............................................................................................................. 13
District Attorney’s Office ............................................................................................................... 15
Office of the Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 17
Pretrial Services ............................................................................................................................. 20
Probation Department ................................................................................................................... 23
Sheriff’s Office ................................................................................................................................ 25
Workforce Development Board ..................................................................................................... 29
Community Based Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 30
AB 109 Population Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 34
Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................................. 37
Page 15 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 3
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services ................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services .......................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population ........................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services ...................... 12
Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings ........................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, .................................... 15
Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 14/15 ................ 15
Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 14/15 quarter .................. 16
Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentence, all FY 14/151 ............................... 16
Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations .................................................................................. 16
Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all ...................... 16
Figure 16: Clients referred to, assessed by, and referred to service providers by Social Worker .............. 17
Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on own recognizance .......................................... 18
Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions .......................................................................... 18
Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied .......................................................................... 19
Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pretrial risk, FY 14/15 .......................................................................... 20
Figure 21: Assessed pretrial risk levels, FY 14/15 ....................................................................................... 20
Figure 22: Percentage of assessed clients starting pretrial supervision, by risk level ................................ 21
Figure 23: Pretrial supervision case closures, by type ................................................................................ 21
Page 16 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 4
Figure 24: Unsuccessful pretrial supervision case closures, by type .......................................................... 22
Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification ............................................................ 23
Figure 26: Total AB 109 individuals under supervision during FY 14/15 (n=1,194) .................................... 23
Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification ................................. 23
Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, FY 14/15 (n=525) .................................................................................... 24
Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, FY 14/15 (n=309) .................................. 24
Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility ........................................................... 25
Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility ..................................................... 25
Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ..................................................... 26
Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. Non-AB 109 ............................................................... 26
Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility ............................................... 27
Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility ......................................... 27
Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ......................................... 27
Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type ...................................... 28
Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations ........................................................................................................... 34
Figure 39. Percentage of 1170(h) clients revoked in FY 14/15 ................................................................... 35
Figure 40: Percentage of PRCS clients revoked in FY 14/15 ....................................................................... 35
Figure 41. AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions .......................................... 36
Page 17 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 5
Introduction to the Report
This report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in Contra Costa County during
the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year (FY 14/15), with a focus on understanding the impact of AB 109 County
Departments and contracted service providers. Toward this end, this report describes the volume and
type of services provided by all of the County’s AB 109 partners over the course of the year followed by a
brief overview
As context for these activities, the report begins with an overview of the legislative impact of AB 109 on
California counties and a discussion of Contra Costa County’s response to Public Safety Realignment. This
is followed by an in-depth look at the AB 109-related supervision and services provided by each of Contra
Costa County’s AB 109-funded departments, as well as the cross-departmental Pretrial Services program.
The departments included in this report, listed in alphabetical order, are:
Behavioral Health Services
Detention Health Services
District Attorney’s Office
Office of the Public Defender
Pretrial Services
Probation Department
Sheriff’s Office
Workforce Development Board
After summarizing the implementation and impact of AB 109 across County departments this report
describes services each of the AB 109-contracted community based organizations provides, highlighting
the referrals they received from Probation, as well as the total number of enrollments and successful
completions of program services over the course of the year. Finally this report concludes with an
overview of AB 109 population outcomes and a discussion of the County’s AB 109 priorities moving
forward into FY 15/16 and beyond.
A Note on Data
The RDA team worked with each County Department, as well as seven community-based organizations
(CBOs) contracted to provide AB 109 services, in order to obtain the data necessary for the following
report. Because data was collected across a variety of departments who track AB 109 client measures
differently, we caution against making direct comparisons from figures across department sections.
Moreover, because each department has a separate data system and track AB 109 client data disparately,
some measures such as the percentage of the AB 109 population under supervision with new criminal
charges and/or convictions during FY 14/15 could not be calculated without tracking individuals across
departments.
Page 18 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 6
Realignment in Contra Costa County
Legislative Impacts of AB 109
Largely a response to prison overcrowding in California, the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill
(AB) 109) was signed into law in 2011, taking effect on October 1, 2011. AB 109 transferred the
responsibility of supervising specific lower-level incarcerated individuals and parolees from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties, realigning three major areas of the
criminal justice system. Specifically, AB 109:
Transferred the location of incarceration for individuals incarcerated for lower-level offenses
(specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and
provided for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders;
Transferred the responsibility for post-release supervision of individuals incarcerated for lower-
level offenses (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-
serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of
supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS);
Shifted the responsibility for processing certain parole revocations from the state Parole Board to
the local court system; and
Shifted the responsibility for housing revoked supervision clients affected by the above changes
from CDCR to county detention facilities.
There are three new populations for which the County is now responsible for housing and supervising, all
classified under AB 109. These populations include:
Post-Release Community Supervisees: County probation departments now supervise a specified
population of incarcerated individuals discharging from prison whose commitment offense was
non-violent and non-serious.
Parolees: Parolees – excluding those serving life terms – who violate the terms of their parole
serve any detention sanction in the local jail rather than state prison. In addition, as of July 1, 2013
local courts are now responsible for parole revocation hearings for parolees who violate the terms
of their parole, rather than the state Parole Board.
1170(h) Sentenced defendants: Individuals convicted of non-violent or non-serious felonies serve
their sentence under the jurisdiction of the county instead of state prison. Sentences are now
Page 19 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 7
served either in county jail, on felony probation or on a split sentence (where part of the term is
served in jail and part under supervision by the county probation department).
In addition to transferring the responsibility of housing and supervising these populations from the state
to the County, AB 109 also required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships
with local health and social service agencies and community based services to provide supportive services
designed to facilitate the successful reentry and reintegration of AB 109 individuals into the community
and reduce the likelihood that they would recidivate.
Contra Costa County’s Approach to Public Safety Realignment
After the enactment of AB 109, the Executive Committee of Contra Costa County’s Community Corrections
Partnership (CCP) developed an AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan approved by the
County’s Board of Supervisors. During the first two years of Public Safety Realignment the County focused
on absorbing the impacts of AB 109 across County Departments, using data to inform decision making
around how best to prepare for housing and supervising the AB 109 population. During this time Contra
Costa County also established an AB 109 Operational Plan and worked towards developing a coordinated
reentry infrastructure, emphasizing the use of evidence based practices (EBPs) for serving the AB 109
reentry population.
Contra Costa County’s overarching approach to AB 109 implementation has largely centered on
developing formalized partnerships between different law enforcement agencies, as well as partnerships
between law enforcement agencies and health or social service agencies, such as Behavioral Health
Services (BHS) and AB 109-contracted community-based organizations (CBOs). For instance the Sheriff’s
Department and Probation have increased coordination with each other so that Deputy Probation Officers
(DPOs) have greater access to County jails than they did prior to AB 109. Probation has also increased
communication and collaboration with BHS and AB 109-contracted CBOs resulting in a greater number of
referrals to reentry support services that are in place to help returning citizens successfully reintegrate
into the community.
With Public Safety Realignment no longer new to the County by FY 13/14, Contra Costa County shifted its
focus from adapting to AB 109 to further developing County capacity to serve the AB 109 population.
During FY 13/14 the County launched the Pretrial Services Program, a collaborative endeavor with the
Office of the Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff’s Department, and the District Attorney’s Office
aimed at reducing the pretrial custody population; Contra Costa County also hired Resource Development
Associates (RDA) to support their AB 109 operations through a series of evaluation and data collection
activities including an assessment of the County’s data capacity and infrastructure as well as an evaluation
of AB 109 implementation.
FY 14/15 was devoted to the further development of the County’s reentry system, as collaborative
partnerships between law enforcement partners and community based service providers continued to
develop and evolve. In particular, FY 14/15 saw the opening of the Network Reentry System of Services
Page 20 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 8
for Returning Citizens in East and Central County. In addition, significant progress was made toward
establishing the Reentry Success Center in West County, which opened in October 2015.
The County continued to invest in evaluative efforts as well during FY 14/15; Contra Costa County invested
in an evaluation of 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 in order to better inform their
understanding of the effectiveness of the County’s reentry system in helping the AB 109 reentry
population successfully reintegrate into the community.
Page 21 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 9
County Department Impacts (FY 14-15)
Public Safety Realignment shifted the responsibility of housing and supervising certain individuals
incarcerated for lower-level offenses from the state to the County, and also required that the County use
AB 109 funding towards building partnerships between County departments to provide coordinated and
evidence-based supervision of, and services for, the AB 109 reentry population. The sections below
summarize how AB 109 has impacted County Departments by highlighting the volume and types of
supervision and services provided to the AB 109 population across the County.
Behavioral Health Services
The BHS Division combines Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (AODS), the Homeless Program, Forensic
Mental Health Services, and Public Benefits into an integrated system of care. BHS partners with clients,
families, and community-based organizations to provide services to the AB 109 population. While BHS
provided services for the reentry population prior to the start of AB 109, Realignment resulted in an
increased focus on and funding for serving these clients. The sections below demonstrate the number of
AB 109 individuals receiving services from each department over the course of the 14/15 fiscal year.
Alcohol and Other Drugs Division
The AODS division of BHS operates a community-based continuum of substance abuse treatment services
to meet the level of care needs for each AB 109 client referred. As shown in Figure 1, AODS provided
outpatient services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients throughout FY 14/15. During that
timeframe, a total of 37 clients were admitted to outpatient treatment and six successfully completed
outpatient treatment services.
Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services
3
13
19
22
3 12 13 90
2 1
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
Page 22 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 10
For AB 109 clients in need of acute withdrawal services, AODS provides residential detoxification
treatment. During FY 14/15 AODS providers admitted 21 AB 109 clients to residential detox. As shown in
Figure 2, 18 clients successfully completed residential detox during that year.
Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services
AODS also provides residential substance abuse treatment to clients on AB 109 supervision. As shown in
Figure 3, AODS provided residential treatment services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients as the
year progressed. During FY 14/15 the County admitted 87 AB 109 clients to residential treatment, and 32
clients successfully completed residential services. Additionally, the number of clients completing services
increased throughout the year.
Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services
Homeless Program
In FY 14/15, the County’s Homeless Program served 33 AB 109 individuals in the first quarter, 30 in the
second, 19 in the third, and 15 in the fourth, as shown in Figure 4.
0
7
5
9
0 7 5 9064 8
0
2
4
6
8
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
14
35 37
44
15 28 24 200510 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
Page 23 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 11
Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services
The total number of bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population are provided in Figure 5 below, which
shows that total bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population at shelters in and out of the County declined
during the fiscal year.
Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population
Mental Health Division
Forensics Mental Health collaborates with Probation to support successful community reintegration of
individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance related disorders. Services include assessment,
groups and community case management. As indicated in Figure 6, Probation referred over 150 AB 109
clients to Fornesic Mental Health services, of whom 100 received mental health screenings, and from
which 31 opened services.
33
30
19
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients1332 1338
903
588
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsOutside County
West
Central
East
Page 24 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 12
Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services
Public Benefits
BHS also assists AB 109 clients with applying for public benefits, including Medi-Cal, General Assistance,
CalFresh, and Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (SSDI/SSI). Figure 7 displays
the number of AB 109 clients assisted with applications for Medi-Cal in FY 14/15, and the number of
applications approved by the State.
Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals
In contrast, almost no AB 109 clients are assessed for or enrolled in other benefits, such as General
Assistance, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI benefit applications than Medi-Cal applications. Table 1 displays the
number of AB 109 client intakes and approvals for public benefits.
Table 1: AB 109 client GA, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI intakes and approvals
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals
GA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
CalFresh 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
SSDI/SSI 2 0 2 0 5 0 1 0
41
35
41
3633
12
28 27
7 5 7
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsService
Referrals
Screenings
Services
Opened
13
11
18
131211
18
13
0
5
10
15
20
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntakes
Approvals
Page 25 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 13
Detention Health Services
Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services Department (DHS) provides health care to all
incarcerated individuals – including AB 109 individuals – housed within the County. DHS provides in-
custody access to nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and psychiatrists who provide
medical and mental health care for all AB 109 individuals in custody. The County’s detention facilities
provide basic health screenings to all new individuals in custody, including AB 109 individuals. Figure 8
displays the number of AB 109 individuals who were provided intakes health screening across each
quarter of FY 14/15.
Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings
In addition to these screenings, DHS provides an array of health-related services to all individuals
incarcerated in the County’s detention facilities, including physical, behavioral, and dental care. Figure 9
displays the distribution of sick calls (i.e., in person appointments) provided for AB 109 individuals in FY
14/15.
666
516
600
524
0
250
500
750
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntake
Screenings
Page 26 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 14
Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls
82 63 66 76
153 129 122 158
98
72 92
87
111
106 96
109
199
183 148
240
293
234 231
251
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Inmate Sick CallsMental
Health RN
Mental
Health
Clinician
Psychiatrist
Dental
MD
Nursing
Page 27 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 15
District Attorney’s Office
The District Attorney’s Office (DA) functions to protect the community by prosecuting crimes and
recommending sentences intended to increase public safety. Certain felony charges, if convicted, result
in AB 109 sentences. As shown in both Figure 10 and Figure 11 below, slightly over 10% of all convicted
felonies in the County in FY 14/15 resulted in AB 109 sentences.
Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a
percentage of all felony sentences,
by FY 14/15 quarter
Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a
percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 14/15
The Court may sentence a convicted AB 109 individual to either local custody or a split sentence, which
entails local incarceration followed by Probation supervision. Increasing evidence shows that split
sentences lead to better outcomes, and the County’s District Attorney has been a statewide leading
advocate for split sentences. As shown in both Figure 12 and Figure 13, the vast majority of AB 109
sentences in the County were a combination of custody and supervision. Sentences labeled “Supervision”
are instances where individuals were sentenced to custody and supervision as well; in these instances
individuals were released upon sentencing after receiving credit for time served prior to their sentence.
15%12%11%10%
132
70 74
96
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences%
Other
% AB
109
# AB
109
AB 109
sentences
372
12%Other
felony
sentences
2,702
88%
Page 28 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 16
Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage
of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 14/15 quarter1
Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage
of all AB 109 sentence, all FY 14/151
Additionally, the DA can initiate supervision revocations for probation and parole violations. Figure 14 and
Figure 15 illustrate the number of AB 109 supervision revocations in FY 14/15, by AB 109 classification
types.
Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations
Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all
FY 14/15
1 Only includes new 1170(h) sentences
97%100%96%
84%
132
70 74
96
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences%
Super
vision
%
Split
% Jail
Only
# AB
109
Split
Sentences,
364, 92%
Jail Only,
28, 7%
Supervision
Only, 5, 1%
127 129 107 92
51 43
34 43
84
52
42 49
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of SentencesParole
PRCS
1170(h)
1170(h),
455, 53%
PRCS,
171, 20%
Parole,
227, 27%
Page 29 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 17
Office of the Public Defender
The main role of the Public Defender 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 of the Public Defender to provide paralegal
and attorney staffing for the Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) and Pre-trial Services (PTS)
programs. Both the ACER and PTS programs are designed to reduce the County’s custodial populations;
by ensuring the presence of attorneys at defendants’ initial court appearances, ACER is intended to
increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released on their own recognizance (OR) for
the duration of the court process and allow for the expedited resolution of cases. PTS supports reduced
pretrial detention by providing judges with greater information with which to make bail and pretrial
detention decisions, and by providing pretrial supervision of individuals who are deemed appropriate for
release.
County AB 109 funds also support a social worker who provides social service assessments and referrals
for clients needing additional supports and prepares social history reports for court negotiations. The
Office also provides a suite of post-conviction Clean Slate services including advocacy for expungement
and record sealing, obtainment of certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early termination, and petitions
for factual innocence.
During FY 14/15, the social worker in the Office of the Public Defender assessed 117 defendants for social
service needs and referred 82 of these individuals to community-based services intended to help address
identified needs.
Figure 16: Clients referred to, assessed by, and referred to service providers by Social Worker
The ACER collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender and the District Attorney’s Office has
resulted in thousands of defendants receiving representation at arraignment and does appear to facilitate
both pretrial releases and early case resolution. As Figure 17 shows, more than 5,500 defendants were
represented at arraignment though the ACER program; of these between approximately 19% and 35%
were released on recognizance.
26
37
26 28
20 21 20 21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsFY 14/15
Referred to
Social
Worker
Referred to
community
services
Page 30 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 18
Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on own recognizance
A smaller but still sizeable percentage of criminal cases were also disposed though ACER. Across the
year, 683 cases were disposed at arraignment, comprising between 8% and 20% of all cases that went
through the ACER process.
Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions
In addition to these services, the Office of the Public Defender dedicated significant effort to Clean State
services. As Figure 19 shows, the Office of the Public Defender filed 570 Clean Slate petitions. Over the
same period of time, 326 Clean Slate petitions were granted and 29 were denied. (Due to time lags
between the filing of petitions and the review thereof, the number of petitions ruled on does not align
with the number filed.)
1,500
2,016
1,015 1,086
487 388 358 381
32.5%
19.2%
35.3%35.1%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesFY 14/15
Defendents
represented
at
arraignment
ACER
defendents
released on
OR
% ACER OR
releases
186
167
204
117
12%
8%
20%
11%
0
50
100
150
200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesFY 14/15
ACER
dispositions
% of cases
disposed
through
ACER
Page 31 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 19
Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied
171
150
111
138
118
90
69
49
14 10 1 4
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4FY 14/15Number of petitionsPetitions
filed
Petitions
granted
Petitions
denied
Page 32 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 20
Pretrial Services
PTS is a collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender, the District Attorney, Probation, and the
Court that is aimed at reducing the pretrial custody population. Paralegals screen all eligible individuals
scheduled for arraignment, and qualifying clients are then assessed for risk utilizing a validated
assessment tool. The numbers of PTS clients assessed for risk, and then released pretrial following the
assessment are shown below in Figure 20.
Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pretrial risk, FY 14/15
There are five categories of risk: low, below average, average, above average, and high, although some
clients are screened for pretrial assessment but do not receive a score. Figure 21 displays the distribution
of risk levels in FY 14/15, showing that the majority of clients scored above average or high risk during this
period. As expected, clients who are assessed to be above average or high risk are much less likely to be
released onto pretrial supervision than are clients who are average risk and below.
Figure 21: Assessed pretrial risk levels, FY 14/15
Figure 22 demonstrates that in the early part of FY 14/15, the Court did release a higher proportion of low
and below average risk clients, but in the later part of the fiscal year, the Court released a greater
proportion of above-average risk clients as well as a lower proportion of low risk clients.
278 260 249 258
88 72 70
98
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsClients receiving
pretrial risk
assessment
Clients released
following
assessment
26
90
200
368
319
4219
52
100
137
22 1
0
100
200
300
400
Low Below
average
Average Above
average
High n/aNumber of ClientsClients
assessed in
risk category
Clients
starting
pretrial
supervision
Page 33 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 21
Figure 22: Percentage of assessed clients starting pretrial supervision, by risk level
As Figure 23 shows, among all individuals under pretrial supervision whose case closed during FY 14/15,
the majority successfully closed their cases, meaning that cilents successfully appeared at their court dates
and were not charged with any new offense while going through the court process. Because going through
the court process can take months or years, the number of individuals whose pretrial supervision cases
closed is smaller than the nubmer of inidividuals who started pretrial supervision over the year.
Figure 23: Pretrial supervision case closures, by type
Despite overall success of PTS clients a sizaeble minorty of clients do not successfully complete the
program. As Figure 24 shows, this is usually due to a client’s failure to appear at his/her court date,
although this is sometimes due to a client being charged with a new criminal offense or being returned to
custody for a technical violation of the terms of pretrial supervision.
100%
60%
80%
57%
78%
40%43%
69%
54%
48%
35%
64%
32%
40%
31%
47%
7%5%8%8%5%
0%0%0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of ClientsFY 14/15
Low Risk Below Average Risk Average Risk Above Average Risk High Risk n/a
58
38 28
46
23
27
26
24
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresUnsuccessful
Successful
Page 34 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 22
Figure 24: Unsuccessful pretrial supervision case closures, by type
17 20
8
16
6
6
11
1
1
7
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresTechnical violation
New offense
Failure to appear
Page 35 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 23
Probation Department
The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109
clients, including PRCS and (1170(h)) individuals with mandatory supervision as part of their sentences,
upon their return from custody to the community. As part of this process, AB 109 DPOs assess their clients
for both criminogenic risk factors and for general reentry needs, and then refer interested clients to a
range of supportive services.
A total of 571 individuals were released onto AB 109 Supervision during FY 14/15. Between new
supervision clients and continuing supervision clients, 1,194 AB 109 clients were supervised by the County
Probation Department during the same time period. As Figure 25 and Figure 26 show, PRCS clients
continue to be a substantial proportion of both new supervises and the overall AB 109 probation
supervision population, in contrast to early State projections that estimated a reduction in new PRCS
clients overtime.
Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109
supervisees, by classification
Figure 26: Total AB 109 individuals under
supervision during FY 14/15 (n=1,194)
PRCS clients also continue to make up a substantial proportion of the average daily number of AB 109
clients under County supervision, as demonstrated in Figure 27.
Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification
72 79 81 8387
65 58
46
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsPRCS 1170(h)
PRCS
647
54%
1170(h)
547
46%
325 322 300
271295297298
294
0
100
200
300
400
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average DailyPopulation1170(h)
PRCS
Page 36 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 24
A DPO conducts an interview and uses the 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
upon entering County supervision. Figure 28 indicates the distribution of recidivism risk for all AB 109
clients given an initial CAIS risk assessment during FY 14/15.
Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, FY 14/15 (n=525)
The majority of AB 109 Probation clients were assessed to have a variety of overlapping needs that are
associated with a risk for future involvement in criminal activities. As shown in Figure 29, the most
common risk factor among AB 109 Probation clients is alcohol and/or drug use, followed closely by
criminal orientation.
Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, FY 14/15 (n=309)
High
311
59%
Moderate
169
32%
Low
45
9%
79%
77%
67%
59%
54%
51%
18%
10%
9%
6%
5%
2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse
Criminal Orientation
Emotional Factors
Interpersonal Manipulation
Vocational Skills
Family History
Social Inadequacy
Relationships
Isolated Situational
Basic Needs
Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
Physical Safety
Page 37 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 25
Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff’s Office primary role in AB 109 implementation is to provide safe and secure housing for all
incarcerated individuals, including AB 109 individuals. 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).
Over the course of FY 14/15, there were 1266 AB 109-related bookings or commitments into the County’s
three detention facilities. Figure 30 - Figure 32 show the number of AB 109 bookings into each County
detention facility during each quarter of the year, with a breakdown of AB 109 population types. As these
figures demonstrate, Parolees make up the vast majority of AB 109 bookings across the County’s
detention facilities.
Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility
Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility
8 4 6 5
33 29 25 2733
19 18 24
74 75 77 72
12 11 7
14
0
25
50
75
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) Commitments
6 3 7 4
41
22 27 25322724 27
115
67
95
75
13 15 11 9
0
25
50
75
100
125
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) Commitments
Page 38 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 26
Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility
Despite the relative high total number of AB 109 bookings and commitments that occurred over the year,
AB 109 individuals in custody still make up a very small percentage of the County’s average daily
incarceration population. As demonstrated in Figure 33, over the course of the year, AB 109 individuals
comprised 6.5% of the County’s average daily custodial population.
Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. Non-AB 109
Figure 34 - Figure 36 show the average percentage of AB 109 individuals in each of the County’s detention
facilities, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals in custody who are serving new 1170(h) sentences
versus parole holds or commitment.
0 0 0 0
1
0 0 0
4
10
4
2
4
6
3
1
3
4 4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) commitments
Non-AB
109
93.5%
AB 109
6.5%
Page 39 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 27
Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility
Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility
Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility
While parolees make up a larger percentage of the AB 109 incarcerated population, on average 1170(h)
individuals spend much longer time in custody than the parole population (who can be committed to
County jail for up to six months for a parole violation). Notably, despite the fact that AB 109 allows for
35
27 22 27
13
15
13
11
7%7%
5%
6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15
1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
39
28 20 25
23
14
13
16
7%
6%6%6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15
1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
4 3 2 2
5
4
4 5
10%11%11%
9%
0
2
4
6
8
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15
1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
Page 40 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 28
much longer sentences in local custody than was previously possible, AB 109 individuals serve, on average,
much less than a year in jail.
Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type2
2 Quarterly averages are based on first day of custodial sentence. In FY 14/15 Q3 two of 22 individuals served/are
serving sentences over 1,000 days, inflating that quarter’s average. Additionally, several individuals on 3056 holds
have other charges preventing parole or the courts from dropping their hold. This makes each quarter’s average
time served for 3056 holds/dropped appear larger than is typical.
164 151
255
134
67 65 64 60
11 12 12 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of daysFY 14/15
1170(h)
Parole
(sentenced)
Parole (holds/
dropped)
Page 41 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 29
Workforce Development Board
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.
To date, the WDB’s primary role in AB 109 implementation has been to broker opportunities for the AB
109 reentry population and to coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of and are able
to effectively access services and resources available for the AB 109 reentry population. To that end the
WDB has identified 133 employer partnerships that are appropriate for the AB 109 population; they have
also conducted a number of on-site recruitments and career fairs that the AB 109 reentry clients, as well
as other reentry individuals, can attend. Unfortunately the WDB does not currently track the number of
AB 109 clients who have utilized their services.
Page 42 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 30
Community Based Service Providers
Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.)
Contra Costa County’s reentry approach is centered on developing an integrated and supportive service
network comprised of AB 109-contracted community-based organizations, government and public
agencies and the broader community for the AB 109 reentry population to utilize. The network works
together to help create a pathway for the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated
individuals back into the community. AB 109-contracted CBOs play a large role in the reentry
infrastructure, providing a range of services from housing assistance and employment services to
mentorship and family reunification. When working successfully, the County’s reentry services are part of
a continuum that begins at the point an individual enters the justice system and continues through
successful reintegration.
In the County’s 2011 Reentry Plan, County and community stakeholders agreed to the following set of
principles:
The County seeks to provide increased awareness about the value of formerly incarcerated
individuals and their loved ones to their communities.
Individuals are more likely to experience success when they are part of a supportive, integrated
system. Reentry and reintegration begin while the individual is incarcerated.
While leaving room for innovation, evidence-based practices are utilized when developing
programs and policies.
Collaboration, coordination, information, and communication are critical to the success and
sustainability of Contra Costa County’s reentry infrastructure.
The good of the community comes before one's self and/or organizational interests
While these principles have not been explicitly tied to AB 109, they are nonetheless founding principles
upon which much of the County’s AB 109 work has been built.
Overview of AB 109 community partnerships
During FY 14/15, Contra Costa County launched the Network Reentry System of Services for Returning
Citizens in East and Central County to help connect AB 109 clients to a diverse array of AB 109-contracted
reentry support providers listed in Table 2 below, among other service provides. In addition the County
made significant progress toward establishing the Reentry Success Center in West County, a “one-stop”
Page 43 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 31
reentry center which opened in October 2015 and helps link reentry clients to both County and
community-based services.
Table 2 describes the number of referrals each AB 109-contracted CBO received from Probation during FY
14/15, as well as the total number of enrollments and successful service completions. It is worth nothing
that Reach Fellowship, which provides in custody services, worked with both AB 109 and non-AB 109
incarcerated individuals. During FY 14/15, other the other CBOs were only contracted to provide services
to AB 109 clients. This changed in FY 15/16, and AB 109-funded CBOs can now provide services to any
reentry clients in need of those services.
Table 2: Community-based service referrals, enrollments, and completions
Organization Total Referrals Total Enrollments Total Completions
AB 109 Other AB 109 Other AB 109 Other
Bay Area Legal Aid 62 * 52 * 58 *
Center for Human Development 12 * 12 * 3 *
Goodwill Industries 138 * 76 * 28 *
Men and Women of Purpose 23 * 16 * 6 *
Reach Fellowship 29 4 95 212 46 137
Rubicon 168 * 113 * 34 *
Shelter Inc. 255 * 112 * 64 *
Below are brief descriptions of the services that each of the AB 109-contracted CBO service providers offer
the County’s AB 109 population.
Bay Area Legal Aid
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) provides legal services for AB 109 clients and educates them about their
rights and responsibilities. The legal services BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing,
public benefits, and health care, financial and debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses.
The program provides post-release legal check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that are able
to be remediated, educates clients about early termination of probation, and assists with fines, and
attorneys are also able to meet individually with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release.
Center for Human Development
The Center for Human Development (CHD) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(CFRP) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing
reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing community
support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release
presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CHD
also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens at
partner agencies and other locations throughout the County.
Page 44 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 32
Goodwill Industries
The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (Goodwill) facilitates the
County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement
services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at
local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for
competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers.
Men and Women of Purpose
Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) provides employment and education liaison services for the County
jail facilities, for which the program facilitates employment and education workshops every month at the
County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP
also provides pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the organization’s evidence-
based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly
mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery.
Reach Fellowship
Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (Reach) provides weekly
workshops in West County Detention Facility (WCDF), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one
case management. Reach provides employment and education liaison services to female returning
citizens in fulfillment of the County’s Reentry into the Community Program and also acts as a lead
information specialist for County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. Finally, Reach also conducts
workshops to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to work with
Mentor/Navigators to assist incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork required
for those opportunities, and to screen participants for employment and educational preparedness.
Rubicon
Rubicon provides employment support and placement services, integrated with other supports, to AB 109
participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program includes pre-release engagement, job
readiness workshops, educational and vocational training, transitional employment, individualized career
coaching, legal services, financial stability services, and domestic violence prevention and anger
management. In order to provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with a number of other
organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB 109 providers, and
other community-based organizations.
Shelter Inc.
Shelter, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109
Page 45 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 33
Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc.
provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program refers clients
to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessments/intake procedures to ensure
that clients will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional housing
situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for stable
housing.
Page 46 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 34
AB 109 Population Outcomes
Over the course of FY 14/15 there were a total of 1,119 AB 109 clients under supervision at some point in
time. Of these 1,194 AB 109 clients, 95 individuals successfully completed the terms of their Probation
during the fiscal year. The following sections demonstrate the number of AB 109 clients who violated the
terms of their supervision and served flash incarcerations and/or had their probation revoked, as well as
the number of clients with new criminal charges filed against them and/or new criminal convictions during
the fiscal year.
Violations
Probation officers 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. Figure 38 shows that the
number of flash incarcerations imposed on PRCS clients ranged from 8 to 23 flash incarcerations per
quarter.
Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations
Of the 1,194 Probation clients under supervision over the course of FY 14/15, approximately 31% of AB
109 clients (366) had their probation revoked. Among the PRCS population the percentage was lower, as
19% of the PRCS population had their probation revoked compared to approximately 44% of the 1170(h)
population.
21
8
23
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Flash IncarcerationsFY 14/15
Page 47 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 35
Figure 40: Percentage of PRCS clients revoked
in FY 14/15
In addition to 366 AB 109 probation clients who had their probation revoked, a total of 175 AB 109
parolees were revoked during FY 14/15.
New Charges and Convictions
Figure 41 below shows the number of AB 109 individuals with new charges filed against them during FY
14/15, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals who were convicted of a new criminal offense during
FY 14/15. Because the court does not have a record of individuals currently under AB 109 supervision,
Figure 41 includes all individuals who have ever been supervised or sentenced under AB 109, including
those not currently under County supervision, who had new charges filed and/or new criminal convictions
during FY 14/15. The fact that there are a greater number of 1170(h) and Parolees who received new
criminal convictions than new charges during FY 14/15 is a function of the time lag between having new
charges filed and ultimately being sentenced for the charges. In other words, many of the individuals who
were convicted of crimes in FY 14/15 were charged with those offenses in prior years, but the court
process did not conclude until FY 14/15. Similarly, many of the individuals who were charged with new
offenses in FY 14/15 have not yet completed the court process.
The percentage of the AB 109 population with new charges or criminal convictions during FY 14/15 is not
calculated because the court does not have a record of all individual under AB 109 supervision. As a result,
there is no way to calculate this percentage without tracking individuals across data systems.
Not
Revoked
524
81%
Revoked
123
19%
PRCS
Not
Revoked
304
56%
Revoked
243
44%%
1170(h)
Figure 39. Percentage of 1170(h) clients
revoked in FY 14/15
Page 48 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 36
Figure 41. AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 14/15,
by AB 109 classification type
123
300
193 172
208 228
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
New Charges New ConvictionsIndividulas PC 1170(h)
PRCS
Parole
Page 49 of 87
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15
February 2016 | 37
Looking Ahead
Contra Costa County has responded to Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the County
to successfully house and supervise the AB 109 population, while providing a collaborative reentry
infrastructure to support the AB 109 reentry population’s successful reintegration back into the
community.
During FY 15/16, Contra Costa County launched the West County Reentry Success Center, a one-stop
center where the reentry population can connect with a diverse array of reentry support providers. In
addition to launching the Reentry Success Center, the County looks forward to continuing the
development of the Network Reentry System in FY 15/16 by further integrating Network Coordinators
who help to connect the AB 109 reentry population, especially in East and Central County, with County
Department services and AB 109-contracted CBOs who provide reentry supports. Contra Costa County
looks forward to learning about how the development of the Network Reentry System and the West
County Reentry Success Center contributes to the reentry infrastructure and helps support the AB 109
reentry population with successfully reintegrating into the community.
Contra Costa County will continue to assess their AB 109 operations during FY 15/16 by conducting a
department performance review of all County Departments who receive AB 109 funding as well.
Moreover, the County will begin planning efforts to effectively implement recommendations born from
evaluations over previous years while considering whether it is appropriate to update its operational plan
to account for systems changes and department roles that have evolved since the enactment of AB 109.
Page 50 of 87
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:04/25/2016
Subject:FY 2016-17 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) Contract Award
Recommendations for AB 109 Community Programs
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: FY 2016-17 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) Contract Award
Recommendations for AB 109 Community Programs
Presenter: Lara DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Contact: Lara DeLaney,925-335-1097
Referral History:
See attached staff report.
Referral Update:
See attached staff report.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
See attached staff report
Attachments
Staff Report
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Page 51 of 87
- 1 -
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO: Public Protection Committee
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
FROM: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
DATE: April 25, 2016
SUBJECT: FY 2016-17 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) Contract Award
Recommendations for AB 109 Community Programs
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review the AB 109 Community Programs RFP/Q contract award recommendations by
the Review Panels (as follows), and RECOMMEND contract awards to the Board of
Supervisors.
Employment Support and Placement Services
a. West County: $100,000 to Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
b. West County: $500,000 to Rubicon Programs Inc.
c. Central Co.: $600,000 to Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
d. East County: $500,000 to Rubicon Programs Inc.
e. East County: $300,000 to Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
a. West County: $259,000 to SHELTER Inc.
b. West County: $50,000 to Reach Fellowship International
c. Central Co: $309,000 to SHELTER Inc.
d. East County: $412,000 to SHELTER Inc.
e. Central-East Reentry Network: up to $150,000 to Mz Shirliz Transitional
Mentoring and Family Reunification Services
a. Mentoring: $110,000 to Men and Women of Purpose
b. Family Reunification: $90,000 to Center for Human Development
Civil Legal Services: $150,000 to Bay Area Legal Aid
Page 52 of 87
- 2 -
2. CONSIDER Review Panel Recommendations with respect to the term of the contracts,
included in the report.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2016 the CCP Executive Committee adopted a FY 2016-17 AB 109 Public
Safety Realignment Budget for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Recommended
Budget included $4,020,036 for Community Programs, allocated as follows:
Employment Support and Placement Services $2,000,000
Support of WCRSC & Central-East Reentry Network $1,225,036
Short and Long-Term Housing Access $500,000
Peer and Mentoring Services $110,000
Family Reunification Services $90,000
Legal Services $80,000
Development of a “Reentry Resource Guide” $15,000
At the January meeting, the CCP Executive Committee also recommended an additional
appropriation of $160,000 to the AB 109 Community Programs, to be allocated among the
Community Program service areas upon the advice of its Community Advisory Board (CAB).
At its February 8, 2016 meeting, the PPC subsequently recommended that an additional
$500,000 be allocated to the Community Programs, with advice from the CAB on its
distribution. The CAB took action on its recommended allocations at its Feb. 11, 2016 meeting
and determined amounts for the AB 109 FY 2016-17 Community Programs as follows
($4,680,000 in total):
a. Employment Support and Placement Services - $2,000,000
b. Short and Long-Term Housing - $1,030,000
c. Reentry Success Center and Central-East Network- $1,285,000
d. Mentoring and Family Reunification - $200,000
e. Civil Legal Services - $150,000
f. Reentry Resource Guide - $15,000
These allocations were approved by the PPC at its Feb. 29, 2016 meeting.
RFP/Q Process: The CAO’s office administers the Community Programs contracts and
has done so since 2013 when AB 109 RFPs/RFQs were initially issued. For the RFP/Q
development process, the following individuals were actively engaged, as recommended
by the Community Advisory Board:
Nicholas Alexander, Director, Reentry Success Center;
Donté Blue, County Reentry Coordinator;
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator;
Stephanie Medley, Chair of the CAB; and
Kathy Moniz-Narasaki, Central-East Reentry Network Manager.
Page 53 of 87
- 3 -
In developing the Final RFPs and RFQ, the development team utilized the original
RFP/Qs developed in 2013 for the current Community Program contracts as the starting
point and incorporated recommendations of the CAB. Staff also researched RFP/Qs
issued in other counties in California for reentry services for procurement best practices
and program design. In addition, multiple conference calls were held with the RFP/Q
development team to ensure participation and input on their development.
The RFP/Q process encouraged meaningful collaboration among organizations,
particularly through the mandatory Bidders Conference that were held in each region of
the county, and by allowing a proposal to respond to more than one service area and to
include multiple partners.
Substantive changes from the original RFP/Qs included:
a. Updated Timeline
b. Service Delivery Model Updated
c. Target Population remains AB 109 but service population expanded to
formerly incarcerated
d. Updated the Demographic information to current data
e. Contract term: 3 years
f. Minimum Organization Requirements expanded to include “Trauma-
Informed Principles and Practices,” “Risks-Needs-Responsivity”; and
“Evidence Based Practices” and “Cultural Competency” rewritten
g. Outcomes re-written to describe program objectives
h. Substitute for recent audit provided
i. Proposal length reduced from 20 to 16 pages in RFPs.
j. Explicit identification of evidence-based practices (EBP) and Risk-Needs-
Responsivity (RNR) principles in Program Narrative required and points
awarded in Rating Sheet for demonstrated knowledge of and commitment
to implement EBP and RNR
k. Fidelity to EBP in Implementation and Oversight plan required
l. 3 year Budget requirement
m. Changing description of Housing Services and Program Narrative to
explicitly encourage SLE/Supportive Housing
n. Developed description of Family Reunification services
o. Added $150,000 in Network Housing to the Countywide Housing RFP but
indicated distinction of the funding between Network support and
countywide services.
An Addendum was issued on Mar. 16 that included all questions and answers from the
mandatory Bidders Conferences, in addition to responses to all written questions received
by the deadline.
Page 54 of 87
- 4 -
Timeline of RFP Process
The timeline established a process that from date of RFP/Q issuance to Board of
Supervisors award lasts approximately two months. With strict adherence to the timeline,
the Board of Supervisors will be authorizing contracts for services at their May 10, 2016
meeting, and staff would be developing and executing contracts to begin on July 1, 2016.
Review Panel Members
To conduct the proposal evaluation and vendor interview process, the Review Panel
composition was established as such:
1. County Probation Management Representative
2. County Administrator Representative
3. A Reentry Coordinator from a neighboring County
4. A Member of the CAB
5. A subject matter expert in each of the service areas
6. A formerly incarcerated person or family member of a formerly incarcerated
person.
Nominations and recommendations for Review Panel members were solicited from the
Community Advisory Board, Board of Supervisors, and the Reentry Coordinator. The
Panels were comprised as follows (in alphabetic order):
Employment Support and Placement Services:
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Carl George, Volunteer Mentor-Navigator, Returned Citizen
Patrice Guillory, CAB Representative, Central-East Field Operations
Coordinator
Melvin Russell, County Probation Manager, AB 109 Program
Donna Van Wert, One-Stop Consortium Administrator, Workforce
Development Board
Jessie Warner, former CCC Reentry Coordinator, Program Planner, Oakland
Unite, City of Oakland
Short and Long-Term Housing:
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Angelene Musawwir, CAB Representative; Public Defender’s Office Social
Worker
Kathy Narasaki, Central-East Network Manager
Jenny Robbins, Housing and Services Administrator, Contra Costa
Behavioral Health
Melvin Russell, County Probation Manager, AB 109 Program
Roosevelt Terry, Re-entry Health Conductor, CCP Member, Returned Citizen
Page 55 of 87
- 5 -
Mentoring and Family Reunification:
Kimberly Aceves, Executive Director, RYSE Center
Carol Burton, CEO, Jeweld Legacy Group
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Patrick Mims, CAB Representative; Field Operations Coordinator, Central
County
Melvin Russell, County Probation Manager, AB 109 Program
Arlinda Timmons-Love, West County African American Re-entry Health
Conductor
Civil Legal Services:
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Neola Crosby, Reentry Coordinator, Alameda County Probation Department
Marcelina Kendall, Contra Costa County Workforce BACR, family member of
returned citizen
Jonathan Laba, Assistant Public Defender
Talia Yaffa Rubin, CAB representative
Melvin Russell, County Probation Manager, AB 109 Program
The Review Panel proposal evaluation and interviews were facilitated by the County’s
Reentry Coordinator, Donté Blue, though he did not participate in the scoring of
proposals. The Review Panels were convened beginning on April 5 and concluded on
April 15, 2016. The Review Panels utilized a “Consensus Scoring Methodology” for
proposal evaluation and rating, and all members were required to return an Impartiality
Statement before serving in order to ensure there were no individuals with conflicts of
interest (available on request).
RFP Responses
The County received 20 proposals in total in response to the four RFP/Qs. Nine
proposals were submitted for Employment Services, including 3 separate proposals from
Goodwill Industries. Six proposals were submitted for Housing Access, with only one
organization submitting a proposal for countywide services—SHELTER Inc. One
proposal was submitted for Mentoring Services; two proposals were submitted for Family
Reunification Services. Two proposals were submitted for Civil Legal Services. (See
Attachment A for a summary of proposal scoring and recommendations.)
The official Rating Sheets that provide the consensus scores of the Review Panels for all
proposals are included in Attachment B.
The notifications of award recommendations of the Review Panels have been prepared
and distributed. (See Attachment C.)
Page 56 of 87
- 6 -
Summaries of Proposals Recommended for Funding
EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES
1. Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay: (Countywide) Goodwill has a 95
year history providing work preparation and transitional employment services, with a
diverse, professional staff, over half of which is formerly incarcerated.
Goodwill offered three separate proposals for each area of the County, noting that if
funded for more than one region, they would consolidate management and facility
expenses and redirect these resources into additional transitional employment and
training opportunities for participants.
Goodwill’s service delivery model will be similar to what they currently operate in
Central Contra Costa County as their Bridges to Work Program, with a focus on
providing transitional employment, vocational training, competitive job placement, and
support services to returning citizens. With the anticipated funding, they expect to be able
to serve at least 615 participants, including 180 in East County, 75 in West County, and
360 in Central County.
Goodwill’s benchmarks and anticipated outcomes for the AB 109 Bridges to Work
Program as delineated in the proposals include the following:
Completion of Job Readiness Workshops = 70% (of enrollees)
Completion of Cognitive Behavioral Workshops = 70% (of enrollees)
Completion of Transitional Employment = 70% (of enrollees)
Placement into Unsubsidized Employment = 50% (of PPT completions)
Job Retention for 30 days = 80%
Job Retention for 60 days = 70%
Job Retention for 90 days = 65%
All of the Goodwill locations are accessible by public transportation and located in safe
areas. Services will be provided from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and may include evenings and weekends as needed. The Central County office will
remain at 3350 Clayton Road, Suite 100, Concord. In West County, they will leverage a
currently leased space at 12341 San Pablo Avenue in Richmond to reduce rent and
overhead. In addition, program services for East County will be initially offered at 2701
10th Street, Antioch, a facility they own. While they will likely maintain a presence in this
location, it is currently near capacity, so another site will be identified and leased to
enable them to provide services in East County. They anticipate the rent to be less than
their facility in Concord, as they will not need as much space given the number of
individuals they are proposing to serve with the recommended funding. They will also
explore the possibility of co-locating services with another provider in East County.
Page 57 of 87
- 7 -
Staffing for the AB 109 Bridges to Work Program, based on the recommended funding
levels, will include minimal management and focus more on case management and job
development. All program personnel positions include major duties that impact the direct
service provision to the participant. The positions include a manager, assistant manager,
job developers, a lab instructor, and case managers. The contract will be managed by a
director of contracts and programs, which is a full-time position with costs shared equally
by their contracts in Contra Costa and Solano Counties. Moreover, an administrative
position staffed by a former AB 109 participant is included, ensuring an additional
training and placement opportunity for participants as well as support for the program.
The staffing for this project is as follows:
Program Manager (1 FTE 100% on project)
Assistant Program Manager (1 FTE 100%)
Case Managers (2 FTE 100%)
Job Developers (2 FTE 100%)
Lab Instructor (1 FTE 100%)
Participant Administrative Assistant (1FTE 100%)
Director of Contracts and Programs (1 FTE 20% on project)
The job responsibilities are detailed in the budget narratives included with the proposals.
In addition, as an agency, Goodwill is striving to increase their competitive job
placements, and therefore they anticipate that staff will focus more on employer
engagement as well as their essential duties to help facilitate more external opportunities
for participants.
Goodwill slightly reduced staffing and overhead in an effort to expand their ability to
provide vocational training and transitional employment for our participants. They also
reduced rent and utilities, leveraging currently occupied spaces to achieve cost savings.
Their rent is based on their current rent in Concord ($3,267 per month), a cost share of
their Richmond location ($315 per month), and anticipated leasing at a new location in
East County (estimated at $1,650 per month). These are increased 3 percent each year in
the budget, reflecting current lease provisions.
With savings realized by consolidating management and staffing, as well as decreases in
costs achieved by leveraging facilities and resources, Goodwill has been able to expand
participant wages and client supplies. Their goal is to ensure that 480 participants, or 78
percent of enrollees, can receive subsidized transitional employment for a full 90 days.
2. Rubicon Programs Inc. (Rubicon): (West and East County) Founded in 1973,
Rubicon is a non-profit recognized for its integrated housing, mental health, relapse
prevention, legal, financial education and employment services whose participant base
includes a significant percentage of individuals with a history of justice involvement.
Rubicon has provided AB 109 Employment services in West and East County since 2013
(276 participants to date) and proposes to continue providing a comprehensive suite of
employment and career services through its ELEVATE program in three components: 1.
Page 58 of 87
- 8 -
Employment Services; 2. Career Services; and 3. Workforce Services, utilizing a two-
phase approach.
The program design targets 245 participants (140 in East County and 105 in West
County). Phase 1 includes: Intake and Assessment, Domestic Violence services, Job
Readiness Training with Financial Literacy Education, Small Group Job Search
Training/Assistance and Digital Literacy Training, Benefits Screening and Application
Assistance, and Transitional Employment. Phase 2 incudes Vocational Assessment and
Career Advising, Vocational Skills Training, and Individualized Job Placement and
Retention Services.
ELEVATE offers a full range of grant-funded and leveraged employment services and
also offers access to other Rubicon services, including referral to WIOA services to
access individualized training accounts, as well as responsible parenting and healthy
marriage services, and access to a NA group at its West County site.
Other key services that will be provided by partners include domestic violence screening
and counseling, as well as anger management training by STAND!, GED prep, career
online high school diploma and adult basic literacy provided by Richmond Literacy for
Every Adult Program (LEAP), and GED prep and testing through Liberty Adult
Education. In addition, vocational training will be accessed through an extensive referral
network that includes The Stride Center, Bread Project, Opportunity Junction, Future
Build, Richmond WORKS, Solar Richmond, and Henkels and McCoy.
Rubicon has a demonstrated history of employment services and supports for the
formerly incarcerated, since its inception 40 years ago, combined with a thorough quality
assurance and program evaluation process, and solid financial management as
demonstrated by a recent audit with an unqualified opinion, no internal control issues,
and the completion of numerous successful State and County program and fiscal reviews.
The staffing for the proposal included 13.95 FTEs, utilizing a number of existing staff;
seven new staff would be hired. Total FTEs dedicated to the project: 6.0 FTEs for West
County and 7.95 FTEs for East County.
Transitional employment will be provided by Rubicon in Richmond or with external
employer partners. In East County, the program utilizes a partnership with Manpower
(employer of record).
SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS
SHELTER Inc. (SI): (Countywide) SI has been the County’s contracted provider of AB
109 Housing services since 2013, having served 225 clients (unduplicated) with housing
assistance. SI has at least 19 years of experience providing services requested in the RFP.
SI proposes to partner with New Hope Transitional Housing, their current sub-contractor
for SLE housing who has been offering SLE housing for 22 years, in addition to other as-
yet subcontracted SLE transitional housing providers.
Page 59 of 87
- 9 -
SI proposes to offer structured, transitional housing coupled with intensive case
management to participants who are actively engaged in addressing their personal
barriers to success, including alcohol and drug use and/or behavioral health needs, and
who have reliable income from benefits and/or employment or are participating in
programs leading to employment.
They propose a two-pronged approach for eligible participants: serving 75 Level 1/Level
2 clients each year with serious challenges in a stabilizing, structured SLE setting in
either East, West, or Central County. (50 clients will receive Level 1 only and 25 clients
will receive Level 1 and Level 2 services.) Participants will be moved to more permanent
housing when they have addressed their barriers. Participants will be provided with the
necessary financial assistance for security and utility deposits and short-term rental
subsidies. An additional 15 participants with less severe barriers and challenges will
receive financial assistance only.
The initial placement in an SLE will be for a period of 30 to 60 days, up to a maximum of
90 days. If unable to locate/obtain permanent housing, but having successfully obtained
employment, addressed behavioral issues and reduced financial barriers to housing self-
sufficiency, participants will move into Level 2, which provides additional time in an
SLE facility (additional 3 to 6 months) along with continued case management and Level
1 services, including regular work with a Housing Resource Specialist.
The proposed scope of services from SI will provide housing access, case management
and related support services to men and women in each region of the County with an
expectation of providing a minimum of seven Level 1 beds in West County, seven Level
1 beds in Central County, and eight Level 1 beds in East county for a total of 22 Level 1
beds. An additional minimum of eight Level 2 beds will be provided at one or more as-
yet unidentified locations.
Reach Fellowship International (Reach): (West County) Reach is a non-profit
organization whose mission is to help formerly incarcerated women and those at risk of
incarceration become stable and self-sufficient. In December 2014, Reach opened and
began operation of “Naomi House,” the only reentry home for women and children
located in North Richmond, West County, which has provided services to over 40
women. Naomi House is a duplex house with 3 bedrooms located in each unit. Reach
will provide 24-hour house management services, weekly Sistah-to-Sistah groups and
job-training services for 20 women. 6 children, maximum two per participant and up to 5
years in age, can also be accommodated on an annual basis.
The value of having a transitional housing site exclusively for women was noted by the
Review Panel. The Panel wanted to ensure that the Community Recidivism Reduction
Grant funding in the amount of $50,000 was replaced by AB 109 funding, in the event
that CRRG funding is no longer provided by the State.
Page 60 of 87
- 10 -
Mz Shirliz Transitional.: (Central-East Reentry Network) The origin of Mz Shirliz
Transitional began when the founder, Shirley Lamarr, was Director of “The Choices
Program” in Maguire Correctional Facility, in San Mateo County. The program model is
based on the highly acclaimed Delancey Street Project, from which the Director
graduated in 1994. Mz Shirliz Transitional proposes to operate an SLE-type residence,
located in the East region of the County in a zoning permissible location. They are
attempting to lease an available group home or care facility that would accommodate 20-
25 people and include office space. At a minimum, they intend to secure a 3-year lease
for a 5 bedroom home that would house 12-15 people including a resident House
Manager.
The goal of the program is “To provide a safe, alcohol, drug and crime-free living
environment that recognizes an individual’s needs, provides all supportive services and
promotes the cognitive and behavioral changes leading to a successful reentry into the
community as a productive, clean, sober and decent human being.”
The Director functions as a counselor and case manager. All participants are required to
develop a Program Plan with agreed-upon objectives. All Plans must include NA/AA
meeting attendance; GED acquisition; participation in the Wellness Recovery Action
Plan (WRAP); mental health therapy for dual-diagnosis participants; household chores;
house meetings and interpersonal groups; and participation in an “enterprise activity”
consisting of 4 hours of volunteered work. If a participant is employed, rent is expected
on a sliding scale basis.
The Review Panel noted that locating a facility and beginning service delivery in the
desired timeframe (as stipulated in the RFP, 2 months from contract-award to operation
is the goal) may be difficult and may need to be extended. But the Panel was concerned
that this process not take more than 3-4 months and if not successful, other housing
options should be considered.
MENTORING AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES
Men and Women of Purpose (MWP): (Mentoring, West County) MWP is a non-profit
organization that has been providing mentoring services in Contra Costa County for the
past three years, utilizing a “Jail to Community” model. The CEO and all staff have
direct experience with incarceration, AOD abuse, and criminal behaviors that have been
ameliorated through personal transformation and years of clean and sober living.
MWP utilizes the mentoring curriculum developed by Insight Prison Project and
proposes to serve 65 individuals on an annual basis. Services include pre-release
program introduction and relationship building, the mentoring curriculum, alcohol and
other drug groups and workshops, domestic violence workshops, and individual
counseling. The formal curriculum is delivered twice weekly in 2-hour sessions for 6
weeks. Groups are held for no more than 12 clients and scheduled as appropriate.
Mentors are available to clients at least 10 hours per week, per individual.
Page 61 of 87
- 11 -
MWP is recognized for its history of collaboration with other service providers, as well
as with the law and justice community. It has successfully met the performance targets
for its current mentoring contract.
The Review Panel was concerned about the administrative capacity of the organization
and recommends that additional support be provided through the work of the Quality
Assurance Committee.
Center for Human Development (CHD): (Family Reunification, Countywide) CHD is
a non-profit organization that was founded in 1972 to “create opportunities for people to
realize their full potential.” CHD has been providing family and community
reunification services for the AB 109 program for nearly 3 years. CHD proposes to
provide reunification services to 40 clients on an annual basis to facilitate strengthening
of relationships and the reduction of family conflict. Specific services include the
development of a reentry plan, family conferencing, family ecological mapping,
developing a family reunification plan, and reviewing the overall health of the client to
ensure appropriate referrals.
The Review Panel expressed concern with the relatively low numbers of successful client
engagement in family and community reunification services and recommended that the
contract be granted for one additional year.
CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal): (Countywide) BayLegal’s core services include
expertise in the areas of law required by the RFQ including: housing and landlord/tenant
law, public benefits law, consumer law, family law/domestic violence prevention, and
health care access. In addition, their Reentry staff have expertise in criminal record
remedies, including petitions for expungement, felony reductions and certificates of
rehabilitation. BayLegal’s staff of attorneys and advocates provide information and
referrals, advice, counsel, brief legal service, full representation, impact litigation, public
policy development and trainings, education and outreach. They are presently the
contracted provider of AB 109 Civil Legal Services.
BayLegal currently has 1.0 FTE Reentry Staff attorney and dedicates the time of other
staff attorneys to the AB 109 contract. The additional funding from this contract award
will enable BayLegal to add another 1.0 FTE reentry attorney.
=======================================================
Attachment A: Summary of Proposals and Recommendations
Attachment B: Rating Sheets
Attachment C: Review Panel Award Recommendations
All RFP/Qs are available at: http://www.cccounty.us/2366/Services-Programs
Page 62 of 87
2016 AB 109 Community Programs RFP Proposals and Recommendations
West County Central County East County Proposal Amount Amount
$600,000 $600,000 $800,000 Score Requested Recommended
Employment
2,000,000$ 1 America Works of California, Inc.58.5 600,000$
2 Lao Family Community Development, Inc.65 600,000$
3 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 73.5 177,929$
4 KRA Corporation KRA Corporation 75 900,000$
5 Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc.Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc.Leaders in Community Alternatives, In 84.5 2,000,000$
6 Goodwill Industries of the East Bay Goodwill Industries of the East Bay Goodwill Industries of the East Bay 88.5 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$
7 Rubicon Programs, Inc.Rubicon Programs, Inc.88.5 1,400,000$ 1,000,000$
7,677,929$ 2,000,000$
West County Central County East County
$309,000 $309,000 $412,000
Housing
1,030,000$ 1 Alma House, SLE 21.5 86,412$
150,000$ 2 Therapeutic Residential Services, Inc.29.5 678,698$
3 New Hope Transitional Housing 29.5 150,000$
4 Reach Fellowship International 56.5 120,000$ 50,000$
5 Mz Shirliz Transitional 65 140,333$ 150,000$
6 SHELTER, Inc.SHELTER, Inc.SHELTER, Inc.82.5 1,030,000$ $980,000
2,205,443$ 1,180,000$
West County
Mentoring & Fam Reunif
110,000$ 1 Men and Women of Purpose 62 110,000$ 110,000$
90,000$ 2 C.O.P.E. Family Support Center (Counseling Options and Parent Education, Inc.)65.5 90,000$
3 Center for Human Development 74.5 90,000$ 90,000$
290,000$ 200,000$
Legal Services
150,000$ 1 Rubicon Programs, Inc.75 150,000$
2 Bay Area Legal Aid 89 150,000$ 150,000$
300,000$ 150,000$
Attachment A
Page 63 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Alma House
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1 =6
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)5
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)2
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 1 =8
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)0.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)1
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0 =1.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)2 =2
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)1 =1
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)1 =1
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)2
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =2
Total 21.5
Attachment B
Page 64 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Mz Shirliz Transitional
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)0
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =4
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)15
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)10
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 3 =28
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1.5 =9.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)8 =8
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)7 =7
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)2 =2
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 1.5 =6.5
Total 65
Attachment B
Page 65 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score New Hope
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2.5
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1 =6.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)7
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)3
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 3.5 =13.5
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)2
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)2
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1 =5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)3 =3
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)0 =0
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)0 =0
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)1.5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =1.5
Total 29.5
Attachment B
Page 66 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Reach Fellowship Intl
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2.5
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =7.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)12
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)9
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =25
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)2
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1 =8
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)6.5 =6.5
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)5 =5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)2 =2
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)2.5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =2.5
Total 56.5
Attachment B
Page 67 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score SHELTER, Inc.
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =8
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)11
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4.5 =28.5
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)6
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =12
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)11 =11
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9 =9
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)7
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 2 =9
Total 82.5
Attachment B
Page 68 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Therapeutic Residential Services
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1 =6
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)10
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)0 Excee
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 0 =10
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)2.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0 =5.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)2 =2
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)2.5 =2.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)1 =1
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)1.5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 1 =2.5
Total 29.5
Attachment B
Page 69 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Center for Human Development
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)2.5
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts. 2 =7.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.15
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)11
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =30
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)4.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1 =8.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)8 =8
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)6.5 =6.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 3 =9
Total 74.5
Attachment B
Page 70 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score COPE
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)2
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =6
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)12
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)12
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 2.5 =26.5
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1 =9
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)7 =7
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)8 =8
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)4 =4
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)3
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 2 =5
Total 65.5
Attachment B
Page 71 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Men & Women of Purpose
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)2
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1.5 =6.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)12
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)7
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =23
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)4
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)2.5
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =8.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)11 =11
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)7 =7
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)2 =2
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)4
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =4
Total 62
Attachment B
Page 72 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score America Works
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)1
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1.5 =5.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)15
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)5
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 3 =23
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)3
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0.5 =6.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)9 =9
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)2 =2
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 1.5 =7.5
Total 58.5
Attachment B
Page 73 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Goodwill - West County
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =8
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)18
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 5 =36
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)6.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =12.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)12 =12
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9.5 =9.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)4 =4
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =6
Total 88
Attachment B
Page 74 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Goodwill - East County
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =8
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)18
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 5 =36
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)7
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =13
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)12 =12
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9.5 =9.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)4 =4
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =6
Total 88.5
Attachment B
Page 75 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Goodwill - Central County
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =8
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)18
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 5 =36
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)7
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =13
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)12 =12
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9.5 =9.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)4 =4
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =6
Total 88.5
Attachment B
Page 76 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score KRA Corporation
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)1
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =6
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)14
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 5 =32
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)6.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1.5 =11
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)10 =10
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)8 =8
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)3
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =3
Total 75
Attachment B
Page 77 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Lao Family Comm Dev
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1 =7
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)12
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)8.5
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =24.5
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)4.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)2.5
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =9
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)7 =7
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9 =9
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)3.5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =3.5
Total 65
Attachment B
Page 78 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Leaders in Comm Alt
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)1
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =6
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)16.5
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)13
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4.5 =34
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)6.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)3.5
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1.5 =11.5
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)10.5 =10.5
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)10 =10
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 1.5 =7.5
Total 84.5
Attachment B
Page 79 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Renaissance Entr Center
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 1.5 =7.5
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)12
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)10
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =26
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)5.5
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 1.5 =11
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)9.5 =9.5
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)8.5 =8.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 0 =6
Total 73.5
Attachment B
Page 80 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score Rubicon Programs
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1.Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)3
3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 2 =8
II.2.Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.)16
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)12
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 4 =32
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an
evidence-based model (8 pts.)7
2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and
management (5 pts.)4
3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 2 =13
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified.
(12 pts.)12 =12
II.5 Cultural Competency
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.)9.5 =9.5
III.1 Fiscal Management Information (5 pts.)5 =5
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (7 pts.)6
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.) 3 =9
Total 88.5
Attachment B
Page 81 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100 95:
Program Elements and Possible Score Bay Area Legal Aid
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II Responder Overview
1. Relevancy of responder's overall services/history (3 pts.)3
2. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work (3 pts.)3
3. Overall agency and specified staff with relevant experience and
expertise (4 pts.) 3 =9
III.Approach to the Scope
1. Service design/methodology (10 pts.)8.5
2. Cultural Competency/past experience with reentry population (10 pts.)10
3. Program action-steps and timeline for implementation (5 pts.)
4. Collaboration with stakeholders and other organizations/
Coordination (5 pts.)5 =23.5
IV.Technical Expertise
Depth and relevance of subject-matter expertise (30 pts.)28 =28
V.Responder's Experience with Similar Projects
Responder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver specified services. (20 pts.)18.5 =18.5
VI.Program Budget/Narrative
Cost structure clear, reasonable, cost-effective. (7 pts.)7
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.)3 =10
Total 89
Attachment B
Page 82 of 87
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100 95:
Program Elements and Possible Score Rubicon Programs
I.Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II Responder Overview
1. Relevancy of responder's overall services/history (3 pts.)2.5
2. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work (3 pts.)2.5
3. Overall agency and specified staff with relevant experience and
expertise (4 pts.) 3 =8
III.Approach to the Scope
1. Service design/methodology (10 pts.)8
2. Cultural Competency/past experience with reentry population (10 pts.)7
3. Program action-steps and timeline for implementation (5 pts.)
4. Collaboration with stakeholders and other organizations/
Coordination (5 pts.)3.5 =18.5
IV.Technical Expertise
Depth and relevance of subject-matter expertise (30 pts.)24 =24
V.Responder's Experience with Similar Projects
Responder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of
applicant to deliver specified services. (20 pts.)17 =17
VI.Program Budget/Narrative
Cost structure clear, reasonable, cost-effective. (7 pts.)5.5
Matching resources (funds, volunteer hours) (3 pts.)2 =7.5
Total 75
Attachment B
Page 83 of 87
Attachment CPage 84 of 87
Attachment CPage 85 of 87
Attachment CPage 86 of 87
Attachment CPage 87 of 87