HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02062017 - PPC Agenda PktFor Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
February 6, 2017
10:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
1. Introductions
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may
be limited to three minutes).
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the December 12, 2016 meeting. (Page 4)
4.CONSIDER accepting the recommendation that the County contract with Resource
Development Associates for “Facilitation and Data Analysis Services” for the Racial Justice
Task Force and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors authorize a contract with
Resource Development Associates in the amount of $170,000 to provide facilitation and
data analysis services for the Racial Justice Task force for the period February 14, 2017
through June 30, 2018. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 8)
5.CONSIDER reviewing and accepting the AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16,
prepared by Resource Development Associates. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and
Justice) (Page 12)
6.CONSIDER reviewing and approving the fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal for
submission to the Board of Supervisors’ Public Protection Committee. (Timothy Ewell,
Committee Staff) (Page 62)
7. The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 6, 2017 at 10:30 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.
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:02/06/2017
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - December 12, 2016
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - December 12, 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 December 12, 2016
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the December 12, 2016 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - December 2016
Page 4 of 156
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
***RECORD OF ACTION***
December 12, 2016
10:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:TImothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff
1. Introductions
Convene - 10:03 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 October 24, 2016 meeting.
Approved as presented.
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4. CONSIDER interviewing applicants for the Community Representative seat on the CY2017
Community Corrections Partnership.
RECOMMEND nominees for appointment to seats on the CY2017 Community Corrections
Partnership & Executive Committee (see attachments).
Approved following the actions and direction to staff below:
1. The Committee commenced interviews for the CBO representative seat. Ms. Guillory announced that
she was withdrawing her application for appointment and gave her endorsement to Mr. Terry. The
Committee interviewed Mr. Terry and directed staff to forward his appointment recommendation for Page 5 of 156
For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
consideration by the full Board of Supervisors (BOS).
2. The Committee directed staff to follow up with the Richmond Police Chief to confirm that he is
interested in serving on the CCP in CY2017. In case the Richmond Police Chief is not interested in
serving, the Committee directed staff to list the CCP appointments as a discussion item on the BOS
calendar, otherwise list the appointment recommendations on the 12/20/2016 BOS consent calendar.
3. The Committee recommended reappointment of all incumbents to non ex-offico seats listed in
Exhibits A and B with the exception of the Police Chief seat as described in No. 2 above.
4. Staff noted that references to "Magda Lopez" in Exhibits A and B should be "Stephen
Nash".
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5. 1. APPROVE calendar year 2016 Public Protection Committee Annual Report for
submission to the Board of Supervisors;
2. PROVIDE direction to staff as appropriate.
Approved as presented.
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.
7. Adjourn
Adjourned - 10:27 AM
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public
Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine
Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
Page 6 of 156
Page 7 of 156
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:02/06/2017
Subject:RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION "FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
SERVICES" RFP
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION
Presenter: Lara DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Contact: Lara DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
The Public Protection Committee first considered this matter on its agenda in July 2015 in
response to an April 2015 letter to the Board of Supervisors from the Racial Justice Coalition.
After PPC discussion and direction, staff returned with a comprehensive report to the PPC in
September 2015 with data related to race in the local justice system, the County’s Workplace
Diversity Training, and information regarding outside diversity and implicit bias trainings. In
November 2015 the PPC discussed the data from the September 2015 staff report and how it
compared to the County’s 2008 report on Disproportionate Minority Contacts (DMC) in the local
juvenile justice system. This led to joint recommendations to the PPC in December 2015 by the
Chief Probation Officer, District Attorney, and Public Defender that included:
the County convene a Task Force to revisit and expand upon the findings of the County’s
2008 juvenile justice DMC report,
1.
the County enter into a contract for a facilitator to help guide the Task Force through this
process, and
2.
a researcher be paid to help the Task Force collect and analyze data during the process.3.
In April 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted recommendations from the PPC to form a
17-member Task Force and approved the following final composition in September 2016:
Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force
Seat Member Title/Affiliation/District
County Probation Officer Todd Billeci Chief Probation Officer
Public Defender Robin Lipetzky Public Defender
District Attorney Tom Kensok Assistant District Attorney
Sheriff-Coroner John Lowden Captain, Sheriff’s Office
Health Services Director Dr. William Walker Health Services Director
Superior Court Designee Magda Lopez Director of Court Programs and
Services
Page 8 of 156
County Police Chief’s
Association Bisa French Assistant Chief, Richmond
Police Department
Mt. Diablo Unified School
District Debra Mason Board Member
Antioch Unified School
District Bob Sanchez Director of Student Support
Services
West Contra Costa Unified
School District Marcus Walton Communications Director
Mental Health
Representative
Christine Gerchow,
PhD.
Psychologist, Martinez Juvenile
Hall; District IV Resident
At Large Member of the
Public Harlan Grossman
Past Chair AB109 CAB;
GARE Participant; District II
Resident
CBO Seat 1 Stephanie Medley RYSE Center; Past Chair
AB109 CAB; District I Resident
CBO Seat 2 Donnell Jones CCISCO; District I Resident
CBO Seat 3 Edith Fajardo ACCE Institute; District IV
Resident
CBO Seat 4 My Christian CCISCO; District III Resident
CBO Seat 5 Dennisha Marsh
First Five CCC, City of
Pittsburg Community Advisory
Council; District V Resident
Referral Update:
Following up the remaining recommendations from above, in September 2016 County
Administrator staff worked with the Reentry Coordinator and representatives from the AB 109
Community Advisory Board (CAB), the District Attorney’s Office (Tom Kensok), the Public
Defender Robin Lipetzky, and the Racial Justice Coalition (Jeff Landau) to develop and release a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure “Facilitation and Data Analyst Services” to help guide the
work of the Task Force. The composition of a Review Panel was also selected that consisted of
four representatives from the County’s law and justice partners (District Attorney, Probation,
Sheriff, and Public Defender) and four representatives of the public that were appointed by the
Racial Justice Coalition.
When no responses were received to this initial RFP, CAO staff solicited input from attendees of
the Bidders Conference as to their reasons for not submitting a response and refashioned the
solicitation into a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that was released on December 12, 2016.
With these changes, three qualifying responses were received by the County Administrator by the
deadline from: Informing Change, Learning for Action, and Resource Development Associates.
The following Review Panel was then convened to review each of these responses:
Review Panel for Contra Costa County RFQ #1612-205[1]
Name Affiliation
Lesha Roth Contra Costa Probation Department
Robin Lipetzky Contra Costa Public Defender
Tom Kensok Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office
Page 9 of 156
John Lowden Contra Costa Office of the
Sheriff-Coroner
Stephanie Medley[2]RYSE Center
Claudia Jimenez Racial Justice Coalition
Tamisha Walker Safe Return Project
Panel Process and Recommendation
The Panel convened to review and score the responses on January 17, 2017, using a consensus scoring process that
produced a single score for each response. The Panel then decided to interview the responses with the two highest
scores on January 30, 2017. When the process was complete, and based on the scores below, the Panel reached a
consensus recommendation that the County contract with Resource Development Associates for both “Facilitation
and Data Analyst Services” related to the work of the Racial Justice Task Force.
As part of their final deliberations, and based on the expected scope of services to be provided, several Members of
the Review Panel wanted to ensure that their recommendation included an acknowledgement that they would have
preferred the scoring devote a larger proportion of points specifically dedicated to a firm’s understanding and
experience as it relates to cultural competence, diversity, and race related issues.
Final scoring for RFQ#1612-205
Informing
Change
Learning
for Action
Resource Development
Associates
II.1-Agency Overview
Organization’s overall
services/history (20pts)
1.13 14 18
II.2-Qualifications
Capacity to Provide Services
(10pts)
1.7 7 8
Technical Expertise (20pts)2.8 14 17
Experience with Similar Projects
(20pts)
3.7 15 17
Program Implementation (20pts)4.9 14.5 16.5
III. Fee Information
Fees reasonable, cost-effective,
and necessary (10 pts)
1.5 7 8
Total (100 pts)49 71.5 84.5
[1] It should be noted that the Racial Justice Coalition appointed a fourth member to the Review
Panel, Jovana Fajardo, but Jovana was unable to participate due to unexpected health issues.
[2] Due to scheduling changes and conflicts, Stephanie Medley was unable to participate in the
interview portion of the process, but was did take part in the consensus scoring of each response.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
The Public Protection Committee ACCEPT the Review Panel recommendation that the
County contract with Resource Development Associates for “Facilitation and Data Analysis
Services” for the Racial Justice Task Force in response to Contra Costa County RFQ
#1612-205, and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors authorize a contract with
Resource Development Associates in the amount of $170,000 to provide facilitation and
data analysis services for the Racial Justice Task force for the period February 14, 2017
through June 30, 2018.
1.
The Committee acknowledge a preference of multiple members of the Review Panel that the2.
Page 10 of 156
The Committee acknowledge a preference of multiple members of the Review Panel that the
scoring had included a greater proportion of points dedicated to the showing of an
understanding and experience specifically related to cultural competence, diversity, and race
related issues.
2.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 11 of 156
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:02/06/2017
Subject:AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2015-16
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2017-01
Referral Name: AB 109 Annual Report
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors has allocated FY 16-17 AB 109 funding in the County Administrators'
Office to provide for comprehensive data collection, program evaluation, and systems planning
services ($225,000). A portion of this funding ($14,915) has been allocated to the development of
an AB 109 Annual Report, which was first developed for fiscal year 2014-15 by Resource
Development Associates (RDA). RDA developed a template for Annual Reports for AB 109
Public Safety Realignment. Owing to CAO staffing constraints, RDA was contracted to develop
the Annual Report for FY 2015-16.
The Draft FY 2015-16 AB 109 Annual Report was presented to the Community Corrections
Partnership at is meeting on January 13, 2017. The report has been further refined and reviewed
and is presented for consideration, comment and acceptance by the Public Protection Committee.
Referral Update:
Attached is the Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County, AB 109 Annual Report for
FY 2015-16, prepared by Resource Development Associates. The Draft Report was reviewed and
accepted by the Community Corrections Partnership at its January 14, 2017 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW and ACCEPT the AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2015-16, as prepared by Resource
Development Associates. Provide comment to staff on the structure and content of the Annual
Report template.
Attachments
DRAFT FY 2015/16 AB109 Annual Report
Page 12 of 156
Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County
AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 15/16
Page 13 of 156
The following AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Annual Report for Fiscal Year 15/16 was prepared by
Resource Development Associates (“RDA”) utilizing the template prepared by RDA in 2016, 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 Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Todd Billeci, Chief Probation Officer, Chair Donna Van Wert, Workforce Development Board
Interim Director
David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County Roosevelt Terry, Community Based Organizations
Representative
Allan Cantando, Rep. of Police Chiefs’ Association Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human
Services Director
Mark Peterson, District Attorney Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Health Director
Stephen Nash, 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 156
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Report ............................................................................................................................ 6
A Note on Data .................................................................................................................... 6
Realignment in Contra Costa County ............................................................................................................ 8
Legislative Impacts of AB 109 .......................................................................................................... 8
Contra Costa County’s Evolving Approach to Public Safety Realignment .......................... 9
County Department, Division, and Program Impacts (FY 15/16) ............................................................... 11
Health Services: Behavioral Health Services Division .................................................................... 11
Alcohol and Other Drugs Services ..................................................................................... 11
Homeless Program ............................................................................................................ 13
Forensic Mental Health Services ....................................................................................... 14
Health Services: Detention Health Services ................................................................................... 15
District Attorney’s Office ............................................................................................................... 16
Office of the Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 19
Pre-trial Services ............................................................................................................................ 23
Probation Department ................................................................................................................... 25
Sheriff’s Office ................................................................................................................................ 28
Workforce Development Board ..................................................................................................... 32
Community Based Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 33
Shared values/approach ................................................................................................................ 33
Overview of AB 109 Community Partnerships .............................................................................. 34
Reentry Success Center .................................................................................................... 35
Central & East Reentry Network System of Services ........................................................ 36
Employment Support and Placement Services ................................................................. 39
Page 15 of 156
Short and Long-Term Housing Access............................................................................... 41
Peer Mentoring ................................................................................................................. 42
Family Reunification ......................................................................................................... 43
Legal Services .................................................................................................................... 44
AB 109 Population Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 45
Violations ....................................................................................................................................... 45
New Charges and Convictions........................................................................................................ 46
Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................................. 48
Page 16 of 156
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services .................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services .............................................................................................. 12
Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services ................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services .......................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population ........................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services ...................... 14
Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings for AB 109 inmates ........................................... 16
Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates .................................................................................. 16
Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, .................................... 17
Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 15/16 ................ 17
Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 15/16 quarter .................. 18
Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, all FY 15/161 .............................. 18
Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations, by FY 15/16 quarter ................................................ 19
Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all ...................... 19
Figure 16: Clients referred to and assessed by SW, and referred to community services ......................... 20
Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on OR, by FY 15/16 quarter ................................. 21
Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions, by FY 15/16 quarter ........................................ 21
Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed or granted, by FY 15/16 quarter ...................................................... 22
Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pre-trial risk, by FY 15/16 quarter ....................................................... 23
Figure 21: Assessed pre-trial risk levels, all FY 15/16 ................................................................................. 24
Figure 22: Ratio of assessed clients that started pretrial supervision, by risk level, per Quarter .............. 24
Figure 23: Pre-trial supervision case closures, by quarter .......................................................................... 25
Page 17 of 156
Figure 24: Unsuccessful pre-trial supervision case closures, by type, by quarter ...................................... 25
Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification, by quarter.......................................... 26
Figure 26: Total count of AB 109 individuals under supervision at any time during FY 15/16 ................... 26
Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification, by quarter ............... 27
Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, all FY 15/16 ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, all FY 15/16 ........................................... 28
Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility ........................................................... 29
Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility ..................................................... 29
Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ..................................................... 29
Figure 33: Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. non-AB 109 ............................................................... 30
Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility ............................................... 30
Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility ......................................... 31
Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ......................................... 31
Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type ...................................... 31
Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations, by FY 15/16 quarter ......................................................................... 45
Figure 39: Percentage and number of 1170(h) clients revoked in FY 15/16 .............................................. 46
Figure 40: Percentage and number of PRCS clients revoked in FY 15/16................................................... 46
Figure 41: AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 15/16, by AB 109
classification type ................................................................................................................................ 47
Page 18 of 156
Introduction to the Report
This Annual Report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in Contra Costa County
during the fiscal year 15/16, with a focus on understanding the impact of AB 109-funded County
departments, divisions, programs, and contracted service providers. Toward this end, this report
describes the volume, type of services, and outcomes provided by the County’s AB 109 partners over the
course of the year.
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, divisions, and programs, as well as the cross-
departmental Pre-trial Services program. The County departments, divisions, and programs included in
this report, listed in alphabetical order, are:
• Behavioral Health Services
• Heath Services: Detention Health Services
• District Attorney’s Office
• Office of the Public Defender
• Pre-trial Services
• Probation Department
• Sheriff’s Office
• Workforce Development Board
After summarizing the implementation and impact of AB 109 across County departments, divisions, and
programs, this report provides an overview of the community-based service providers and describes
services each of the AB 109-contracted providers, 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 16/17 and beyond.
A Note on Data
The report development team worked with each County AB 109-funded department, division, and
program, as well as the community-based organizations (“CBOs”) contracted to provide AB 109 services,
in order to obtain the data necessary for the following report. Because data were collected across a
variety of agencies that track AB 109 client measures differently, we caution against making direct
comparisons from figures across agency sections. Moreover, because each agency 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 15/16 could not
Page 19 of 156
be calculated without tracking individuals across departments, divisions, and programs. Consequently,
for most data points, this report provides total numbers but not percentages. Additionally, the RDA
team and the County were unable to obtain data from the Superior Court in time for the draft report
deadline for the CCP meeting in January 2017. There were also issues obtaining service data from
Brighter Beginnings, a CBO that contracted with the County in FY 15/16 but not during FY 16/17 when
this report was written.
Page 20 of 156
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
109 (“AB 109”)) was signed into law in 2011, taking effect on October 1, 2011. AB 109 transferred the
responsibility for custody and supervision of certain individuals convicted of specific lower-level non-
violent, non-serious, non-sex (“non-non-non”) offenses from the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to counties. 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 counties an expanded role for post-release supervision for these individuals;
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 the detention of the supervised populations described above, from
CDCR to the County, in the event of a period of incarceration due to a violation or revocation of
supervision; and
Shifted the responsibility for processing certain parole revocations from the state Parole Board
to the local court system.
There are three populations the County must now provide custody for and supervise under AB 109.
These populations include:
Post-Release Community Supervisees: Counties’ Probation Departments now supervise a
specified population of incarcerated individuals discharging from prison whose commitment
offense was non-violent and non-serious.
Parolees: Excluding those serving life terms, parolees who violate the terms of their parole
serve any detention sanction in local jails rather than state prison. In addition, as of July 1, 2013,
local courts are now responsible for conducting revocation proceedings for parolees alleged to
have violated the terms of their parole, rather than the state Parole Board.
Page 21 of 156
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 served either in county jail, or as a split sentence where part of the term is served in jail and
part under Mandatory Supervision (“MS”) by the County Probation Department.
In addition to transferring the responsibility for custody and supervision of these populations from CDCR
to the County, AB 109 also required that the County use AB 109 funding to build partnerships with local
health and social service agencies and community based organizations to provide a supportive system of
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 Evolving 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, divisions, and
programs, using data to inform decision-making around how best to prepare for custody, supervision
and services for 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 evolved into formalized
partnerships between justice-related 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 Office and the Probation
Department 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 service providers to help returning citizens successfully reintegrate into the
community.
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 Pre-trial Services
Program, a collaborative endeavor with the Office of the Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff’s Office,
and the District Attorney’s Office aimed at reducing the Pre-trial custody population. The County also
undertook significant planning efforts to design reentry support systems in each region of the County,
eventually resulting in the development of the Reentry Success Center in West County and the Central-
East Reentry Network System of Services. Contra Costa County also hired Resource Development
Associates (“RDA”) to conduct 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.
Page 22 of 156
FY 14/15 was devoted to the further development of the County’s reentry infrastructure, as
collaborative partnerships between law enforcement partners and community based service
organizations continued to develop and evolve. In particular, FY 14/15 saw the implementation of the
Central-East Reentry Network. In addition, significant progress was made toward establishing the
Reentry Success Center in West County, which opened in October 2015.
Throughout both FY 14/15 and FY 15/16, in order to better inform their understanding of the
effectiveness of the County’s reentry system, the County invested significantly in continued evaluative
efforts. In FY 14/15 RDA helped the County evaluate its AB 109-contracted community-based service
continuum and analyze the impact of the County’s AB 109 programs and services on client recidivism. In
FY 15/16 the County continued to worked in partnership with RDA on a number of AB 109-related
efforts. These efforts included:
Revisions to AB 109-related dashboards for Probation, the Sheriff’s Office, and BHS to
demonstrate some of the system impacts of AB 109;
An update of the quarterly reporting template for AB 109 funded public agencies and CBOs;
An assessment of the performance of County departments involved in AB 109 program
implementation relative to the County’s AB 109 Operational Plan, departmental funding
requests, and best practices in reentry programs and services. The County departments and/or
divisions included the Sheriff’s Office, the Probation Department, the Public Defender, the
District Attorney, the Workforce Development Board, Behavioral Health Services, the County
Administrator’s Office, and Detention Health Services;
Facilitation of a Reentry Pre-Release Planning Process with the County Reentry Coordinator and
representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, the County Administrator’s Office, the County Office of
Education, the Probation Department, the Office of the Public Defender, Mental Health Services,
Alcohol and Other Drug Services, the Homeless Program. Detention Health Services, the Reentry
Success Center, the Central/East Networked System of Services; and,
The development of a FY 14/15 Public Safety Realignment Annual Report, and a template for
developing future Public Safety Realignment Annual Reports.
RDA utilized the annual report template developed previously to compile the following FY 15/16 AB 109
Annual Report.
Page 23 of 156
County Department, Division, and Program Impacts (FY 15/16)
AB 109 Public Safety Realignment shifted the responsibility for the custody and supervision of 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, divisions, and
programs 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,
divisions, and programs by highlighting the volume and types of services provided to the County’s AB
109 population over the course of the 15/16 fiscal year.
Health Services: Behavioral Health Services Division
Table 1: AB 109 Funding of Behavioral Health Services
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 1,017,191 $ 1,011,070
Operating Costs $ 1,226,239 $ 903,646
Total $ 2,243,430 $ 1,914,716
The BHS Division combines the programs of Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (“AODS”), the Homeless
Program, and Forensic Mental Health Services into an integrated system of care. BHS partners with
clients, families, and community-based organizations to provide health, housing and benefits enrollment
assistance services to the AB 109 population. While BHS has continually provided services for the
reentry population prior to the start of AB 109, Realignment resulted in an increased focus on, and
funding for, the provision of services to these clients.
Alcohol and Other Drugs Services
The AODS program of BHS operates a community-based continuum of substance abuse treatment
services to meet the level of care needed by each client. To accomplish this, AODS provides access to
clinical and group counseling, residential detoxification and both outpatient and inpatient treatment
services.
As shown in Figure 1, AODS provided outpatient services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients
throughout FY 15/16. During that timeframe, 30 clients were admitted to outpatient treatment and 6
successfully completed outpatient treatment services.
Page 24 of 156
Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services
For AB 109 clients in need of acute substance withdrawal services, AODS provides residential
detoxification treatment. During FY 15/16 AODS providers admitted 10 AB 109 clients to residential
detox. As shown in Figure 2, 9 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 15/16 the County admitted 83 AB 109 clients to residential treatment, and
31 clients successfully completed residential services. Additionally, the number of clients completing
services increased throughout the year.
14
12
16 15
5
7
10
8
1 1 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Total AB 109
Clients
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
Source: BHS
1
2
4
2
0 2 4 2 1 2 4 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Total
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
Source: BHS
Page 25 of 156
Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services
Homeless Program
AB 109 funds dedicated shelter case managers (2 FTEs) to work closely with the Forensic Team to
coordinate case planning around housing needs and other support services. Ten beds are also dedicated
to homeless AB 109 clients who have recently graduated from residential or outpatient substance abuse
treatment programs. Residents may stay up to 24 months and can receive a variety of self-sufficiency
services and recovery supports.
In FY 15/16, the County’s Homeless Program served 14 AB 109 individuals in the first quarter, 13 in the
second, 15 in the third, and 16 in the fourth, as shown in Figure 4.
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 2,333 bed-nights were utilized both in and out of the county during the fiscal year.
31 32 32 33
12 24 24 23 13
6
4 8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Total
Receiving
Services
New
Admissions
Successful
Completions
14 13
15 16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Page 26 of 156
Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population
Forensic Mental Health Services
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, support groups and community case management. Forensic Mental Health also assists with
applying for public benefits, including Medi-Cal, General Assistance, CalFresh, and Social Security
Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (“SSDI/SSI”).
As indicated in Figure 6, Probation referred 245 AB 109 clients to Fornesic Mental Health services, of
whom 133 received mental health screenings, and from which 102 opened services.
Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services
Figure 7 displays the number of AB 109 clients assisted with applications for Medi-Cal in FY 15/16, and
the number of applications approved by the State.
436
630
449
818
0
250
500
750
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bed-nights Outside County
West
Central
East
30
70
78
67
17 45 44 27 14 36 32 20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Service
Referrals
Screenings
Services
Opened
Page 27 of 156
Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals
Table 2 displays the number of AB 109 client intakes and approvals for SSDI/SSI, although data for GA
and CalFresh were unavailable in time for the report. It is not clear why these data were available in FY
2014/15 but not in 15/16.
Table 2: AB 109 client GA, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI intakes and approvals
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals
GA - - - - - - - -
CalFresh - - - - - - - -
SSDI/SSI 1 1 1 1 13 13 13 13
Health Services: Detention Health Services
Table 3: AB 109 Funding of DHS
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 928,389 $ 1,055,562
Total $ 928,389 $ 1,055,562
Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services (“DHS”) provides medical and mental health care to all
incarcerated individuals in the County, including those detained as part of AB 109 Realignment. DHS
does this by ensuring in-custody access to nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and
psychiatrists who provide initial basic health care screenings and a subsequent array of dental, physical
and mental health related services.
Figure 8 displays the number of AB 109 individuals provided intake health screening across each quarter
of FY 15/16.
43
25 26 26
33
24 26 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Intakes
Approvals
Page 28 of 156
Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings for AB 109 inmates
Figure 9 displays the distribution of sick calls (e.g., in-person appointments) provided for AB 109
individuals in FY 15/16.
Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates
District Attorney’s Office
Table 4: AB 109 Funding of the DA
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 1,209,891 $ 1,122,727
Operating Costs $ 264,843 $ 134,189
Total $ 1,474,734 $ 1,256,916
553 501 465 495
0
250
500
750
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients Intake
Screenings
Source: DHS
239 201 200 248
209
164 188
213
94
74 71
79
90
84 75
54
188
205 191
174
85
70 62 50
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Inmate Sick Calls Mental
Health RN
Mental
Health
Clinician
Psychiatrist
Dental
MD
Nursing
Page 29 of 156
The District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) functions to protect the community by prosecuting criminal activity
in the pursuit of resolutions that are intended to increase public safety and vindicate the rights of crime
survivors. Certain felony charges, if convicted, may result in an AB 109 sentence.
As shown in both Figure 10 and Figure 11 below, NUMBER of all convicted felonies in the County in FY
15/16 resulted in AB 109 sentences.
Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences,
by FY 15/16 quarter
Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 15/16
Under AB 109, the Court may sentence an individual convicted of a low-level non-non-non offense to
local jail with or without a period of MS by Probation upon the person’s release from custody. Increasing
evidence shows that sentences split between custody and supervision lead to better outcomes, and the
County’s District Attorney has been a leading advocate for split sentences statewide.
As shown in both Figure 12 and Figure 13, NUMBER. 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 the time they served in jail prior to their sentence
being imposed.
0 0 0 0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences %
Other
% AB
109
# AB
109
[CATEGO
RY
NAME]
[VALUE]
[PERCENT
AGE]
Other
felony
sentence
s
1
50%
Source: Court
Source: Court
Page 30 of 156
Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 15/16 quarter 1
Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, all FY 15/161
Additionally, the DA can initiate supervision revocations for probation and parole violations. Figure 14
and Figure 15 illustrate the number of AB 109 related supervision revocations in FY 15/16, by
classification types.
1 Only includes new 1170(h) sentences
0% 0% 0% 0%
0 0 0 0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences %
Super
vision
%
Split
% Jail
Only
# AB
109
Page 31 of 156
Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations, by FY 15/16 quarter
Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all
FY 15/16
Office of the Public Defender
Table 5: AB 109 Funding of the PD
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 1,124,000 $ 1,166,572
Total $ 1,124,000 $ 1,166,572
The Public Defender provides legal representation, advice, and assistance to indigent people in the
County accused of committing, or previously convicted, of a crime. During early points in the
adjudication process, 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.
The PTS program is designed as an evidence based strategy to reduce the County’s custodial population
according to risk, while ACER seeks to ensure the presence of attorneys at defendants’ initial court
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1170(h)PRCS Parole
Page 32 of 156
appearances to increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released from custody on
their own recognizance (“OR”) for the duration of the adjudication process and also allow for the
expedited resolution of cases when appropriate. PTS supports reduced Pre-trial detention by providing
judges with greater information with which to make bail and Pre-trial detention decisions, and by
providing Pre-trial monitoring of individuals who are deemed appropriate for release.
The Office also provides a suite of post-conviction Clean Slate services that include advocacy for
expungement and record sealing, obtainment of certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early
termination, and petitions for factual innocence. Furthermore, County AB 109 funds support an in-house
forensic social worker who provides social service assessments and referrals for clients needing
additional supports and prepares social history reports for consideration during legal proceedings.
During FY 15/16, the social worker in the Office of the Public Defender had 238 referrals, assessed 203
defendants for social service needs and referred 205 individuals to community-based services to address
identified needs.
Figure 16: Clients referred to and assessed by SW, and referred to community services
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 Pre-trial releases and early case resolution. As Figure 17 shows, 4,367 defendants were
represented at arraignment though the ACER program; of these approximately 20% to 40% were
released on their own recognizance.
45
52
73 68
36
52 52
63
36
52 52
65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of Clients Referred to
Social
Worker
Assessed by
Social
Worker
Referred to
community
servicesSource: PD
Page 33 of 156
Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on OR, by FY 15/16 quarter
A smaller but still sizeable percentage of criminal cases were also disposed though ACER. Across the
year, 167 cases were disposed at arraignment, comprising between 2% and 6% of all cases that went
through the ACER process.
Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions, by FY 15/16 quarter
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 1,367 Clean Slate petitions. Over the
same period, 471 Clean Slate petitions were granted. Data were not available in FY 15/16 regarding how
many petitions were denied, but due to time lags between the filing of petitions and the review thereof,
the number of petitions ruled on does not necessarily align with the number filed.
1060 936
1137 1234
368 382 311 271
34%
40%
27%
21%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of Cases Defendents
represented
at
arraignment
ACER
defendents
released on
OR
% ACER OR
releases
67
34 41 27
6%
3% 3%
2%
0
50
100
150
200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4ACER Dispositions ACER
dispositions
% of cases
disposed
through
ACER
Page 34 of 156
Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed or granted, by FY 15/16 quarter
[CELLRANGE],
[VALUE]
[VALUE]
[CELLRANGE],
[VALUE]
[CELLRANGE],
[VALUE]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of petitions Petitions
filed
Petitions
granted
Page 35 of 156
Pre-trial Services
Table 6: AB 109 Funding of Pre-Trial Services
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits: Probation - $ 678,056
Salaries & Benefits: Public Defender $ 138,002 $ 149,182
Operating Costs - $ 10,197
Total $ 138,002 $ 837,435
PTS is a collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s
Office, Probation Department, and Superior Court that is aimed at reducing the Pre-trial custody
population by using an evidence based assessment of risk to help inform the Court’s decision to release
an individual pending trial. In FY 14/15, Probation’s portion of the PTS budget is accounted for through
their departmental budget, which partially explains the year-to-year increase in total program funding
shown above. Paralegals screen all eligible individuals scheduled for arraignment, and qualifying clients
are then assessed for a risk score utilizing a validated risk assessment tool.
The numbers of PTS clients assessed for risk, and then released Pre-trial following the assessment are
shown below in Figure 20.
Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pre-trial risk, by FY 15/16 quarter
There are five categories of risk: low, below average, average, above average, and high. Figure 21
displays the distribution of risk levels in FY 15/16, showing that the most clients are assessed at the
“above average” or “high” risk levels, but individuals rated “high” risk are less frequently released than
those assessed to be “above average”. Similarly, there were relatively fewer individuals that rated “low,”
“below average,” or “average” risk, but those individuals were generally more likely to be released to
the Pre-trial program.
241
198
229 219
85
59 60 60
35%
30%
26% 27%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of Clients Clients
receiving
pretrial risk
assessment
Clients
released
following
assessment
Release
Rate
Page 36 of 156
Figure 21: Assessed pre-trial risk levels, all FY 15/16
Figure 22 demonstrates that in Q2 and Q4 of FY 15/16, the Court did release a higher proportion of low
and below average risk clients, but in Q1 the Court released a higher ratio of average and above average
risk clients.
Figure 22: Ratio of assessed clients that started pretrial supervision, by risk level, per Quarter
As Figure 23 shows, among all individuals under Pre-trial supervision whose case closed during FY 15/16,
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 Pre-trial
supervision cases closed is smaller than the nubmer of inidividuals who started Pre-trial supervision over
the year.
30
74
149
354
280
15 37
77
125
10
0
100
200
300
400
Low Below
average
Average Above
average
HighNumber of Clients Clients
assessed in
risk category
Clients
starting
pretrial
supervision
Source: Probation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of clients Low Risk Below Average Risk Average Risk Above Average Risk High Risk
Page 37 of 156
Figure 23: Pre-trial supervision case closures, by quarter
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 Pre-trial release.
Figure 24: Unsuccessful pre-trial supervision case closures, by type, by quarter
Probation Department
Table 7: AB 109 Funding of Probation
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 2,985,342 $ 2,256,596
Operating Costs $ 313,507 $ 269,934
Total $ 3,298,848 $ 2,526,531
The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109
clients with terms of PRCS and MS 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. Part of Probation’s budget
62 49 57
40
30
37 26
19
67%
57%
69% 68%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closures Unsuccessful
Successful
Success rate
17
29
17
10
6
6
8
5
7
2
1
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closures Technical violation
New offense
Failure to appear
Page 38 of 156
allocations reported here for FY 14/15 were moved to Pretrial Services in FY 15/16, explaining part of
the budget reduction shown above.
A total of 384 individuals were released onto AB 109 Supervision during FY 15/16. Between new
supervision clients and continuing supervision clients, 1,135 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, by quarter
Figure 26: Total count of AB 109 individuals under supervision at any time during FY 15/16
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.
74
46
67
47 42 40
25
43
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients PRCS 1170(h)
PRCS
639
56%
1170(h)
496
44%
Page 39 of 156
Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification, by quarter
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 15/16.
Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, all FY 15/16
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 criminal orientation, followed closely by alcohol
and/or drug use.
350 360 366 358
414 417 431 429
0
100
200
300
400
500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average Daily Population 1170(h)
PRCS
High,
413, 44% Moderat
e, 296,
32%
Low,
222, 24%
Page 40 of 156
Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, all FY 15/16
Sheriff’s Office
Table 8: AB 109 Funding of the Sheriff’s Office
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 4,599,980 $ 5,558,565
Operating Costs $ 489,300 $ 833,507
Total $ 5,089,280 $ 6,392,072
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”). The
Sheriff’s Office primary role in AB 109 implementation is to provide safe and secure custody for all
incarcerated individuals, with the hopes of preparing them for their ultimate reentry back into the
community.
Over the course of FY 15/16, there were 2,046 AB 109-related bookings or commitments into the
County’s three detention facilities. Figure 30 through 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.
Physical Safety
Basic Needs
Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
Relationships
Isolated Situational
Social Inadequacy
Family History
Vocational Skills
Interpersonal Manipulation
Emotional Factors
Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse
Criminal Orientation
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Yes No
Page 41 of 156
Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility
Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility
Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility
6 3 10 7
46 41
80
48
36
17 19
7
98
84
73 73
6 8 3
17
0
25
50
75
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookings PRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) Commitments
Source: Sheriff
6 4 8 7
36 37
56 52
19 13 14 12
71 62 56
67
14 15 11 20
0
25
50
75
100
125
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookings PRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) Commitments
1 1 1 1 1
2
5
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookings PRCS Flash Incarcerations
PRCS Revocations
Parole Commitments
Parole Holds
1170(h) commitments
Page 42 of 156
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 just 6% of the County’s average daily custodial population. (Note: this figure does not include
PRCS violators. Data on PRCS violators were unavailable in the ADP count.)
Figure 33: Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. non-AB 109
Figure 34 through 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.
Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility
Non AB
109
inmates
1321
94%
AB 109
inmates
87
6%
33 33 27 25
13 13
10 11
7% 7% 6% 6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population 1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
Page 43 of 156
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
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 type
21 16 19 17
16
12 18 16
5%
4%
5% 5%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population 1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
1 1
9 10 13 12
14%
17%
21% 23%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population 1170(h)
commitments
Parole holds &
commitments
AB 109 % of
total
population
113 121
186
162
63 65 68 60
12 10 13 13
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of days 1170(h)
Parole
(sentenced)
Parole (holds/
dropped)
Page 44 of 156
Workforce Development Board
Table 9: AB 109 Funding of the WDB
Program Expenditure FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Salaries & Benefits $ 104,394 $ 94,990
Operating Costs $ 95,606 $ 105,010
Total $ 200,000 $ 200,000
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 roles in AB 109 implementation have been to broker employment
opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population, and to coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they
are aware of, and able to provide access to, the 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, have attended. Unfortunately, the WDB does
not currently track the number of AB 109 clients who have utilized their services.
Page 45 of 156
Community Based Service Providers
Shared values/approach
Contra Costa County’s reentry approach is centered on developing an integrated and supportive system
comprised of services provided by AB 109-contracted community-based organizations, public agencies
and the broader community for the benefit of the County’s reentry population. The system works
together to help create a pathway for the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated
individuals, including AB 109 individuals, back into the community.
AB 109-contracted CBOs play a large role in the reentry system, 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. Included in the Sheriff’s Office
AB 109 Budget is $200,000 in funding for “Jail-to-Community” service providers (Men and Women of
Purpose and Reach Fellowship International) to provide reentry planning at the earliest stage.
In the County’s adopted 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.
Because individuals sentenced under AB 109 are a subset of the County’s larger reentry population,
these are some of the founding principles upon which much of the County’s AB 109 work has been built.
Page 46 of 156
Overview of AB 109 Community Partnerships
Table 10: Community Advisory Board (CAB) Recommended Allocations
Service FY 14/15 FY 15/16
Reentry Success Center $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Central & East Network of Services $ 800,000 $ 800,000
Employment Support and Placement $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000
Short and Long-Term Housing Access $ 200,000 $ 500,000
Peer and Mentoring $ 200,000 $ 110,000
Family Reunification $ 0 $ 90,000
Legal $ 80,000 $ 80,000
Total $ 3,980,000 $ 3,980,000
In FY 14/15, Contra Costa County launched the Central & East Reentry Network System of Services
(Network) for Returning Citizens to help connect AB 109 clients to a diverse array of AB 109-contracted
and County reentry support providers. In FY 15/16, the County also established the Reentry Success
Center (Center) in West County, a “one-stop” center that helps link reentry clients to both County and
community-based services. Both the Center and the Network link AB 109 individuals to organizations
that provide services within the categories recommended by the Community Advisory Board (CAB):
Employment Support and Placement Services, Short and Long-Term Housing Access, Peer and
Mentoring Services, Legal Services, and Family Reunification Services.
While service provision was originally focused exclusively on the AB 109 population, the eligible
population was expanded in FY 15-16 to include all formerly incarcerated individuals in a tiered
approach that continued to prioritize AB 109 classified individuals.
Table 11 summarizes the referrals, enrollments, and successful program completions for the contracted
service providers in FY 15/16.
Table 11: CBO Data Compiled from ServicePoint
Category Organization
Total
Referrals
Total
Enrollments
Total
Completions
AB
109 Other AB
109 Other AB
109 Other
Reentry Success Center
Reentry Network Men and Women of
Purpose – Central & East
57 33 48 27 29 42
Reach Fellowship 20 17 16 113 9 99
Fast Eddie's 26 17 5 4 3 -
Employment Support Goodwill Industries 93 142 73 76 18 53
Page 47 of 156
and Placement Rubicon 191 478 56 154 130 128
Short and Long-Term
Housing
SHELTER Inc. 267 29 74 27 68 20
Peer Mentoring Men and Women of
Purpose – West County
119 41 81 21 64 62
Family Reunification Center for Human
Development
17 11 17 8 - 1
Legal Services Bay Area Legal Aid 54 6 54 21 9 -
Reentry Success Center
Table 12: AB 109 Funding of Reentry Success Center
Program Expenditure Previous FY Current FY
Salaries & Benefits $ 145,089 $ 183,709
Operations $ 587,547 $ 173,429
Indirect $30,221 $36,919
Total $ 762,857 $ 394,057
The Reentry Success Center, located in West County, serves as a central hub that provides a place for
learning, capacity building, and access to information and services for justice involved individuals who
are reentering the community. The mission of the Reentry Success Center is to gather effective
resources into one accessible and welcoming hub of integrated services (e.g., family reunification,
financial responsibility, education, employment, health and wellness, housing, legal aid, and pub
benefits) in order to foster healing, justice, safety, and lifelong liberty for the people of Contra Costa
County.2 The Reentry Success Center opened doors to new members in November of 2015, and since
then has developed deep partnerships with the Office of the Public Defender, Men and Women of
Purpose, Bay Area Legal Aid, the African American Health Conductors, and Rubicon in an effort to
connect the reentry population to experts who can help provide the with critical reentry services that
act as the hallmark of the Center’s work.
The Reentry Success Center dedicated significant time and resources in FY 15/16 implementing a
Salesforce database and training partners to successfully utilize the software. The database tracks all
referrals, including those made by Probation, as well as program specific outcomes measures (e.g.,
retrieving identification card, completing homeless court, successfully entering employment services), to
allow partners to easily discover how to best assist each client at any point in their reentry process. This
has helped to reduce referrals to redundant services, and also reduced opportunities for members to fall
through the cracks before they received the support necessary for their successful reentry.
2 Further The Work: Strengthening Nonprofits and their Partners. (2014). A Design and Implementation Plan for a
West County Reentry Resource Center. Retrieved January 4, 2017 from http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30064
Page 48 of 156
Table 13: RSC: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
MWP East County AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals
Enrollments
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked
ii. Needs could not be met
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons
iv. Death
v. Other
Central & East Reentry Network System of Services
Table 14: AB 109 Funding of “Network”
Program Expenditure Previous FY Current FY
Salaries & Benefits $ 354,158 $ 308,101
Operations $ 380,832 $ 413,040
Total $ 734,990 $ 721,141
Similar to the Reentry Resource Center, the Central & East Reentry Network System of Services (“the
Network”) functions to connect AB 109 clients in the Central and East regions of the County to a diverse
array of AB 109-contracted reentry service providers. Dubbed the “No Wrong Door” (NWD) Network,
the foundational element of the Network is that there are multiple entry points and varied opportunities
for engagement made available to returning citizens seeking reentry services. 27 No Wrong Door sites
have been established via Memorandums of Understanding to participate in the Network. In addition to
the AB 109-funded agencies that provide services in the Central and East regions of the County, during
FY 15/16 the Network used a significant portion of its budget ($413,040) to contract for additional
services for services related to rapid housing ($220,000 to SHELTER, Inc.), employment and education
liaison services ($100,000; $50k each to Men and Women of Purpose and Reach), leadership training
($60,542 to Brighter Beginnings) and specialized automotive employment training ($32,499 to Fast
Eddie’s). Mentoring services under the Network are supposed to be provided by volunteer Mentor-
Navigators, supervised by the Field Operations Coordinators.
Page 49 of 156
During FY 15/16 the Network staffing costs paid for four independent contractor positions: a Manager
and three Field Operation Coordinators who served to connect members of the AB 109 reentry
population to AB 109-contracted CBOs. The County experienced some challenges with this model, and
looks forward to working with a single contracted organization to oversee the Network management
functions in the upcoming year; this is discussed in greater detail in the “Looking Ahead” section below.
Men and Women of Purpose—Employment and Education Liaison Program
Men and Women of Purpose (“MWP”) provides education and employment liaison services for men
accessing the Central and East Network Reentry System of Services. MWP’s liaisons help AB 109
individuals obtain the documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-
release activities.
Table 15: MWP—Network: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
MWP East County AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 119 41 160
Enrollments 81 - -
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 64 - 64
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements 25 - 25
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement 8 - 8
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement 7 - 7
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 4 - 4
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer 3 - 3
Other reasons:
vi. Probation revoked - - -
vii. Needs could not be met 5 - 5
viii. Disagreement with rules/persons 2 - 2
ix. Death - - -
x. Other - - -
Reach Fellowship International—Employment and Education Liaison Program
Reach Fellowship International (“Reach”) provides gender-responsive services such as job-training
services, community café services, housing referral/placement, Sistah-to-Sistah support groups, family
reunification & stabilization services, court advocacy and life-coaching. They specifically contract with
the County to provide the Central & East Network with employment and education liaison services. In
this role Reach helps women (accessing the Network’s services) obtain documents needed for future
employment or continued educational efforts (i.e. social security card, picture identification, transcripts,
etc.). Reach also provides these women with a mailing address to have these documents sent to, and
Page 50 of 156
temporary safekeeping of sensitive documentation while the women complete periods of incarceration
or in-patient programs for substance use disorders.
Table 16: Reach: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
Reach AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 20 17 37
Enrollments 16 113 129
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 9 99 118
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements
6 15 21
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement
8 22 30
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement
11 29 40
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer
3 2 5
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked 2 12 14
ii. Needs could not be met 6 33 39
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons 3 18 21
iv. Death - - -
v. Other - - -
Fast Eddie’s—Automotive Training Program
Fast Eddie’s provides workforce development skills and automotive technical training for AB 109
individuals referred to the program. They have contracted with the Network to provide employment
support and employment placement opportunities for AB 109 clients.
Table 17: Fast Eddies: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
Fast Eddie's AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 26 17 43
Enrollments 5 4 9
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 2 1 3
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements 3 2 5
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Page 51 of 156
Employment Support and Placement Services
Table 18: AB 109 Funding of Employment Support and Placement Services
Previous FY Current FY
Goodwill Industries $ 552,818 $ 600,000
Rubicon $ 1,311,049 $ 1,332,694
Total $ 1,863,866 $ 1,932,694
Goodwill Industries—Central County
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 workforce training, employment
support and job 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.
Table 19: Goodwill Industries: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
Goodwill Industries AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 93 142 235
Enrollments 73 76 149
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 18 53 71
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement 28 16 24
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement 18 3 28
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met - 1 1
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other - - -
Page 52 of 156
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met 9 4 19
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other - - -
Rubicon Programs, Inc.—West and East County
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, 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.
Table 20: Rubicon: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
Rubicon AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals - - -
Enrollments 3 4 144 148
TOTAL SERVED 8 232 240
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement 1 6 7
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met - - -
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other - - -
3 Rubicon members are defined as individuals who completed the two 90 minute orientation sessions.
Page 53 of 156
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Table 21: AB 109 Funding of Short and Long-Term Housing Access Services
Previous FY Current FY
SHELTER, Inc. $ 615,000 $ 720,000
Total $ 615,000 $ 720,000
SHELTER, Inc.
SHELTER, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists persons who are referred to them under the AB 109 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 is provided with
access to the supports they need to better ensure their success in the program. Housing services then
attempts to help the person identify housing that fits the needs of their specific situation (income,
family size, location, etc.). The program places the majority of their participants into transitional housing
situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources needed to
sustain stable housing long term. The baseline AB 109 funding of $500,000 was augmented in FY 15-16
by $220,000 from the Reentry Network budget to supply additional “rapid rehousing” beds.
Table 22: SHELTER, Inc.: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
Shelter, Inc. AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 267 29 296
Enrollments 74 27 101
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 68 20 88
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met - - -
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other - - -
Page 54 of 156
Peer Mentoring
Table 23: AB 109 Funding of Peer and Mentoring Services
Previous FY Current FY
Men and Women of Purpose $ 63,251 $ 110,000
Brighter Beginnings $ 66,666 $ 66,000
Center for Human Development 4 $ 64,947 -
Total $ 194,864 $ 176,000
Men and Women of Purpose—West County Mentoring Program
Men and Women of Purpose (“MWP”) provides peer mentoring services for AB 109 individuals in West
County, by training groups of Mentor/Navigators that are tasked with ensuring program participants are
able to access the things needed for successful reintegration, secure and benefit from prosocial
relationships, and enjoy ongoing prosocial activities. These services include one-on-one mentoring, as
well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery.
MWP is also contracted to provide pre- and post-release services for incarcerated individuals using the
organization’s Jail to Community framework that begins with weekly in custody reentry related
workshops. Utilizing JTC principles, MWP supports individuals incarcerated in Contra Costa’s jails (men in
West County Detention Facility) as they transition back into local communities. For the Central-East
Reentry Network, 13 volunteer Mentor-Navigators were recruited and trained to provide
mentor/navigator services for returning citizens. The Mentor-Navigators were supervised by the Field
Operations Coordinators.
Table 21: MWP West County: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
MWP West County Mentoring AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 57 33 92
Enrollments 48 27 75
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 29 - 29
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements
24 - 24
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement
7 - 7
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement
11 - 11
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 8 - 8
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer
3 - 3
Other reasons:
4 Moved to Family Reunification service category in FY 15/16
Page 55 of 156
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met 5 - 5
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons 3 - 3
iv. Death - - -
v. Other 2 - 2
Family Reunification
Table 24: AB 109 Funding of Family Reunification Services
Previous FY Current FY
Center for Human
Development $64,947 $90,000
Total $64,947 $90,000
Center for Human Development
The Center for Human Development (“CHD”) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(“CFRP”) for the County, 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.
Table 21: CHD: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions.
MWP West County Mentoring AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 17 11 28
Enrollments 17 8 25
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program - 1 1
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement 1 - 1
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement 1 - 1
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 1 1 2
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met 2 - 2
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other 4 - 4
Page 56 of 156
Legal Services
Table 25: AB 109 Funding of Legal Services
Previous FY Current FY
Bay Area Legal Aid $ 80,000 $ 79,619
Total $ 80,000 $ 79,619
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 attorneys to provide clients with post-release or in custody civil legal
check-ups to identify legal barriers that typically hinder reentry and are able to be remediated, educate
clients about opportunities for early termination of probation or other forms of supervision, and provide
information about possible relief from outstanding fines and other forms of debt. In many situations an
attorneys is able to represent a client in the pursuit of a remedy to an identified legal issue.
Table 26: BayLegal: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions
BayLegal AB 109
Clients
Other
Clients
Total
Clients
Referrals 54 6 60
Enrollments 54 21 75
Completions
Total participants who successfully completed program 7 - 7
Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet
program requirements - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal
involvement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to lack of
engagement - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to absconding - - -
Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or
case transfer - - -
Other reasons:
i. Probation revoked - - -
ii. Needs could not be met - - -
iii. Disagreement with rules/persons - - -
iv. Death - - -
v. Other 2 - 2
Page 57 of 156
AB 109 Population Outcomes
Over the course of FY 15/16 there were a total of 1,135 AB 109 clients under supervision at some point
in time. Of these 1,135 AB 109 clients, 137 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 an AODS specialist to determine an appropriate treatment plan
(inpatient vs. outpatient) rather than having their supervision term immediately revoked, returning
them to custody. This allows the person 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 or their supervision revoked, either of
which could result in a much longer period of incarceration. Figure 38 shows that the number of flash
incarcerations imposed on PRCS clients ranged from 12 to 21 flash incarcerations per quarter.
Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations, by FY 15/16 quarter
Of the nearly 500 1170(h) Probation clients under supervision over the course of FY 15/16,
approximately 14% of AB 109 clients (67) had their probation revoked. Among the 639 PRCS Probation
clients the percentage was slightly higher, as 18% (639) had their probation revoked.
21
12
16 16
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Flash Incarcerations Source: Probation
Page 58 of 156
Figure 39: Percentage and number of 1170(h) clients revoked in FY 15/16
Figure 40: Percentage and number of PRCS clients revoked in FY 15/16
In addition to the 67 AB 109 Probation clients who had their probation revoked, a total of 114 AB 109
parolees (PRCS) were revoked during FY 15/16.
New Charges and Convictions
Figure 41 below shows the number of AB 109 individuals with new charges filed against them during FY
15/16, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals who were convicted of a new criminal offense during
FY 15/16. 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 15/16. The fact that there are a greater number of 1170(h) and Parolees who
received new criminal convictions than new charges during FY 15/16 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 15/16 were charged with those offenses in prior
years, but the court process did not conclude until FY 15/16. Similarly, many of the individuals who were
charged with new offenses in FY 15/16 have not yet completed the court process.
No
Revocati
on, 429,
86%
Revocati
on, 67,
14%
No
Revocati
on
525
82%
Revocati
on
114
18%
Page 59 of 156
The percentage of the AB 109 population with new charges or criminal convictions during FY 15/16 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.
Figure 41: AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 15/16,
by AB 109 classification type
366
191
381 342
109 119
0
100
200
300
400
500
New Charges New ConvictionsIndividulas PC 1170(h)
PRCS
Parole
Source: Court
Page 60 of 156
Looking Ahead
Contra Costa County has responded to Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the
County to successfully detain and supervise the AB 109 population, while providing a collaborative
reentry infrastructure to support the AB 109 reentry population’s successful reintegration once released
back into the community.
In FY 16/17 Contra Costa County looks to continue the work being done at the Reentry Success Center in
West County; a one-stop center where the reentry population can connect with a diverse array of
reentry support providers. In addition to operating the Reentry Success Center, the County has further
developed the Network Reentry System in FY 16/17 and in contracting with HealthRight 360 to manage
the Network, they hope to provide better supported, coordinated and integrated services to the AB 109
population in East and Central County. Under this new contract, the County expects to gain a better
understanding of how the Network Reentry System and the Reentry Success Center contribute to the
County’s reentry infrastructure and helps improve access and utilization of the supports needed by the
AB 109 reentry population to successfully reintegrate into the community.
Contra Costa County boosted funding for housing in FY 16/17 as well, more than doubling the amount
allocated for housing from $500,000 in FY 15/16 to $1,030,000 is FY 16/17. The County shifted from a
“master leasing” housing model to a recovery model, leveraging sober living environments and joint
housing to provide housing support for individuals with histories of substance use disorders and/or a
desire to live a sober lifestyle. The County looks forward to monitoring the extent to which this shift in
its approach to housing better supports the reentry efforts of the AB 109 population.
Finally, three other large-scale AB 109-related efforts are taking place during FY 16/17. These include
implementation planning for the County’s pre-release planning pilot program, the facilitation of a
process to update the Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operations Plan, and the establishment of the
Office of Reentry and Justice which will be housed in the County Administrator’s Office and began
operations in January of 2017. The County will shed further light on the successes and challenges of
these endeavors in next year’s annual update.
Page 61 of 156
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:02/06/2017
Subject:FY 2017/18 CCP RECOMMENDED BUDGET
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: AB109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036
Referral History:
On November 9, 2016, budget instructions for the FY 2017/18 AB 109 budget were distributed to the
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) subscriber list, including Committee members, staff and
interested parties, requesting formal submission no later than December 2, 2016. This year, staff had
again requested budget submissions to 1) maintain the status quo funding level at the fiscal year
2016/17 Ongoing budget level, and 2) contemplate new funding requests based on programming needs.
On December 16, 2016, the CCP held a budget workshop, giving departments and funded agencies an
opportunity to present and discuss budget proposals. Subsequently, a final vote of the CCP-Executive
Committee was held on January 13, 2017. The budget approved by the CCP has been submitted to the
Public Protection Committee for review and approval at today's meeting.
Referral Update:
The Community Corrections Partnership has been receiving frequent updates regarding discussions at
the State level around establishing a multi-year formula for the distribution of AB109 Community
Corrections sub-account allocation to counties. This process has been completed with the Realignment
Allocation Committee (RAC) making its final recommendations to the California Department of Finance
(DOF). The recommended formula resulted in a significant reduction in Base allocation funding to Contra
Costa County beginning in fiscal year 2014/15. A summary of past funding can be found in Attachment A
for reference.
FY 2016/17 Base Allocation
Recall that the Community Corrections allocation is composed of a Base allocation and a Growth
allocation. The Base allocation is derived from current year funding, and the current year Growth
allocation is derived from prior year actual funding from the State. By the nature of this arrangement,
Growth has been observed to be more volatile than the Base allocation due to varying economic factors,
which have also been compounded by the uncertainty surrounding the final statewide allocation formula.
Beginning in fiscal year 2014/15, the CCP Ongoing budget allocations have been in excess of the Base
allocations from the State. In fiscal year 2016/17, the Base allocation for Contra Costa County is
estimated to increase from the fiscal year 2015/16 amount of $20,831,204 to $21,848,491, which is still
below the high of $22,854,832 in fiscal year 2013/14 when the majority of current programs were
funded. Although this is positive year-over-year progress, the County allocation still has not recoveredPage 62 of 156
funded. Although this is positive year-over-year progress, the County allocation still has not recovered
fully from the negative impacts of the formula reallocation.
FY 2015/16 Growth Allocation (distributed in FY 2016/17)
Growth allocations have historically been difficult to predict and a moving target depending on revenue
estimates from the State at any given point during the year. In addition, the RAC has made
recommendations to allocate growth using different funding formulas in 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.
Beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 Growth allocation (paid in fiscal year 2016/17), and for several
years into the future, the formula has been based on the following:
1. SB 678 Success – 80%
SB 678 success rate (60%) – all counties
SB 678 year-over-year improvement (20%) – only those counties showing improvement
2. Incarceration rates – 20%
County’s reduction in year-over-year second strike admission (fixed dollar amount per number
reduced)
County’s reduction in year-over-year overall new prison admission (10%)
County’s success measured by per-capita rate of prison admissions (10%)
Contra Costa County has been a leader in the majority of the above metrics and, as predicted, benefited
little from new, permanent formula. More discussion on the fiscal year 2015/16 Growth allocation received can be found in the Fiscal impact section of this report. The good news is that this reduction was anticipated and the CCP has not based its budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors relying on Growth funds in prior years.
received can be found in the Fiscal impact section of this report. The good news is that this reduction
was anticipated and the CCP has not based its budget recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
relying on Growth funds in prior years.
FY 2017/18 Recommendation from the CCP - Executive Committee
On January 13, 2017 the CCP convened to begin deliberations on a FY 2017/18 budget recommendation
for submission to the Public Protection Committee. Staff provided a report introducing the item, which in
part recommended authorizing a minimum increase of 4% in recognition of increased cost of doing
business and several years of "status quo" budgets. This recommendation included not only County
departments, but also the Superior Court, Police Chief's Association and Community Advisory Board
allocations.
Following presentations by agencies submitting budget proposals and public comment, the CCP
Executive Committee voted to fund:
1. All requested increases existing programs;
2. All requests for new funding to establish new programs or expand existing programs, with the
exception of a new Veteran's Court program requested by the Superior Court; and
3. Authorized a minimum increase of 4% to all departments or agencies (including, CAB, CCC
Police Chief's Association and Superior Court)
A summary of the CCP Recommended budget is summarized in Attachment F. As
proposed, the CCP Recommended Budget would increase expenditure appropriations
by $1,727,579, from $23,684,570 to $25,412,149.The Governor's Proposed Budget
includes an estimated increase to the County's Base allocation of $1,111,655, from
$21,848,491 to $22,960,146. This figure will likely change in the May Revision and
Enacted Budgets.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Page 63 of 156
REVIEW and APPROVE a fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal for submission to the Board of
Supervisors’ Public Protection Committee.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The fiscal year 2016/17 Ongoing Budget for AB 109 is $23,684,570. The California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) is projecting that Contra Costa County will receive $21,848,491 in fiscal year 2016/17 in
Base allocation funding. The Growth allocation for fiscal year 2015/16 (paid in 2016/17) of $727,382 has
been received by the County, 10% of which has been transferred to the Local Innovation account,
effectively reducing our Growth allocation by $72,738 to $654,644. Since the new Growth formula is
permanent for the foreseeable future, it is likely that any future Growth allocation will not exceed the
2015/16 amount. A detailed calculation of the Contra Costa Growth formula allocation is included in
Attachment A.
As proposed, the FY 2017/18 CCP Recommended Budget would increase expenditure appropriations by
$1,727,579, from $23,684,570 to $25,412,149. The Governor's Proposed Budget includes an
estimated increase to the County's Base allocation of $1,111,655, from $21,848,491 to
$22,960,146. This figure will likely change in the May Revision and Enacted Budgets.
Attachments
Attachment A - CSAC Estimated Base & Growth Allocations by County (FY 2014-17)
Attachment B - FY 2017/18 AB109 Budget Schedule
Attachment C - FY 2017/18 Budget Request Summary
Attachment D - FY 2017/18 Budget Requests (Revised thru 1-6-17)
Attaachment E - FY 2016/17 AB109 Budget
Attachment F - FY 2017/18 CCP Recommended Budget Summary
Page 64 of 156
Page 65 of 156
Page 66 of 156
Page 67 of 156
Page 68 of 156
Page 69 of 156
Page 70 of 156
Attachment BMajor ActivityDue Date CCP Date PPC Date Board Date Completed?Distribute 2017/18 CCP Budget Packet11/9Departments Submit Preliminary Budget Proposals12/2December 2016 CCP Agenda Packet Published12/9December 2016 CCP Meeting ‐ Budget Workshop12/16January 2017 CCP Agenda Packet Published1/6January 2017 CCP Meeting ‐ Budget Deliberations1/13Public Protection Comm. Agenda Packet Published2/2January 2017 Public Protection Comm. ‐ CCP Budget Discussion2/6County Budget Materials Due from Departments 2/10County Recommended Budget available4/7Board of Supervisors Budget Hearings4/18County Budget Adoption5/9as of 2/1/2017FY 2017/18 CCP Budget SchedulePage 71 of 156
Attachment C
2016/17 2017/18 2017/18
ONGOING REQUEST NEW FUNDING
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Sheriff
Salaries & Benefits 5,983,717 6,649,947 -
Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 -
Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 -
IT Support 40,000 40,000 -
Vehicle Maintenance/Depreciation - - -
Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 -
Transport Bus Maintenance - - -
"Jail to Community" Program 200,000 200,000 -
Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 731,000 755,000 -
Sheriff Total 7,546,467 8,236,697 -
Probation
Salaries & Benefits 2,489,970 2,489,970 74,699
Operating Costs 224,923 164,173 4,925
Salaries & Benefits-Pre-Trial Services Program 719,322 719,322 21,580
Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 75,497 75,497 2,265
Probation Total 3,509,712 3,448,962 103,469
Behavioral Health
Salaries & Benefits 827,352 886,785 109,395
Operating Costs 97,533 58,752 -
Contracts 1,285,900 1,265,248 26,840
Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 22,448 22,448 -
Travel 10,200 10,200 -
Behavioral Health Total 2,243,433 2,243,433 136,235
Health Services--Detention Health Services
Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 180,324 180,324 -
Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 283,376 283,376 -
Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 475,004 475,004 -
Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 116,858 116,858 -
Detention Health Services Total 1,055,562 1,055,562 -
Public Defender
Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 316,930 316,930 80,339
Sal & Ben-ACER Program 697,958 697,958 174,829
Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordinator 257,399 257,399 10,572
Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program 151,080 151,080 21,495
Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 147,541 147,541 42,860
Public Defender Total 1,570,908 1,570,908 330,095
District Attorney
Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 87,434 109,231 -
Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 592,516 649,491 -
Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 606,169 693,512 -
Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 89,624 64,094 -
Salaries & Benefits-Gen'l Clerk 68,059 63,536 -
Operating Costs 82,995 86,109
District Attorney Total 1,526,797 1,665,973 -
EHSD‐‐ Workforce Development Board
Salaries & Benefits 196,000 196,000 -
Travel 4,000 4,000 -
EHSD-WDB Total 200,000 200,000 -
County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice
Salaries & Benefits 233,650 489,479 -
Ceasefire Program Contract 110,000 110,000
Data Evaluation & Systems Planning 259,000 83,021 -
Operating Costs 26,600 7,500 -
CAO/ORJ Total1 629,250 690,000 -
CCC Police Chief's Association
Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 522,000 522,000 -
CCC Police Chiefs' Total 522,000 522,000 -
Community Programs
Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 -
Implementation of (3) One-Stop Centers 1,285,036 - -
Network System of Services - 820,000
Reentry Success Center - 465,000
Short and Long-Term Housing Access 1,030,000 1,030,000 -
Development of a "Re-entry Resource Guide"15,000 - -
Legal Services 150,000 150,000 -
Mentoring and Family Reunification 200,000 200,000 -
Connections to Resources - 15,000 -
Community Programs Total 4,680,036 4,680,000 -
Superior Court
Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial 200,405 200,405 -
Salaries and Benefits - Veterans Treatment Court - - 167,608
Superior Court Total 200,405 200,405 167,608
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 23,684,570 24,513,940 737,407
TOTAL 17/18 INCREASES REQUESTED 1,566,777
6.62%
Notes:
AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM
FY 2017/18 SUMMARY OF BUDGET REQUESTS
1. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount only.
as of January 6, 2017
Page 72 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal Form
Department:
Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item #Quantity /FTE 2016/17 Allocation 2017/18 Status Quo Request1 2016/17 New Funding Request2 2016/17 Total Funding
Request
SALARY AND BENEFITS -
Sergeant Staff Supervision Objective 3.1 1 274,597.00$ 297,449.00$ 297,449
Deputy Sheriff Inmate Management Objective 3.1 20 4,647,197.00$ 5,246,280.00$ 5,246,280
Overtime Objective 3.1 -$ -
Specialist Alternative Custody progrms Objective 3.1 3 401,009.00$ 404,274.00$ 404,274
Senior Clerk Data and Admin Support Objective 3.1 2 225,478.00$ 225,478.00$ 225,478
ASA III Administrative Support Objective 5.2 1 132,310.00$ 167,938.00$ 167,938
DSW Additional Cleaning/Maintenance Objective 3.1 2 195,339.00$ 195,339.00$ 195,339
Lead Cook Food Prep.Objective 3.1 1 107,787.00$ 113,189.00$ 113,189
Vendor for Equip.CAF Monitoring Maintenance Objective 3.1 1 -$ -
-
Subtotal 31 5,983,717.00$ 6,649,947.00$ -$ 6,649,947.00$
OPERATING COSTS -
FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSEHOLD Inmate Management/Welfare Objective 3.1 456,250.00$ 456,250.00$ 456,250
MONITORING COSTS Inmate Monitoring Objective 3.1 55,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 55,000
IT SUPPORT Tech. Support Objective 3.1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000
ISF VEHICLE COSTS Maintenance ISF Objective 3.2 -$ -$ -
Bus Depreciation Asset Depreciation Objective 3.2 -$ -$ -
Behavioral Health Crt. Ops.Overhead for Behavioral Health Court Objective 3.3 80,500.00$ 80,500.00$ 80,500
Program Administration Jail-to-Communities Programs Objective 5.3 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 200,000
Program Services Inmate Program Services 731,000.00$ 755,000.00$ 755,000
-
-
Subtotal 0 1,562,750.00$ 1,586,750.00$ -$ 1,586,750.00$
CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)-
-$ -$ -$ -
-$ -$ -$ -
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$
Subtotal 0 -$ -$ -$ -$
Total 31 7,546,467.00$ 8,236,697.00$ -$ 8,236,697.00$
1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.
2. FY2017/18 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.
Page 73 of 156
PROGRAM NARRATIVE:
The above funding requests reflect a maintenance of 17/18 staffing, operations and programs, with no request for capital costs.
2017/18 Status Quo Request
FY 2017-2018 SERGEANT
Maintains same staffing approved for 16-17; increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs
FY 2017-2018 DEPUTY SHERIFF (16) Facilities, (2) Transportation (1) Classification, (1) Behaviorial Health
Court
Maintains same staffing approved for 16-17; increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs
FY 2017-2018 SENIOR CLERK (2)
Maintains same staffing approved for 16-17; increased personnel costs reflect rise in benefits costs
FY 2017-2018 ASA III - Inmate Programs
Maintains same staffing approved for 16-17; increased personnel costs reflect rise in salary step increase
from ASA II to ASA III.
FY 2017-2018 Food/Clothing/Household
Funding for food, clothing, and household expenses to meet inmates' needs and Title 15 requirements.
FY 2017-2018 Monitoring Costs
The ongoing costs associated with the monitoring through contracts with SCRAM and 3M for alternative
custody devices.
FY 2017-2018 IT Support
The ongoing costs associated with the Sheriff’s Office and contracts for IT support, which includes
installation and maintenance for the alternative custody devices.
FY 2017-2018 Behavioral Health Court
This item is to support the ongoing costs of the Behavioral Health Court as it currently exists.
Vehicle, Rent, IT Support, Phones, PG&E, Repairs, Limited Supplies, Cell Phones, Computers, Drug Testing,
and Deputy Annual Training Classes
FY 2017-2018 Program Administration Costs
The Sheriff's Office was awarded $200,000 in FY 15-16 to administer "Jail to Community" programs in the
detention facilities. The programs are in place and the 'status quo' budget should include the cost for their
continuation.
FY 2017-2018 Program Services
The Sheriff's Office was awarded $731,000 in FY 16-17 for inmate program services in the detention
facilities. Actual forecasts regarding phone service fees were pending phone commission legislation. The
17-18 Status Quo figure of $755,000 is based on current projections for 17-18 (from budget forecasts
negatively offset from decreased projected revenue from phones) .
Page 74 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: PROBATIONFunding Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ ‐ Director Field ServicesPost‐release Community Supervision 5.126,904 0.10 26,904 0.10 807 27,711 0.10 Probation ManagerPost‐release Community Supervision 5.149,554 0.20 49,554 0.20 1,487 51,041 0.20 Probation Supervisor IPost‐release Community Supervision 5.1217,421 1.00 217,421 1.00 6,523 223,944 1.00 Deputy Probation Officer IIIPost‐release Community Supervision 5.1 2,085,943 12.00 2,085,943 12.00 62,578 2,148,521 12.00 DPO III OvertimePost‐release Community Supervision 5.125,000 N/A25,000 N/A750 25,750 N/AClerkPost‐release Community Supervision 5.177,146 1.00 77,146 1.00 2,314 79,460 1.00 IT SupportPost‐release Community Supervision5.18,002 0.05658,002 0.0565240 8,242 0.06 Subtotal 2,489,970 14.36 2,489,970 14.36 74,699 ‐ 2,564,669$ 14.36 OPERATING COSTS‐ Office ExpensePost‐release Community Supervision 5.12,500 3,000 90 3,090 Communication CostsPost‐release Community Supervision 5.19,500 10,000 300 10,300 Minor Furniture/EquipmentPost‐release Community Supervision 5.12,000 1,500 45 1,545 Minor Computer EquipmentPost‐release Community Supervision 5.111,419 25,000 750 25,750 FoodPost‐release Community Supervision 5.112,953 10,000 300 10,300 Client Expenses/IncentivesPost‐release Community Supervision 5.115,000 17,173 515 17,688 ContractsPost‐release Community Supervision 5.1149,000 ‐ 3‐ ‐ Data Processing Services/Supplies Post‐release Community Supervision 5.16,801 7,500 225 7,725 Travel/Training Post‐release Community Supervision 5.1‐ 10,000 300 10,300 Warrant Pick‐upPost‐release Community Supervision 5.15,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ Annual Vehicle Operating Expenses (ISF) Post‐release Community Supervision 5.180,000 80,000 2,400 82,400 Subtotal 294,173 164,173 4,925 169,098$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 2,784,143$ 14.36 2,654,143$ 14.36 79,624$ ‐ 2,733,767$ 14.36 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.3. $130,000 Reentry Coordinator Contract & $19,000 Victim Offender Education Group (VOEG) Contract removed from Probation Budget.2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 75 of 156
DEPARTMENT: PROBATIONPROGRAM NARRATIVE:2017/18 Status Quo RequestThe Probation Department's proposed FY 2017/18 allocation of $2,654,143 will provide the following level of service:Salary and Benefit costs of $2,489,970 are requested for: ∙ One (1) FTE Probation Supervisor ∙ Twelve (12) FTE Probation Officers ∙ The case load for each AB 109 Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) is 40 to 45 people ∙ This includes a dedicated DPO to process the reentry of those being released from prison and local jail. This will include but is not limited to completion of the CAIS risk needs assessment tool, develop a case plan, and begin the process to ensure the most seamless transition from being in custody and returning to our communities. ∙ Projected Overtime for AB 109 DPOs∙ One (1) FTE clerk∙ Partial FTEs for additional management supervision and IT support.Operating costs of $164,173 are requested for: ∙ $164,173 for ongoing vehicle maintenance, equipment, communication costs, data processing services, incentives for probation clients including bus/BART tickets and food for weekly "Thinking for a Change" meetings.2017/18 New Funding RequestThe Probation Department is seeking a $79,624 increase in new funding for FY2017/18 (a 3% increase over the FY 16/17 allocation):Salary and Benefit costs of $74,699 are requested for: ∙ Increased revenue to cover projected salary and benefit increases.Operating costs of $4,925 are requested for: ∙ Increased revenue to cover operating cost increases.Page 76 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: PROBATION PRE‐TRIAL PROGRAM (Revised 1/6/2017)Funding Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ ‐ Deputy Probation Officer IIIPre‐Trial Services Program1.2645,423 4.00 645,423 4.00 19,363 664,786 4.00 ClerkPre‐Trial Services Program1.273,899 1.00 73,899 1.00 2,217 76,116 1.00 Paralegal/Legal Assistant (Public Defender) Pre‐Trial Services Program1.2147,541 2.00 147,541 2.00 42,860 190,401 2.00 Subtotal 866,863 7.00 866,863 7.00 64,440 ‐ 931,303$ 7.00 OPERATING COSTS‐ Office ExpensePre‐Trial Services Program1.210,497 10,497 2,265 12,762 Travel/TrainingPre‐Trial Services Program1.2‐ 10,000 ‐ 10,000 ContractPre‐Trial Services Program1.265,000 55,000 ‐ 55,000 Subtotal 75,497 75,497 2,265 77,762$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 942,360$ 7.00 942,360$ 7.00 66,705$ ‐ 1,009,065$ 7.00 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 77 of 156
2017/18 Status Quo RequestThe Pre‐Trial Program's proposed FY 2017/18 allocation of $942,360 will provide the following level of service:Salary and Benefit costs of $866,863 are requested for: ∙ Four (4) FTE Probation Officers ∙ One (1) FTE Clerk (Probation) ∙ Two (2) FTE Paralegals (Public Defender)Operating costs of $75,497 are requested for: ∙ One‐year contract in the amount of $55,000 for Pre‐Trial program evaluation.∙ $10,000 for Travel & Training.$2017/18 New Funding RequestThe Probation and Public Defender departments are seeking a $64,440 increase in new funding for FY2017/18. This represents a 3% increase over the FY 16/17 allocation for Probation positions and the discontinuance of the Paralegal classification in the County, including in the Public Defender's Office. The County now uses a Legal Assistant classification at a higher salary level than Paralegals, resulting in a projected increase of $42,860.Salary and Benefit costs of $64,440 are requested for: ∙ Increased revenue to cover projected salary and benefit increases.Operating costs of $2,265 are requested for: ∙ Increased revenue to cover operating cost increases.Page 78 of 156
Page 79 of 156
Page 80 of 156
Page 81 of 156
Page 82 of 156
Page 83 of 156
Page 84 of 156
Page 85 of 156
Page 86 of 156
Page 87 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: Office of the Public DefenderFunding AllocationFTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ ‐ Deputy Public Defender IV ACER1.2, 2.1508,050 2.00 508,050 2.00 27,892 ‐ 535,942 2.00 Deputy Public Defender III ACER1.2, 2.2112,667 0.50 112,667 0.50 8,091 ‐ 120,758 0.50 Legal AssistantACER1.277,241 1.00 77,241 1.00 18,088 ‐ 95,329 1.00 Legal AssistantClean Slate5.2182,212 2.00 182,212 2.00 8,446 ‐ 190,658 2.00 Social WorkerClient Support5.3134,718 1.00 134,718 1.00 4,237 ‐ 138,955 1.00 Deputy Public Defender IV Reentry Coordinator2.1‐2. 3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1257,399 1.00 257,399 1.00 10,572 ‐ 267,971 1.00 Deputy Public Defender ‐ Special Assignment FTA Reduction Program1.2, 5.373,839 1.00 73,839 1.00 3,407 ‐ 77,246 1.00 Legal AssistantFTA Reduction Program1.2, 5.377,241 1.00 77,241 1.00 18,088 ‐ 95,329 1.00 Deputy Public Defender III ACER1.2, 2.1 0.50 120,758 ‐120,758 0.50 Deputy Public Defender II Clean Slate5.2 0.50 67,656 ‐67,656 0.50 Subtotal 1,423,367 10.50 1,423,367 9.50 287,235 ‐ 1,710,602$ 10.50 OPERATING COSTS‐ e.g. Training/Travel‐ Small Equipment Purchase‐ Computer (1), radios (2), etc.‐ IT Support‐ Vehicle Operating‐ Office Supplies‐ Communication Costs‐ Outfitting Costs‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 1,423,367$ 10.50 1,423,367$ 9.50 287,235$ ‐ 1,710,602$ 10.50 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationJ:\109 REALIGNMENT\2017‐18 AB109 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT\2017‐18 CCP Budget Proposals\Public Defender\Public Defender 2017‐18 CCP Budget Request (AB‐109).xlsx12/6/2016Page 88 of 156
DEPARTMENT: OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERPROGRAM NARRATIVE:2017/18 Status Quo Request1. ACER. Salary and benefits costs of $752,029 are requested for (2) FTE Deputy Public Defender IVs, (.5) FTE Deputy Public Defender III, and (1) Legal Assistant. This program provides for early representation of in‐custody clients at the first court appearance. The program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 2. Social Worker. Salary and benefits costs of $138,995 are requested for (1) FTE Social Worker. The Public Defender Social Worker provides social histories and needs assessments for clients to support appropriate case dispositions and to refer clients to services that will result in successful case outcomes and reduce recidivism. The program furthers to goals of providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB109 population. 3. Clean Slate. Salary and benefits costs of $190,658 are requested for (2) FTE Clean Slate Legal Assistants, one of these Legal Assistants is designated as the Prop 47 Legal Assistant. This program provides clean slate and Prop 47 services for indigent persons county‐wide. The program furthers the goals of providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB109 population. 4. Reentry Coordinator. Salary and benefits costs of $267,971 are requested for (1) FTE Reentry Coordinator. The Reentry Coordinator oversees and coordinates the Public Defender’s work with the various reentry programs countywide in order to continue and expand our outreach to CBOs, other county agencies, and the greater community to support reentry services for our client population. 2017/18 New Funding RequestThe Office of the Public Defender is seeking new funding for FY2017/18 for the following programs: 1. ACER. Salary and benefits costs of $120,758 for a (.5) FTE Deputy Public Defender III are requested to expand the ACER program to provide arraignment court representation in Pittsburg court (Please refer to our ACER Pittsburg Attorney Proposal for more information). 2. Clean Slate. Salary and benefits costs of 67,656 are requested for (.5) FTE Deputy Public Defender II to serve as a Clean Slate Attorney (Please refer to our Clean Slate Project Attorney summary for more information). Page 89 of 156
The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for $120,758 for a .5 FTE Deputy PD III to expand
the ACER (“Arraignment Court Early Representation”) program to provide Arraignment court legal
representation for those clients with arraignments in the Pittsburg Superior Court. This would close the
existing gap in arraignment court representation in Contra Costa County.
Since the advent of the AB109 funded ACER program in July of 2012, the Public Defender ACER staff
have handled a high volume of cases daily, representing clients at the first appearance in Martinez and
Richmond, two of the county’s three arraignment courts. The Public Defender ACER staff of 2.5
attorneys and 1 Legal Assistant handle a high volume of cases daily. By the end of 2016, the Public
Defender ACER attorneys will have represented close to 5000 clients in 2016 alone, on both felony and
misdemeanor cases in the Richmond and Martinez arraignment courts.
By providing legal representation to indigent individuals at the earliest possible opportunity, our office,
in collaboration with the District Attorney’s Office and the court, has been able to reduce the pretrial jail
population, reduce unnecessary and unproductive court appearances, minimize the frequency of
failures to appear in court, and reduce recidivism.
One significant gap in this arraignment court representation is that the Public Defender ACER staff does
not have dedicated arraignment staff in the Pittsburg courts. In Pittsburg, the lack of dedicated
arraignment court staff impedes the efficiency of case processing that has been realized in Richmond
and Martinez. Out of custody felony clients may not be represented at their first appearance,
necessitating an unnecessary and costly second court date for counsel to appear. There is no
opportunity for early disposition of those cases.
This gap in representation impacts approximately 60 individuals a month on average. In these cases,
individuals too often appear at their arraignment date without an attorney by their side. Many of these
cases are continued to a later “counsel and plea” court date to allow time for a Deputy Public Defender
to appear. This is in stark contrast to individuals with cases in Richmond or Martinez, who have the
benefit of an ACER attorney at their arraignment dates, both in and out of custody, and on both
misdemeanor and felony cases.
The ACER program in the Richmond and Martinez courthouses ensures that individuals’ cases are
handled expeditiously, reduces the number of court appearances, provides early release from custody
for many clients, and results in the early disposition of cases where appropriate. By expanding this
program to cover the Pittsburg courthouse, we can reduce the current regional disparity and ensure that
each individual has legal representation from the outset of their case.
Page 90 of 156
The Office of the Public Defender submits this request for $67,656 for a .5 FTE Deputy Public Defender II
Clean Slate Attorney to represent clients who have requested relief through the Contra Costa Public
Defender Clean Slate Unit.
The Clean Slate Unit works to remove barriers that a prior conviction presents to employment, housing,
public benefits and family reunification by providing assistance for those with prior arrests, convictions,
or juvenile adjudications in Contra Costa County. The unit’s advocates prepare court petitions on behalf
of eligible clients who are entitled to legal remedies including dismissal of conviction (Expungement),
Proposition 47 relief, Proposition 64 relief, reduction of felony to misdemeanor, certificate of
rehabilitation, and juvenile record sealing. The unit also provides advice regarding the benefits of
expungement.
The unit is currently staffed by three Prop 47 clerks funded through 6-month grants from the San
Francisco Foundation and the California Endowment, two Legal Assistants funded through AB109, and a
.5 Deputy Public Defender III funded through EHSD to provide clean slate services to EHSD’s “Welfare to
Work” clients.
Since the passage of Prop 47 in 2014, due to our extensive community outreach and partnership with
AB109 partners, especially the Reentry Success Center, we have seen a drastic increase in demand for
Clean Slate legal work. This demand has recently increased again in light of the passage of Prop 64
(Marijuana Legalization) which mandates the reduction, dismissal or sealing of certain adult and juvenile
marijuana convictions. Another factor leading to our increased demand springs from our countywide
Clean Slate events. In the last year, we have drawn over 1000 individuals to our frequent community
Clean Slate events throughout Contra Costa.
As a result of these new developments, the number of expungement petitions requested by our Clean
Slate Unit has increased by over 100% from 2015 to 2016. In 2015, we filed roughly 700 expungement
petitions and we are on track to have filed over 1800 expungement petitions by the end of 2016. In
addition, we have filed 4896 Prop 47 petitions since November of 2014.
Given the significant increase in the volume of applicants for Clean Slate relief in the last 2 years, we are
requesting funding for a dedicated .5 FTE Clean Slate attorney. Currently the petitions are prepared by
our clean slate support staff, but the court appearances are spread among our regular attorney staff
who do not have the capacity to cover this increasingly large caseload.
The dedicated Clean Slate attorney will review the hundreds of expungement and Prop 47 petitions filed
by the Clean Slate team on a monthly basis, appear in court to litigate Clean Slate matters, and advise
clients regarding the legal benefits of their Clean Slate relief. Many of the Clean Slate cases are quite
complex and require extensive attorney review.
Adding a .5 FTE Clean Slate attorney is wholly consistent with AB109 objectives concerning reentry and
rehabilitation. Extensive research has shown that removing a prior conviction from a person’s record
fosters success with reentry by removing barriers to housing, benefits, employment and education.
Page 91 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: District Attorney ‐ Revised 1/4/17Funding AllocationFTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITSDDA‐Advanced LevelRealignment Coordinator Attorney272,007 1.00 295,962 1.00 295,962 1.00 DDA‐Advanced LevelArraignment Court/Realignmnet Attorney512,884 2.00 571,306 2.00 571,306 2.00 Senior Level ClerkClerical/file support‐Arraign. Court79,632 1.00 78,185 1.00 78,185 1.00 Experienced Level ClerkClerical/file support‐Arraign. Court89,624 1.00 64,094 1.00 64,094 1.00 Experienced Level ClerkClerical/file support68,059 1.00 63,536 1.00 63,536 1.00 V/W Assist. Prog SpecialistReentry Notification Specialists224,728 3.00 295,313 3.00 295,313 3.00 DDA‐Basic LevelViolence Reduction/Recidivism Attorney196,868 1.00 211,468 1.00 211,468 1.00 Subtotal 1,443,802 10.00 1,579,864 10.00 ‐ ‐ 1,579,864$ 10.00 OPERATING COSTS‐ Office Expense2,156 2,156 2,156 Postage656 656 656 Communication1,740 1,740 1,740 Minor Furniture/Equipment364 364 364 Minor Computer Equipment3,481 3,481 3,481 Clothing & Supply25 25 25 Memberships1,560 1,560 1,560 Computer Software Cost20 20 20 Auto Mileage1,995 1,995 1,995 Other Travel Employees264 264 264 Court Reporter Transcript207 207 207 Occupancy Costs52,938 56,052 56,052 Data Processing17,388 17,388 17,388 Other Interdepartment Charges105 105 105 Other Special Dept. Charges96 96 96 Subtotal 82,995 86,109 ‐ 86,109$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 1,526,797$ 10.00 1,665,973$ 10.00 ‐$ ‐ 1,665,973$ 10.00 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 92 of 156
PROGRAM NARRATIVE ‐ Revised 1/4/17.
2017/18 Status Quo Request
The District Attorney's Office is requesting a “Status Quo” budget of $ 1,665,973. Any increases
over the prior year budget is due to applicable COLA’s and step increases. The realignment
team will continue to address the additional challenges presented by the realignment of our
criminal justice system pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h). This includes (4) FTE Deputy
District Attorneys, (1) Senior Clerk, (2) Experienced Level Clerks and (3) Victim/Witness
Assistance Program Specialists.
Salary and Benefit costs of $ 1,579,864 are requested for (4) FTE Deputy District Attorneys,
(1) Senior Level Clerk, (1) Experienced Level Clerk, and (3) Victim/Witness Assistance Program
Specialists.
Operating costs includes $ 2,156 for Office Expense, $ 656 for Postage, $ 1,740 for
Communications, $ 364 for Minor Furniture/Equipment, $ 3,481 for Minor Computer
Equipment, $ 25 for Clothing and Supply, $ 1,560 for Membership, $ 20 for Computer Software
Cost, $ 1,995 for Auto Mileage, $ 264 for Other Travel Employees’, $ 207 for Court Reporter
Transcript, $ 56,052 for Occupancy Costs, $ 17,388 for Data Processing, $ 105 for Other
Interdepartmental Charges, $ 96 for Other Special Dept. Charges.
Page 93 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County Funding AllocationFTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ ‐ One Stop AdministratorCoordination with One‐Stop systemEach position16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 16,000 ‐ One Stop Case Managers & Employment Placement Counselors Linkage with direct service providersis a full FTE40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000 ‐ Workforce Services SpecialistEngagement with public & private partners funded 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000 ‐ Business Service RepresentativeRecruitment & engagement of businesses through 65,000.00$ 65,000.00$ SBDC DirectorSmall business & entrepreneurship linkages multiple 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ SBDC AdvisorsSmall business & entrepreneurship linkages sources10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Workforce Board Executive DirectorOversight & coordination with workforce system10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000 ‐ Subtotal 196,000 ‐ 196,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 196,000$ ‐ OPERATING COSTS‐ Training/Travel4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal4,000 4,000 ‐ 4,000$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 200,000$ ‐ 200,000$ ‐ ‐$ ‐ 200,000$ ‐ 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/182017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 94 of 156
DEPARTMENT: Workforce Develoment Board of Contra Costa County PROGRAM NARRATIVE:2017/18 Status Quo RequestThe Contra Costa Workforce Development Board (WDB) is seeking status quo level funding of $200,000 for the fiscal year 2017‐2018. The budget reflects the amount of time key staff will devote to AB109 in order to continue to provide linkages to the One‐Stop AJCC system, direct service providers, business engagement and small buisiness and entrepreneurship connections. In accordnace with the WDB's orginal submittal the WDB will us AB109 funds to leverage other funds to provide services to previously incarcerated individuals.2017/18 New Funding RequestThe Workforce Development Board is not seeking new funding at this time. While labor agreements resulting in wage increases will increase staffing costs by about 5%, through working with CCP partner agencies and other organizations, the WDB is committed to pursuing and securing additional resources that can further support, link, align and leverage related work to serve AB109 participants and concurrerntly expand efforts to serve other populations that are returning to communitites in Contra Costa County and help them with employment and training needs.Page 95 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: County AdministratorFunding AllocationFTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Deputy County AdminisProgram Administration6.2171,979 1.00 156,651 0.90 156,651 0.90 ORJ Program Manager Program Administration6.2130,000 1.00 185,136 1.00 185,136 1.00 Senior Management Analyst Program Administration6.2108,502 1.00 Advanced Secretary Program Administration6.239,189 0.50 39,189 0.50 Subtotal 301,979 2.00 489,479 3.40 ‐ ‐ 489,479$ 3.40 OPERATING COSTS‐ ‐ Ceasefire Program Coordinator5.1110,000 110,000 110,000 Data Evaluation & System Planning6.3, 6.4 278,021 83,021 83,021 Communications, office supplies, travel/transp.6.27,500 7,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal 388,021 200,521 ‐ 200,521$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 690,000$ 2.00 690,000$ 3.40 ‐$ ‐ 690,000$ 3.40 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 96 of 156
Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above.DEPARTMENT: County Administrator's OfficePROGRAM NARRATIVE:The County Administrator's Office has requested a Status Quo allocation of $698,500, which is comprised of FY 16‐17 AB 109 allocations to the CAO ($450,000), Probation ($130,000), and the District Attorney ($110,000), to operate the 1st full fiscal year of the Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ), as authorized by the Board of Supervisors as a pilot project on Oct. 18, 2016.2017/18 Status Quo RequestSalary and Benefit costs of $489,479 are requested for 0.9 FTE Senior Deputy County Administrator, 1.0 FTE Program Manager, 1.0 Senior Management Analyst, and 0.5 Advanced Secretary to support the administration and operations of the ORJ. Operating Costs include $200,521 to provide Ceasefire Program coordination services, data evaluation and system planning services, and general office operations.Page 97 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: CCC Police Chief's AssociationDescription of ItemProgram/FunctionOps. Plan Item # Quantity /FTE2016/17 Allocation2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request22017/18 Total Funding RequestSALARY AND BENEFITS‐ Antioch Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObjective 5.11130,500.00$ 130,500.00$ 130,500.00Concord Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObjective 5.11130,500.00$ 130,500.00$ 130,500.00Pittsburg Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObjective 5.11130,500.00$ 130,500.00$ 130,500.00Richmond Police Officer AB 109 OfficerObjective 5.11130,500.00$ 130,500.00$ 130,500.00Subtotal 4522,000.00$ 522,000.00$ ‐$ 522,000.00OPERATING COSTS‐ e.g. Training/Travel‐ Small Equipment Purchase‐ computer, printer, etc.‐ IT Support‐ Vehicle Operating‐ Office Supplies‐ Communication Costs‐ Outfitting Costs‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal0‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE‐TIME)‐ e.g. Vehicle Purchase‐ ‐ Subtotal0‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Total4 522,000.00$ 522,000.00$ ‐$ 522,000.00$ 1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016FY2017/18 funding level.2. FY2017/18 New Funding should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.Page 98 of 156
PROGRAM NARRATIVE:2017/18 Status Quo Request2017/18 New Funding RequestNo new funding request for fiscal yeat FY2017/2018. Under the AB109 Public Safety Realignment Program, four (4) agencies who are members of the Contra Costa County Police Chief’s Association, participate in a countywide AB109 joint operation team. The agencies who participate in this interagency plan, assign one (1) full‐time Police Officer who is tasked with providing law enforcement support and facilitating the safe contact between Probation Officers and parolees. Additionally, the Police Officers are also required to direct efforts toward high to medium risk probationers and parolees, and to participate in County‐coordinated police special enforcement operations. The Contra Costa County Police Chief’s Association has requested $522,000 for FY 2017/18 to continue to fund four (4) positions. The Police Officers, who are assigned to the team, will continue to maintain current knowledge of all County AB109 programs and the Contra Costa AB109 Operational Plan to ensure probationers are referred to services as needed. Page 99 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal FormDepartment: Community Advisory BoardFunding AllocationFTEs Funding Request FTEsFunding RequestFTEsTotal Funding RequestFTEsCOUNTYWIDE SERVICES‐ ‐ Employment (West/East) Rubicon Programs5.3b1,100,000 9.30 1,100,000 9.30 1,100,000 9.30 Employment (Central/East) Goodwill Industries5.3b900,000 7.20 900,000 7.20 900,000 7.20 HousingShelter Inc.5.3c980,000 6.85 980,000 6.85 980,000 6.85 Female Housing (West)Reach Fellowship International 5.3c50,000 1.00 50,000 1.00 50,000 1.00 Peer MentoringMen and Women of Purpose 5.4a110,000 2.25 110,000 2.25 110,000 2.25 Family ReunificationCenter for Human Development 5.4b90,000 1.40 90,000 1.40 90,000 1.40 Legal ServicesBay Area Legal Aid5.4c150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 One Stopssee below5.2bsee below12.13 see below12.13 see below12.13 Reentry Resouce GuideContra Costa Crisis Center 5.2a15,000 ‐‐‐‐ ‐Conncetions to Resources TBD5.2a‐15,000 ‐‐15,000 ‐Subtotal 3,395,000 41.93 3,395,000 41.93 ‐ ‐ 3,395,000$ 41.93 NETWORK SYSTEM OF SERVICES5.2b‐ Network Management484,436 505,000 505,000 ‐ Contracted Services‐ Sober Living Homes150,000 150,000 150,000 Auto Repair Training65,000 65,000 65,000 Emp. & Ed. Liason (women)50,000 50,000 50,000 Emp. & Ed. Liason (men)50,000 50,000 50,000 Subtotal 799,436 820,000 ‐ 820,000$ REENTRY SUCCESS CENTER5.2b‐ Operation and ManagementRubicon Programs465,000 465,000 465,000 ‐ Subtotal 465,000 465,000 ‐ 465,000 Total 4,659,436$ 41.93 4,680,000$ 41.93 ‐$ ‐ 4,680,000$ 41.93 2017/18 Total Funding Request2017/18 Status Quo Request12017/18 New Funding Request2Description of ItemCONTRACTED PROVIDEROps. Plan Item #2016/17 AllocationPage 100 of 156
DEPARTMENT: Community Advisory BoardPROGRAM NARRATIVE:2017/18 Status Quo RequestStatus Quo RequestCAB continues to recommend that CCP invest significant funds in community programs to continue development of the local non‐profit services sector. The CCP should therefore continue to support community based programs. Funding these programs is consistent withthe nationwide effort of justice reinvestment. Staying this course will ensure our communities gain the capacity to provide reentry services with high levels of quality and fidelity, and is the best way to achieve lasting reductions in recidivism and long term enhanced public safety outcomes.As CAB submits the 2017/2018 AB109 Budget Request, we have considered the pervious budget increase and acknowledge that the funded agencies have only completed a single quarter of programming under their most recent contracts. As part of this status quo budget request, CAB recommends that the CCP Executive Committee fund each of the funded reentry service areas at an amount that is no less than what is being received in the current fiscal year, and establish this amount as the ongoing baseline budget for each of the services being provided in the community.The recommended funding amounts are as follows:Employment Support and Placement Services: $2,000,000Housing Services: $1,030,000Peer Mentoring: $110,000Family Reunification: $90,000Civil Legal Services: $150,000Network System of Services: $820,000Reentry Success Center: $465,0002017/18 New Funding RequestCAB is no longer convinced that continued production and support of the County's reentry resource guide in its current state is the best use of this funding. While CAB still believes that this funding should be utilized to enhance communication efforts to help ensure individuals are connected to the reentry resources they need, CAB recognizes a need to highlight both the Reentry Success Center (RSC) and the Network of Services (NOS) as a primary contact in for this process. CAB doesn't believe this is adequately being achieved with either the paper or electronic versions of the current resource guide. Because of this, CAB has attached a memo to this narrative (Attachment 1) jointly developed by the RSC and NOS that describes how, and for what, this revenue will be used for in FY 17‐18 to best ensure the community at large is well informed about the pivotal role both of them play in the County's wider reentry system, and how members of the community can use the RSC and NOS to gain access to the reentry services needed. CAB expects representives from both the NOS and RSC to be present at Page 101 of 156
Attachment 1
TO: COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: JANUARY 5, 2017
SUBJECT: Reentry Success Center and Reentry Network Joint Communications Efforts
FROM: Patrice Guillory, Network Manager of Contra Costa Reentry Network, and Nicholas
Alexander, Director of Reentry Success Center
This memo responds to the CAB’s request that $15,000 previously used for the Reentry
Resource Guide be reallocated to the Reentry Network and the Reentry Success Center (to
enhance communication efforts throughout the County).
Both the Reentry Network and the Reentry Success Center (a.k.a. Health Right 360 and
Rubicon Programs) have agreed that the Reentry Success Center (Rubicon Programs) will
serve as the lead fiscal agent for this communications related funding. Rubicon Programs will
manage and disperse the funds to be utilized for joint communication efforts, as well as each
entity’s separate communications methods, as needed. The Network Manager and Director of
the Reentry Success Center will apply these funds for the following purposes:
1. To create and circulate quarterly newsletters for people incarcerated in Contra Costa
County detention facilities highlighting success stories and services offered by the
Center and the Network.
2. To outreach and promote reentry services through countywide community events
targeted for the reentry population and their families.
3. To enlist volunteer/participant recruitment, community outreach, and community forums
to generate interest from the general public in the services and activities of the Center
and Network.
Page 102 of 156
0
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
For Contra Costa County’s AB109-Funded Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa Community Corrections Partnership
by the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Research and analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
Page 103 of 156
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 104 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 3
PR 1. IMPROVE DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, REPORTING, AND ANALYSIS 3
PR 2. IMPROVE MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, REPORTING, AND ANALYSIS 3
PR 3. IMPLEMENT CONSISTENT PROTOCOLS, DEFINITIONS, AND DOCUMENTATION 4
PR 4. IMPROVE PROCESS FOR MEANINGFUL ANALYSIS OF “BUDGET TO ACTUALS” 5
PR 5. REQUEST THAT AUDITOR-CONTROLLER CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF AB109 USES 5
III. CONTEXTS FOR CAB’S POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 6
A. CAB ROLE 6
B. STATUTORY CONTEXT 6
IV. OVERARCHING PROCEDURAL ISSUES 6
A. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT 6
B. SUPPLANTATION 7
V. KEY FINDINGS 8
KF 1. INCONSISTENT FINANCIAL RECORDING AND TRACKING PRACTICES FOR REPORTING 8
KF 2. INCONSISTENT USES OF APPROVED FUNDS 9
KF 3. “STATUS QUO” DIRECTIVE SURRENDERS CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND STEWARDSHIP 13
KF 4. USE OF AB109 FUNDS TO OFFSET COSTS OF EXISTING STAFF AND POSITIONS 14
KF 5. IDENTIFYING AND REMEDYING SUPPLANTED FUNDS 15
KF 6. LACK OF PARITY IN PROCESS AND TREATMENT 16
VI. ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENTAL AB109 BUDGET-TO-ACTUALS FOR FY 2015-2016 16
A. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THIS BUDGET-TO-ACTUAL ANALYSIS 16
B. CAVEAT 17
C. COMMINGLING NONRECURRING AND OPERATING COSTS 17
D. PRETRIAL SERVICES BUDGET 17
E. SUMMARY FINDINGS WITHIN THE 2015/2016 AB109 BUDGETS FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES 18
F. SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR THIS WRITTEN BRIEF AND ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 20
Page 105 of 156
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 106 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 1
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
I. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
The Community Advisory Board (CAB) to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections
Partnership (CCP) submits this Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations brief to
support the CCP and the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) in developing budget and policy
plans related to Assembly Bill 109 (AB109) for the 2017/2018 fiscal year and the ensuing years.
Accompanying this brief, and incorporated by reference, is CAB’s comprehensive analysis of all
approved and actual uses of AB109 funds by County agencies for the fiscal year 2015/2016.
Drawing on multiple public documents released by the County Administrator’s Office (CAO),
gathered directly from the CAO, or accessed via online records, this analysis attempts to
capture and examine the line-itemed approved and actual uses for each AB109-funded public
agency, along with an integrated summary analysis.
As this brief will illustrate, CAB’s work here highlights important opportunities to streamline
AB109 budget development and analysis, improve AB109-related financial and operational
efficiencies, and foster easier access to reliable, necessary, and relevant information.
CAB recognizes that the state of California tasks each county’s Community Corrections
Partnership with the responsibility for providing day-to-day management of the County’s
AB109-related activities and budgets, supported by the County Administrator and reporting to
the Board of Supervisors. However, the CAB also recognizes that AB109 funds – unlike County
General Funds – represent both a singular opportunity and a functional anomaly in County
administration. As a dedicated stream of funding tied to specific statutory intent but
implemented by a multi-sector array of agencies collectively responsible for achieving shared
impacts, AB109 requires transparent, fair, and consistent financial, operational, and
management practices.
Thus, CAB’s recommendations are designed to enhance public trust in local government,
encourage fiscal transparency and efficiency, foster critical inquiry into justice-related
departmental operations, and advance efficient and effective use of public funds.
We appreciate that the CAO has provided public documents from which can be gleaned most
of the raw financial data necessary to create an integrated budget and analysis. However, we
are concerned that, in the absence of such analysis conducted by the CCP or CAO, this
foundational responsibility has fallen to an all-volunteer advisory body, one that has no formal
Page 107 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 2
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
authority, no access to County infrastructure, and no budget to offset the substantial time and
effort required to complete this task.
The CAB experienced substantial challenges in producing a comprehensive budget document,
a task that required more than 80 hours of direct technical assistance, along with multiple
meetings with CAB members for collective review. This research was further supported by
numerous phone conversations and email exchanges with County staff to conduct specific
research, identify and gather additional source documents, and engage in joint study.
Given the self-evident challenges confronted in building this analytic document, CAB strongly
urges the County to develop an organized, consistent, and well-managed document repository
of AB109 budget materials. While many of these documents have traditionally been made
public as components within packets prepared for CCP meetings, it is abundantly clear that the
current system is insufficient to meet the needs of the public, County agencies, and other
interested parties.
Indeed, the County’s Better Government Ordinance Section §25-6.202 recognizes the benefit
of creating such a records database, which “shall be for the use of county officials, staff and the
general public, and shall be organized to permit a general understanding of the types of public
information maintained, by which officials and departments, for which purposes and for what
periods of retention, and under what manner of organization for accessing, e.g., by reference
to a name, a date, a proceeding or project, or some other referencing system…. Any such
master database shall be reviewed by appropriate staff for accuracy and presented to the
board of supervisors for formal adoption. Any changes in the county's practices or procedures
that would affect the accuracy of the database shall thereafter be reported by the responsible
staff to the board of supervisors as the basis for a corresponding revision of the database.”1
In creating this brief, the CAB devoted itself to the study of the budget-to-actuals of AB109-
funded County agencies. CAB did not expand this study to include County-funded nonprofit
organizations, due to the fact that the CAO’s contract management processes for nonprofit
organizations already include ongoing and highly attentive scrutiny of the use of AB109 funds;
any modification in budgets for AB109-funded nonprofit organizations requires the explicit
1 Better Government Ordinance, Division 25, accessible at
municode.com/library/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT2AD_DIV25BEGOOR
Page 108 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 3
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
approval by the CAO. Thus, we concluded that the budget-to-actual use of AB109 funds by
nonprofit organizations would add little insight in the current context.
However, should the CCP find potential benefit in such an analysis, the CAO (as the manager
for all AB109 contracts) is well equipped to undertake it, and CAB would welcome the
opportunity to review the County’s findings.
By producing and publicly sharing this Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
brief, along with the associated budget analysis, we hope to spur formal efforts by the CCP,
CAO, and BOS to fulfill this duty in future, beginning immediately with quarterly invoices and
with the County’s annual budgeting process for fiscal 17/18.
II. P OLICY R ECOMMENDATIONS
PR 1. Im prove departmental budget development, reporting, and analysis
Replace the use of “status quo” budget requests with a directive that agencies are to a.
produce due-diligence renewal requests based on prior-year budget-to-actual analyses,
functional analyses, and supplantation analyses
Create, deploy, and require the use of a standardized format for budget requests, b.
reporting, and reviewing for all entities funded by or applying for AB109 funding
Ensure that this format requires line-item detail for all approved and actual uses of c.
funds; distinguishes among staff, contracts, operating costs, and capital costs;
quantifies FTEs and per-FTE cost; and captures monthly year-to-date budget-to-actual
expenses
Ensure that this template is accompanied by a budget narrative that provides all d.
underlying information necessary to track use of approved funds, including (but not
limited to) staff purpose and justification, identification and quantification of funded
services, and the assumptions underlying programmatic, operating, and capital cost
calculations.
PR 2. Improve multi-departmental budget development, reporting, and analysis
Request that the CAO produce an annual integrated, comprehensive proposed budget a.
for all departments requesting AB109 funding, with itemized departmental and
collective budgets, proposed uses, and approved uses, both categorical and line items
Page 109 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 4
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
Ensure that this summary budget is supported by the standardized, complete b.
underlying budget developed for each entity, supported by all necessary detail to
understand the assumptions and calculations, and accompanied by a written budget
narrative and functional analysis of the collective use of funds
Ensure that this integrated budget is deployed to track and publish budget-to-actual c.
uses, on no less than a quarterly basis
Ensure that the CCP publicly receives, reviews, and discusses these summary d.
documents (approved budget, YTD actuals, and budget narrative), no less than
quarterly, to support informed decision-making and course-correction as necessary
Ensure that meeting schedules and agendas provide CCP, BOS, and the public with e.
sufficient time to engage in meaningful review and discussion of use of funds and their
alignment with the County’s established AB109 strategies and goals
PR 3. Implement consistent protocols, definitions, and documentation
Develop, publish, and enforce consistent definitions and protocols for AB109-related a.
budgetary matters, including but not limited to definitions for “status quo,” guidelines
on cost of living or “contract-related” adjustments, and rules regarding supplantation
Develop and deploy a standard policy regarding use of AB109 funds to underwrite b.
fixed costs (such as occupancy or equipment), indirect costs (such as office supplies, IT
support or technology services or data processing services), capital costs, and non-cash
charges/balance sheet items (such as depreciation or “accruals”), etc.
Develop, publish, and enforce a policy directive regarding the use of consistent c.
accounting practices, a prohibition against overspending of approved line items, and a
prohibition against unauthorized reallocation to unapproved items, or “adjustments,”
and the directive that approved line items with unspent balances be adjusted in the
subsequent year to reflect actual need
Create an AB109 document repository using a clear taxonomy for labeling and filing, to d.
foster readier access to relevant information for County leadership, contracted
agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties; ensure that this
database is clearly identified and web-accessible; and assign responsibility for its
maintenance and quality control
Page 110 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 5
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
PR 4. Improve process for meaningful analysis of “budget to actuals ”
Ensure that all elements of, and the resulting findings from, quarterly and annual a.
budgetary review and analysis are made public and are provided to the appropriate
committees of the Board of Supervisors with sufficient time to review and discuss
Use the results of such discussions as the foundations for the subsequent year’s b.
budgetary planning; direct agencies to submit budget requests that reflect the findings
from reviews of the previous year’s budget, uses, and outcomes
Produce an annual financial report to be presented to the Contra Costa County Public c.
Protection Committee and the County Board of Supervisors
Produce an annual Key Findings report to be presented to the Contra Costa County d.
Public Protection Committee and the County Board of Supervisors to provide high-level
analysis of the County’s AB109’s efforts, in the context of the guiding strategies and
goals outlined in the County Reentry Strategic Plan, the County’s AB109
Implementation Plan, and the County’s AB 109 Operations Plan, and other relevant
guiding documents that may exist now or in the future.
PR 5. Request that Auditor-Controller conduct an audit of AB109 uses
Ensure that all uses are consistent with the state statutory guidelines, including all a.
sources and uses of AB109-related funding, including the dedicated subaccounts
established under California Government Code §30025
Ensure that all allocations and accounting of operating, capital, and indirect costs are b.
appropriate, valid, and accurate
Ensure that no existing funding sources are being supplanted by AB109 funds c.
Ensure that all federally-reimbursable funds are properly accounted for as reimbursables d.
against budgeted AB109 uses
Ensure that no AB109 funds are being reallocated from their approved purpose, except e.
with public review and formal approval by the CCP and BOS
Page 111 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 6
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
III. C ONTEXTS FOR CAB’S P OLICY R ECOMMENDATIONS
A. CAB Role
Established in early 2012, the Community Advisory Board is recognized as a standing
committee of the Community Corrections Partnership. As asserted in its Operating Guidelines,
“CAB shall advise the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) by
providing input on community needs; assessing implementation of the Contra Costa County
Reentry Strategic Plan; reviewing data on realignment outcomes; advising the CCP on
community engagement strategies; offering recommendations for ongoing realignment
planning; advising County agencies regarding programs for implementation in the County; and
encouraging outcomes that are consistent with the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan.”2
B. Statutory Context
The California Penal Code establishes the intentions and obligations related to AB109. In part,
the Penal Code asserts that “Fiscal policy and correctional practices should align to promote a
justice reinvestment strategy that fits each county. ‘Justice reinvestment’ is a data-driven
approach to reduce corrections and related criminal justice spending and reinvest savings in
strategies designed to increase public safety. The purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage
and allocate criminal justice populations more cost effectively, generating savings that can be
reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders
accountable.” (California Penal Code §3450(b)(7))
IV. O VERARCHING P ROCEDURAL I SSUES
A. Independent Oversight
Because of the unusual nature of AB109 funding – a dedicated pool of public funds distributed
to multiple entities but restricted to specific allowable uses – CAB recommends that the
County-Auditor conduct an audit of budgeting practices and actual spending for all AB109-
funded County agencies; see Policy Recommendation PR 5, below.
As an elected official and operating under the legal authority set forth in the Government
Code, the Auditor-Controller is responsible for fulfilling a variety of functions specified in the
2 Operating Guidelines of the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) Community Advisory Board (CAB),
as amended January 8, 2015, Section 1.
Page 112 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 7
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
California Constitution, in various California codes, and by the Board of Supervisors. The Office
of the Auditor-Controller’s primary mission is to ensure the fiscal integrity of the County’s
financial records and to provide service, assistance and information to the public, the Board of
Supervisors, the County Administrator’s Office, and County departments and employees. With
a staff of approximately 50 people and an operating budget of approximately $7.9 million, the
Office of the Auditor-Controller is best suited to provide the CCP with objective analyses and
recommendations for budgetary practices regarding AB109.
Given this scope and scale, the CAB recommends that the Auditor-Controller’s Internal Audit
Division be tasked with conducting an annual internal audit of all AB109-funded entities and
producing a Key Findings and Recommendations report for presentation to the Board of
Supervisors and for public review.
B. Supplantation
California Government Code §30025, which governs the management of AB109 funds, directs
the state and its counties to create a master account (“County Local Revenue Fund 2011”) to
manage its AB109 funds.
Within this County Local Revenue Account, a master account – the "Law Enforcement Services
Account" – is to be created, along with the following subaccounts:
i. Community Corrections Subaccount
ii. Trial Court Security Subaccount
iii. District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount
iv. Juvenile Justice Subaccount (supplemented by two special accounts)
v. Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount
vi. Local Innovation Subaccount
The statute establishes limitations on the ways that the master account and the subaccounts
may be used. Specifically, Subsection §30025 (f) (11) states: “This funding shall not be used
by local agencies to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services,” which is reiterated by
Subsection 30026.5 (e) (6), which reads, “The funds deposited into a County Local Revenue
Fund 2011 shall not be used by local agencies to supplant other funding for Public Safety
Services” (emphases added).
Page 113 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 8
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
Thus, both the master account and the particular Community Corrections Subaccount contain
prohibitions against supplantation.
The CAB recognizes the challenges related to tracking, preventing, and correcting
supplantation across dozens of entities, accounts, and funding sources. It is due to this very
complexity that the CAB urges the CAO and CCP to develop and implement accurate,
consistent, and transparent methods to manage the challenge of budgeting, tracking,
reporting, and remediating any supplantation, which is essential to establishing efficient
budgets, to controlling costs, and to ensuring public trust.
V. K EY F INDINGS
KF 1. Inconsistent financial recording and tracking practices for reporting
In developing our analysis, CAB was struck by the wide variety of methods by which AB109-
funded entities spent, recorded, tracked, and reported on their budgets and use of funds.
We were also struck by the realization that, in addition to their inconsistent recording/reporting
methods, the reporting documents as submitted to the CCP by the CAO throughout the
budget year largely lack contextual budgetary information critical to understanding, analyzing,
and approving the quarterly invoices.
Given that the quarterly reports/invoices and year-end reports as presented to the CCP
generally do not provide even basic contextual information, we believe that CCP members
may find it difficult to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to steward AB109 funds. We note that
these quarterly and annual reports generally lack such information as:
• Total amount allocated to the entity
• Approved line items and amounts
• Use of funds as compared to the approved items and amounts
• Explanation for substantial over/under-spending on an approved line-item
• Explanation for substantial reallocations of funds from an approved use to a use that
had not been presented to or approved by the CCP or BOS
• Analysis of whether the deliverables specified in the initial budget request are being
fulfilled
Page 114 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 9
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
To foster public trust and faith, the CAB is committed to supporting the County in ensuring
high standards of transparency, accuracy, and accountability in all AB109 activities and
budgets. To that end, we feel that it is essential for the County to develop improved budget
recording, reporting, and approval practices in order that the CCP may fulfill its statutory and
fiduciary obligations.
KF 2. Inconsistent uses of approved funds
Over/under spending a.
i. The CAB’s analysis has revealed that some departments substantially and
persistently under-spend line item amounts approved for specific purposes.
This has been particularly apparent in the Behavioral Health division, in which
funding for contracted direct services (including shelter beds, inpatient and
outpatient substance use disorder services, and to some degree transitional
housing) has been substantially under-spent in each of the past three years, with as
little as 3.6% of the budgeted amount spent on outpatient substance use disorder
treatment; use of the shelter-bed budget averaging 62.3% over the past three
years; and a contract psychiatrist whose services have gone substantially under-
utilized. In 2015/2016 specifically, 23.9% of the Contracted Services element of the
Behavioral Health budget remained unspent.
We are troubled by this history of under-spending on contracted direct behavioral
health services, especially in light of the twinned facts that these services are in
chronically short supply and that they are most highly correlated with improving
recidivism rates.
Similarly, the use of funds by the District Attorney (DA) includes a set of line-item
costs that apparently were not publicly requested, discussed, or approved by the
CCP or BOS. These new line items – “Paulson cost,” “Benefits Adm Fee,” “Retiree
Health Cost,” “OPEB Pre-Pay,” and “Health Care Savings Deduction” – totaled
$99,901 in apparently unapproved reallocations.
Even with the introduction of these new items, the DA’s total use of funds was less
than the budget allocated to the Office, suggesting a need to reconsider whether
the budget allotted may exceed warranted need.
Page 115 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 10
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
ii. The obverse is also true: The CAB’s analysis has revealed that some entities exceed
the allowed budget on a given line item, without any public review or approval
process, and without written justification submitted with either quarterly demands or
year-end reports.
A closer examination of this practice reveals that this has been the case over the
course of several years, particularly among certain departments. For example, the
“Labs & Pharmacy” line item in the Behavioral Health budget is annually approved
at $120,000, but in the three years spanning 2012/2013 to 2014/2015, the amounts
internally reallocated to this item ballooned (to totals of $279,824, $494,213, and
$564,173, respectively). In each case, unspent funds from other line items were
reallocated very in late in each fiscal year, perhaps in an effort to exhaust the entire
budget. In the most recent year (15/16), the Labs & Pharmacy line shows a year-end
overspending of only $3,749, which is substantially closer to the approved allotment
than in the previous fiscal years. Nonetheless, of the entire “Labs & Pharmacy”
budget for 15/16, a full 62.1% was booked in just the final two months the year.
Moreover, the monthly costs charged to this line item swing wildly throughout the
year, from $171,899 in October to negative $144,233 in February. A footnote to this
item explains, “Corrective entry for a missed posting of $177,899 (sic) in October
and expenses through December 2015 resulted in the credit of $144,233. Lab and
Pharmacy expenditures from Jan. - Jun. will be reflected in the final quarter.” It’s not
clear to CAB how this posted credit of $144,233 rectifies this history, and this
footnote raises additional questions – If there was a “missed posting” that
exceeded the entire line item budget, what was its origin? And how does an
adjustment in February align with a footnote reporting that January through June
will be reported in the final quarter?
This is only one of the ten footnotes embedded in the Behavioral Health budget-to-
actual report in an attempt to explain various accounting issues.
Unapproved reallocations and new line items b.
In addition to finding that some entities sometimes augmented line items through
internal reallocations, our analysis also reveals cases in which some departments have
reallocated substantial amounts of unspent money to entirely new line items, which
Page 116 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 11
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
were not publicly presented to or approved by the CCP or BOS in the budget process,
and which have not been subject to public presentation, discussion, or action during
the year.
For example, the Probation department’s approved budget included a category of
operating costs totaling $98,5973, to be allocated across a set of specified and
quantified purposes. However, budget-to-actual analysis reveals that while Probation
did exhaust this funding, $54,938.12 was not spent in the approved uses and amounts
but was reallocated, of which $18,269.80 was spent on entirely new operating line
items. In addition, within Probation’s share of operating funds for Pretrial Services,
$26,184.98 was used to purchase a vehicle, which is not included in the approved
2015/2016 budget request.4
Similarly, the DA’s budget overspent funds on approved line items and reallocated
funds to new, non-approved line items. For example, an unbudgeted services and
supplies line item was created and then billed for a total of $14,618, of which 46.6%
was billed just in the 4th quarter. At the same time, of the $12,669 approved for an array
of specific Administration/ Operations items, $0 was spent.
CAB recommends that rather than retaining and reallocating funds, entities should be
directed and expected to deploy them fully to their approved purpose to the degree
necessary within the approved limit or to return unspent line item balances to the
collective pool of unspent AB109 funds, with the renewal baseline request reduced to
reflect the actual use of funds.
Inconsistent allocations across the fiscal year c.
Our analysis reveals a pattern of highly variable line-item accounting, including
numerous occasions of unexplained/unapproved 4th-quarter adjustments.
In these cases, the spending rate (even for a steady-state item like a funded and filled
staff position) substantially increases in the 4th quarter, oftentimes in the 12th month.
3 $223,597 in Operating Costs minus $125,000 to underwrite the contract for the County Reentry Coordinator (which was entirely
spent as budgeted) equals $98,597.
4 Probation requested about $26,000 for a vehicle purchase in the 2014/2015 budget, and we found an invoice from June 2015 in
the amount of $26,196.73 for the purchase of a Toyota Camry Hybrid. However, we also located a second invoice in the amount of
$26,184.98 for a second vehicle, a Ford C-Max Hybrid, which was submitted in the October 2015 report.
Page 117 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 12
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
For example, during the course of the year, Probation spent $12,785 on “minor
equipment,” which was not included in the approved budget; of this new line item,
76% was booked in the final month of the fiscal year.
In such cases, it may be the intention to spend the total amount of AB109 funds
allocated to the agency, whether or not the use of funds is permitted by or consistent
with the budgets as publicly presented to and approved by the BOS. We would
recommend that the CAO establish and enforce a clear directive that funds are not to
be reallocated from their approved purpose without formal approval by the BOS.
Probation was not alone in this practice, which was found in others as well; Workforce
Development Board (WDB), discussed below, is particularly illustrative of this practice.
Indirect or “nonspecific” costs d.
Our analysis reveals a lack of consistent practices regarding allocations of certain
indirect costs to AB109 budgets. In recent years, and increasingly, some departments
have begun the practice of assigning costs for “occupancy,” “office supplies,” and
“other.” The use of AB109 funds to offset the existing costs of existing buildings is the
very embodiment of supplantation.
In some cases, departments have used 4th quarter accounting to assign substantial
funds to unusual line items, such as “County Expense Claims,” unexplained “accruals”
for staff positions, unexplained “accruals for operating costs,” and non-specified items
labeled only “nonspecified.” We can find no evidence that these reallocations were
publicly presented, discussed, or approved.
Workforce Development Board, for example, charged 42.2% of its budget to these
unusual and unapproved line items, while also charging a full 71% of its total budget in
just the final quarter of the fiscal year. This is hard to understand, given that 98% of the
WDB budget is intended to cover (non-specified) portions for five staff members ($196K
of $200K); it is hard to understand how such staff could require only 2% of the allotted
budget in the first nine months of the year, with 98% charged in just the final three
months. Indeed, in an established program and with established administrative
positions, staff generally represents a highly consistent cost throughout a fiscal year.
Page 118 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 13
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
This use is further complicated by the fact that in its budget proposal, the WDB does
not identify the FTEs for the five staff whose positions, it says, are partially underwritten
by AB109 budgets; thus, it is impossible to confirm the justification for this allocation; to
track the actual costs; or to assess the possibility of supplantation. However, given the
fact that federal funds generally represent a substantial portion of Workforce
Development Board funding, it seems questionable to use AB109 funds to offset the
cost of WDB management and existing staff; again, the possibility of unexamined
supplantation should be raised.
KF 3. “Status quo” directive surrenders critical analysis and stewardship
Our analysis reveals inconsistent definitions of what it means to submit a “status quo” budget.
The varieties are of several types:
• A department submits exactly the same line items, with the same amounts, year after
year, even if the use of funds in the previous year differed sharply from its approved
purposes
• A department submits exactly the same line items, with the same amounts, year after
year, but increases the line items by some percentage, ascribes the increase to
“negotiated contracts” (or remains silent as to the cause) and calls it a “status quo
budget,” nonetheless
• A department submits a request for the same total funding received the prior year,
even if the prior year’s budget included one-time items will not recur in the upcoming
year and should be excluded
• A department submits a request for the same line-item amounts and total amounts
received the prior year, even if the costs on various line items, as actually incurred, were
substantially lower than the prior year’s budgeted amount, lowering the overall total.
In all of these examples, the directive to submit “status quo” budget renewals does not seem
to require entities to identify or report over/under utilizations, justify reallocations by explaining
need or reason, or modify their associated line items or budget narratives to reflect past
experience and inform the renewal request.
Page 119 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 14
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
In other words, even though in many cases County agencies are not spending money on
approved uses, the common practice is to submit renewal requests year after year as if they
were.
Indeed, there seems to be little indication that departments are instructed by the CAO to
identify potential cost savings (redundancies, inefficiencies, lower costs than planned,
nonrecurring items, or supplantation). On the other hand, since various increases are allowed
(COLAs, expanded staff positions, new line items), it seems clear that – absent a new directive
– costs will do nothing but inexorably increase.
Thus, it appears that the CAO’s annual directive for “status quo” renewal requests sidesteps
any expectation that these annual requests should be built on a critical budget-to-actual
analysis of the use of funds in previous years. By failing to require that all entities accurately
track uses, purposes, and outcomes before developing a renewal request, this practice
undermines CCP’s ability and obligation to assess the true cost, efficiency, and benefit of
funded activities.
In light of the persistent and oft-reiterated reminders by the CAO of potential future
fluctuations in AB109 allocations to the County by the state, we feel it imperative that agencies
be directed to engage in critical analysis.
While we readily perceive the appeal of offsetting General Fund costs with AB109 funding, we
do not feel that such use is consistent with AB109 intent or with guidelines on supplantation.
KF 4. Use of AB109 funds to offset costs of existing staff and positions
Our budget analysis shows that in the 2015/2016 fiscal year, AB109 funds were used to
underwrite at least 94.96 FTE positions5 in County agencies. This is a remarkable number of
AB109-funded County employees put to the purpose of managing a modest-sized AB109
population.
In the absence of a formal time study (which the CAB recommends the County undertake), it is
hard to determine whether all 94.96 FTE employees are necessary to achieve AB109 purposes,
and to what degree their time is in fact dedicated specifically to AB109-related purposes.
Further, it appears that many of the positions now being funded through AB109 were not
5 Because WDB does not quantify the FTEs underwritten by AB109 funds, the total FTE cannot be precisely calculated.
Page 120 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 15
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
created and filled specifically to meet incremental needs related to AB109. Rather, it appears
that AB109 funds may have been (increasingly) allocated to County positions that existed prior
to AB109, and that AB109 funds may be underwriting costs previously budgeted as County
General Funds or supplanting other established funding sources.
However, without clear guidelines regarding such practices, and absent the documents and
processes necessary to track sources and uses of funds, the County and public are limited in
their ability to calculate the true incremental cost represented by AB109 activities in Contra
Costa.
KF 5. Identifying and remedying supplanted funds
Given that many AB109-related staff and activities are or may be funded by other sources –
dedicated state revenue streams; state, federal, or private grants; or federal sources such as
Medi-Cal and the new Drug Medi-Cal – opportunities for unintentional supplantation are rife.
For example, the Sheriff’s budget contains a line item of $456,250, for “food/ clothing/
household” for incarcerated AB109ers. It is hard to understand how the very small incremental
number of people housed in the detention facilities as a result of AB109 could possibly
generate an incremental cost for these items of nearly half a million dollars annually. Further, as
actually expensed, this item was substantially over-budgeted, leaving $252,068 unspent.
However, in the absence of directive guidelines, clear calculations for justification, and careful
auditing, it is impossible to determine whether this budget allocation supplants existing funds,
whether such cost increases have been examined and confirmed, and whether 30 Deputy
Sheriff positions funded by AB109 were in fact newly created in the aftermath of AB109. The
risk is that costs previously covered by County General Funds as an ordinary element of
detention operations may be supplanted by AB109 funding.
Similarly, the AB109 budget for Detention Health Services establishes funding to underwrite
positions for 7.6 FTE health professionals, but without a budget justification that enumerates
the specific incremental workloads resulting from AB109, it’s hard to assess the necessity of
these positions.
In addition, when some AB109-budgeted activities are likely to be reimbursed through federal
sources, it can be difficult to predict and correct budgets to reflect such anticipated or actual
reimbursements. This is particularly true of health-related items that are subject to
Page 121 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 16
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
reimbursement by federal funds.
KF 6. Lack of parity in process and treatment
The policy recommendations provided in Section II of this document, taken in aggregate,
would establish baseline systems of transparency, review, integrity, and scrutiny for County
agencies, requirements that that have been imposed on AB109-funded nonprofit organizations
ever since nonprofit organizations began receiving funding in 2013/2014.
In fact, the burdens currently imposed on nonprofit organizations are substantially higher even
than what we recommend here for the County agencies.
For example, nonprofit organizations are required to submit specific metrics, on a monthly
basis, as a condition of their contracts and invoices. In contrast, the County agencies are
required to provide no such reports on services or outcomes, but receive continuous funding
without obligations for such reporting.
Further, nonprofit agencies are required to submit competitive bids, cannot rely on extended
years of funding, must implement newly funded efforts on accelerated and shortened
timelines, and are expected to deliver specific measurable outcomes without the
infrastructures, resources, and autonomy that characterize County agencies.
All of these differences suggest that County agencies should not be excused from the
standards and expectations required of their nonprofit counterparts.
We strongly believe that good governance, necessary stewardship, and public trust require
that AB109-funded County agencies be expected to adhere to the same level of scrutiny and
consistency as their much smaller nonprofit partners.
VI. A NALYSIS OF D EPARTMENTAL AB109 B UDGET-TO-A CTUALS FOR FY 2015-2016
A. Origin and purpose of this budget-to-actual analysis
Although it has been five years since AB109 began implementation in the fiscal year
2011/2015, the County has never produced an integrated “budgets to actuals” document to
examine the uses of AB109 funds across all funded departments.
Therefore, and in order to provide a framework necessary for collective review and analysis of
AB109’s uses in Contra Costa County, CAB has undertaken the effort to produce this brief on
the County’s behalf.
Page 122 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 17
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
B. Caveat
It is important to note that CAB’s budget analysis represents a diligent, good faith effort to be
as accurate and complete as possible. All of the information contained in the budget analysis
comes from public documents, and in creating it, every effort was made not to infer, assume,
or deduce information. For specific questions, clarification, and additional documentary
sources, CAB consulted directly with senior staff of the CAO, and we deeply appreciate the
careful and attentive collaboration provided.
Notwithstanding this demanding due diligence, we recognize that this document attempts to
capture a tremendous amount of information drawn from disparate, non-standardized
documents, requiring that CAB cobble together information drawn from dozens of source
documents. Each of these source documents represented only one piece of this complex
puzzle, and many did not readily align with one another.
Corrections may prove necessary, and in future we would welcome the transfer from the CAB
to the purview of the CAO the responsibility for producing comprehensive, rigorous analytic
reports such as this.
C. Commingling nonrecurring and operating costs
We note that in budgeting, analyzing, and discussing the annual cost of the County’s AB109-
funded operations, it is important to distinguish nonrecurring costs from annual baseline
operating costs; this was sometimes overlooked.
In cases where operating funds are in fact reallocated to nonrecurring items (such as vehicle
purchases), it is important for the County to reduce the subsequent year’s operating budget
allocations by the amount of the nonrecurring cost.
D. Pretrial Services budget
Unlike other AB109-funded budgets for County agencies, the $900,000 operating budget for
Pretrial Services (PTS) is shared by the Probation Department and the Office of the Public
Defender. As a result, each agency receives a portion of the PTS revenue allocation, and each
agency submits its own invoices against that allocation.
Working with staff from the CAO, who in turn requested specific detail from the Probation
Department’s Administrative Services Officer, in this analysis we have been able to separate
Page 123 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 18
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
the Pretrial Services sources and uses within each of these two departments, allowing us to
produce an analysis of Pretrial Services independent of the larger budgets for both Probation
and the Public Defender. On the accompanying budget analysis, the PTS-related budget is
analyzed as an independent entity, separate from its larger departmental budgets.
E. Summary findings within the 2015/2016 AB109 budgets for public agencies
CAB’s detailed budget-to-actual analysis of all funded public agencies for 2015/2016 has
revealed multiple opportunities for the County to better match annual budget allocations to
appropriate uses; reset status quo budget assumptions; establish shared protocols for
budgeting, spending, and tracking; and revise the distribution of funds among agencies to
most effectively steward this unique stream of dedicated state funds.
In this following section, we offer a simply high-level summary of the findings of our analysis,
which is presented in much greater detail in the accompanying financial document.
1. Ongoing Operating Costs
Of the $16,5 23,314 budgeted to public agencies for ongoing costs in FY 2015/2016, our
analysis suggests that $2,272,954.10, or 13.76%, remained unspent on approved uses.
FY 2015/2016 AB109 budgets Amount
at issue
% of operating
budget
O perating funds budgeted in 15/16
Total operating funds budgeted to public agencies (excluding $900,000 PTS
budget, $2.7 million in one-time capital set-asides, and $3.995 million for
community-based organizations)
$16,523,314.00 100.00%
Unspent balance of approved uses $2,272,954.10 13.76%
In addition to this unspent balance remaining on approved line items, our analysis also notes
that in many cases the approved line items, as budgeted, were overspent, without
authorization. We also noted cases in which funds were spent for purposes that had not been
formally proposed or approved by BOS.
FY 2015/2016 AB109 budgets (ongoing operations, excluding PTS) Amount
at issue
% of operating
budget
Total overspent on approved uses $125,378.87 0.76%
Spent on new line items apparently without formal approval $584,238.17 3.54%
Total operating funds apparently spent other than as approved $709,617.04 4.29%
Page 124 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 19
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
2. Pretrial Services
Of the $900,000 allocated jointly to the Public Defender’s Office and the Probation
Department for Pretrial Service costs, the Probation Department received a total of $757,448
(84.2%), and the Public Defender’s Office received $142,552 (15.8%).
Within these allocations, $74,661.02 remained unspent in Probation’s staffing line item, while
the staff budget for the Public Defender’s Office was overspent by $6,630.00. Meanwhile,
Probation under-spent its operating costs line item, while the Public Defender’s Office did not
submit request for any costs other than staffing.
CAB suggests that the allocations for Pretrial Services be modified to reflect this over/under
utilization. We also suggest that both revenues and the expenses for Pretrial Services be
recorded as separate elements (both sources and uses) on Probation’s and the Public
Defender’s planning and reporting, rather than being aggregated into line items and invoices
within the larger departmental budgets.
We also note that Probation used PTS operating funds in the amount of $26,184.98 to
purchase a vehicle. This is not an ongoing operations cost and thus should not have been
funded through the ongoing operations budget.
Further, we note that although Probation invoiced a vehicle purchase in June 2015, as was
authorized in the 14/15 budget, Probation then purchased a second vehicle in October 2015;
this purchase was not included in the approved 2015/2016 budget. The reason for the
purchase of the second vehicle has not yet been determined by CAO staff, who are
researching the matter and will report on their findings to the CCP.
Pretrial Services Budget Allocation Unspent/(Overspent)
on approved items
Spent on non-
approved items
Probation allocation
Staff $747,167.00 $74,661.02
Operating Costs $10,281.00 $2,078.95 $26,184.98
Public Defender allocation
Staff $142,552.00 ($6,630.00)
Total $900,000.00 $70,109.97 $26,184.98
Page 125 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 20
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
3. Nonrecurring Costs
Of the $2,700,000 set aside over the course of several fiscal years for one-time capital
projects for the Sheriff’s Office, 87.48% remains unspent to date.
Nonrecurring set-asides
Set-asides for capital projects for Sheriff’s Office over several fiscal years $2,700.000.00 100.00%
Unspent balance as of June 30, 2016 $2,361,908.00 87.48%
CAB recommends that the CAO establish a policy for determining deadlines by which set-
aside funds must be expensed for the approved purpose, after which unspent balance would
be returned to the general AB109 pool.
F. Source documents for this written brief and accompanying financial analysis
• 2012/13: “FY2012/13 AB109 Public Safety Realignment Preliminary Financial Report,” Community
Corrections Partnership Agenda Packet, August 2, 2013, pp. 7-96, at
http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/27284
• 2014/15: “FY 2014/15 Annual Financial Report for the Community Corrections allocation of AB 109 Public
Safety Realignment revenue,” Community Corrections Partnership Agenda Packet, November 6, 2015, pp.
29-208, at http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38543
• 2015/16: “FY 2015/16 AB109 Public Safety Realignment Budget Proposals,” Community Corrections
Partnership Agenda Packet, January 9, 2015, pp. 10-40, at http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/34978
• 2015/16: “Community Corrections Partnership FY 2015/16 Annual Financial Report,” Community
Corrections Partnership Agenda Packet, November 4, 2016, pp. 10-119, at http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/43107
• 2016/17, “FY 2016/17 AB109 Public Safety Realignment Budget Workshop,” Community Corrections
Partnership Agenda Packet, December 5, 2015, pp. 11-51, at
http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38967
• 2016/17: “AB109 Public Safety Realignment Program FY 2016/2017 Summary of Budget Allocations, as
recommended by the Public Protection Committee,” Public Protection Committee Agenda Packet,
February 8, 2016,” at
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=2&get_year=2016&dsp=ag&seq=77
1
• Contra Costa County Municipal Code, Division 25, Better Government Ordinance, at
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT2AD_DIV25
BEGOOR
Page 126 of 156
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations
for Contra Costa County’s AB109 Activities
Submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
By the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board
December 9, 2016
Key Findings and Budget & Policy Recommendations for AB109, 12/9/16, V10, p. 21
Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by Community Advisory Board
Research & analysis provided by Reentry Solutions Group
• “Operating Guidelines of the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) Community
Advisory Board (CAB), as amended January 8, 2015,” at https://ca-
contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/9791
• Direct communications (telephone and email, including documentation provided as email attachments)
with staff of the Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office, November 11-December 7, 2016
Page 127 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Summary, p. 1
Source: General AB109 Funds FTEs
Total allocated budget
for 15/16
$ unspent on
approved uses
% unspent on
approved line
items
Spent more on
a line item than
approved
% overspent on
approved items
Spent on non-
approved uses
% of budget
spent on
nonapproved
items
Behavioral Health
Staffing $1,122,609.00 $145,540.00 12.96%$106,944.00 9.53%
Administration $220,223.00 $43,411.00 19.71%$17,610.00 8.00%
Contracted services $900,600.00 $215,253.00 23.90%$3,196.00 0.35% $20,677.00 2.30%
11.00 $2,243,432.00 $404,204.00 18.02%$127,750.00 5.69% $20,677.00 0.92%
CAO
Staffing 1.50 $225,000.00 $82,112.00 36.49%$30,068.00
Evaluation $225,000.00 $0.00 0.00%
Other $0.00 $7,374.00 #DIV/0!
It is not mathematically possible to calculate % overspent on a line
item that was not budgeted
"AB 109 Support for LJI"$0.00 $0.00 #DIV/0!
No explanation for why staff costs were reallocated to "AB109
Support for LJI"
1.50 $450,000.00 $82,112.00 18.25%$0.00 0.00% $37,442.00 8.32%
Detention Health Services
Staffing 7.60 $1,055,562.00 Spending pattern highly variable without specific explanation
7.60 $1,055,562.00 $0.00 0.00%$0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
District Attorney
Staffing 9.00 $1,375,743.00 $447,064.00 32.50%($4,616.00)-0.34%
Administration/Operations $82,995.00 $0.00 0.00%$0.00 0.00% $99,901.00 120.37%Not consistent with approved budget
"Other" costs $0.00 $14,618.00 #DIV/0!Not mentioned in budget request
9.00 $1,458,738.00 $447,064.00 30.65%($4,616.00)-0.32%$114,519.00 7.85%
Police Departments
Antioch 1.00 $130,500.00 $0.01
Concord 1.00 $130,500.00 $0.00
Pittsburg 1.00 $130,500.00 $0.00
Richmond 1.00 $130,500.00 $0.00
4.00 $522,000.00 $0.01 0.00%$0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
Probation
Staffing 15.36 $2,459,421.00 $201,824.57 8.21%
Operating Costs $223,597.00 $24,588.67 11.00%$36,668.32 16.40%
Vehicle Purchase $0.00 $18,269.80 #DIV/0!
15.36 $2,683,018.00 $226,413.24 8.44%$36,668.32 1.37% $18,269.80 0.68%
Public Defender
Staffing 9.50 $1,124,000.00 $43.46 0.00%($41,615.45)-3.70%
9.50 $1,124,000.00 $43.46 0.00%($41,615.45)-3.70%$0.00 0.00%
Sheriff's Office
Staffing 30.00 $5,827,782.00 $542,138.00 $272,923.00 4.68%
Food/clothing/household $456,250.00 $252,068.00 55.25%
Monitoring services $55,000.00 $44,057.00 80.10%
Jail to community programs $200,000.00 $8.00 0.00%
Bus maintenance/depreciation $79,032.00 $79,032.00 100.00%
Vehicle operating $48,000.00 $7,192.00 14.98%
Summary Analysis of Use of AB109 Funds by All AB109-Funded Public Agencies - 2015/2016 Summary Analysis of Use of AB109 Funds by All AB109-Funded Public Agencies - 2015/2016
What is the AB109-related purpose for these officers?
Why is nonapproved overtime charged, when all 30 allocated positions have
apparently been filled, with an unspent balance?
Is there a functional analysis of justification for these costs? Also, over-budgeted?
One car budgeted in 14/15 and purchased in June 2015; a second car purchased in
October 2015, but 15/16 budget does not show an approved vehicle purchase.
Additionally, as a nonrecurring item it should not be included as an operating cost
in establishing Probation's PTS budget in subsequent years.
Why is utilization so low? Justification for cost?
Should these be moved to the "community" budget and process?
Which is this: depreciation or maintenance?
Notes
Why is utilization so low?
Substantial variations and reallocations in multiple areas of budget
Page 128 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Summary, p. 2
Source: General AB109 Funds FTEs
Total allocated budget
for 15/16
$ unspent on
approved uses
% unspent on
approved line
items
Spent more on
a line item than
approved
% overspent on
approved items
Spent on non-
approved uses
% of budget
spent on
nonapproved
items
Summary Analysis of Use of AB109 Funds by All AB109-Funded Public Agencies - 2015/2016 Summary Analysis of Use of AB109 Funds by All AB109-Funded Public Agencies - 2015/2016
Notes
Behavioral Court Costs $80,500.00 $39,407.00 48.95%
IT Support $40,000.00 $40,000.00 100.00%
30.00 $6,786,564.00 $996,710.00 14.7%$7,192.00 0.11% $272,923.00 4.02%
WDB
Staffing #REF!$196,000.00 $116,407.39 59.39%Staffing FTEs and related costs not specified
Operating Costs $0.00 $35,997.75
Travel $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00%Why is utilization so low? Justification for cost?
"County Expense Claims"$57,131.16 What are these unapproved, 4th quarter charges?
"Accruals" for staff position $15,387.41 What are these unapproved, 4th quarter charges?
"Accruals" for Operating Costs $11,891.05 What are these unapproved, 4th quarter charges?
0.00 $200,000.00 $116,407.39 58.20%$0.00 0.00% $120,407.37 60.20%
Totals on ALL AB109 operating items, except PTS 87.96 $16,523,314.00 $2,272,954.10 13.76%$125,378.87 0.76% $584,238.17 3.54%
Pretrial Services
Legal Assistant (Public Defender)2.00 $138,002.00 $6,630.01 4.65%
Subsequent increase/redistribution from Probation $4,550.00
Probation Officers 4.00 $677,260.00 $48,398.69 7.15%
Clerk 1.00 $74,457.00 $26,262.33 35.27%
Subsequent reduction/redistribution to Pub. Defend ($4,550.00)
Vehicle maintenance $7,781.00 $2,078.95 26.72%
Vehicle purchase $0.00 ($26,184.98)
PTS evaluation $2,500.00 $0.00 $0 $1,995.31 79.81%
7.00 $900,000.00 $76,739.97 8.53%$8,625.32 0.96% $26,184.98 2.91%
Totals ongoing costs, including PTS 94.96 $17,423,314.00 $2,349,694.07 13.49%$134,004.19 0.77% $610,423.15 3.50%
Non-recurring items
Sheriff's Office
Approved one-time costs $2,700,000.00 $2,361,908.00
$2,700,000.00 $2,361,908.00 87.48%$0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
Totals for Operating and Nonrecurring, including Pretrial Services $20,123,314.00 $4,711,602.07 23.41%$134,004.19 0.67% $610,423.15 3.03%
Totals: unspent, overspent, or reallocated to a new line item Approved
Ongoing operating funds $16,523,314.00 $2,272,954.10 13.76% $125,378.87 0.76% $584,238.17 3.54%$2,982,571.14 18.05%
Pretrial services $900,000.00 $76,739.97 8.53% $8,625.32 0.96% $26,184.98 2.91%$111,550.27 12.39%
Non-recurring $2,700,000.00 $2,361,908.00 87.48% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%$2,361,908.00 87.48%
$20,123,314.00 $4,711,602.07 23.41% $134,004.19 0.67% $610,423.15 3.03%$5,456,029.41 27.11%
Why is BH Court being paid through AB109? And why is budget apparently high?
Why is utilization so low? Justification for cost?
Unspent on approved line item Overspent Unapproved reallocation Total used not as approved (in $ and as a % of approved amount for each line)
Why is 60% of the budget assigned to nonapproved charges, 58% of approved
items unspent, and 71% of the total budget spent in Q4?
Page 129 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Behavioral Health, p. 1
Behavioral Health AB109 Analysis
Staff
FTE FY15/16 as
budgeted July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
FY15/16 as
spent
Budget to
Actual
Variance Unspent Overspent
Not
approved
0.50 Patient financial specialist/SSI $64,201 $0 $9,549 $0 $9,576 $4,733 $0 $4,607 $4,607 $9,212 $4,607 $0 $9,212 $56,103 $8,098 $8,098
2.00 Case Managers (Homeless)$76,632 $0 $0 $12,903 $7,031 $7,244 $5,709 $6,611 $7,064 $5,568 $7,178 $4,268 $13,578 $77,154 ($522)($522)
1.00 Registered Nurse $169,605 $13,017 $13,017 $13,017 $12,225 $18,181 $0 $15,458 $15,458 $15,458 $14,777 $15,438 $15,606 $161,652 $7,953 $7,953
3.00 MH Clinical Specialist $392,025 $31,301 $31,530 $31,901 $10,491 $10,491 $10,489 $10,489 $13,693 $29,310 $30,439 $73,984 $124,656 $408,774 ($16,749)($16,749)
2.00 Community Health Workers $120,930 $9,496 $9,251 $4,685 $4,685 $5,828 $4,680 $7,698 $10,374 $10,375 $10,375 $10,374 $10,372 $98,193 $22,737 $22,737
0.40 Psychiatrist $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,906 $46,906 $69,094 $69,094
1.00 Clerk $80,591 $0 $2,858 $3,919 $3,607 $3,902 $3,902 $3,902 $3,902 $4,097 $4,097 $4,097 $4,650 $42,933 $37,658 $37,658
0.10 Evaluator/planner $12,360 $0 $2,486 $0 $2,486 $1,361 $0 $1,300 $1,300 $2,599 $1,300 $0 $2,599 $15,431 ($3,071)($3,071)
1.00 Substance use counselor $90,265 $8,666 $8,666 $8,666 $8,666 $8,666 $81,599 $0 $0 $0 $25,969 $0 $25,969 $176,867 ($86,602)($86,602)
11.00 $1,122,609 $62,480 $77,357 $75,091 $58,767 $60,406 $106,379 $50,065 $56,398 $76,619 $98,742 $108,161 $253,548 $1,084,013 $38,596 $145,540 ($106,944)$0
Contracted services $0
Shelter beds $146,500 $3,320 $4,880 $8,960 $8,880 $9,480 $0 $11,800 $4,000 $6,680 $0 $26,280 $10,480 $94,760 $51,740 $51,740
Transitional Housing (Uilkema House)$129,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,517 $0 $0 $0 $49,173 $121,690 $7,910 $7,910
Residential SUD (Discover, Bi Bett,
NHNR, J Cole)$375,000 $0 $0 $0 $73,406 $29,213 $40,108 $1,680 $19,114 $8,432 $44,010 $31,494 $128,187 $378,196 ($3,196)($3,196)
Outpatient SUD (Bi-Bett ind and group,
BACR Gateway, Anka Case Managers)$202,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,911 $919 $1,259 $5,390 $804 $727 $785 $7,706 $26,396 $46,897 $155,603 $155,603
Mental Health Services/Assessment $0 $0 $2,647 $0 $2,264 $2,197 $0 $1,978 $1,887 $3,393 $1,304 $811 $4,196 $20,677 ($20,677)($20,677)
Deputy Sheriff $47,000 $0 $7,834 $0 $7,834 $3,917 $0 $3,917 $11,751 $3,917 $3,917 $3,917 $47,004 ($4)($4)
Total contracted services $900,600 $3,320 $15,361 $8,960 $95,295 $45,726 $41,367 $24,765 $98,322 $30,983 $50,016 $70,208 $222,349 $709,224 $191,376 $215,253 ($23,877)$0
23.90%
Administration/Operations
Lab & Pharmacy $120,000 $0 $0 $1,988 $171,899 $19,550 $0 $0 ($144,233)$0 $0 $40,772 $33,773 $123,749 ($3,749)($3,749) ($3,749)
Vehicle Operating Fee/ISF fees $9,018 $2,170 $1,798 $0 $4,689 $3,144 $0 $1,860 $4,214 $0 $1,790 $1,961 $1,253 $22,879 ($13,861)($13,861)
Transportation assistance $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000
Occupancy costs $88,205 $6,219 $3,110 $3,110 $3,881 $3,190 $0 $8,187 $8,347 $3,202 $3,432 $4,548 $568 $47,794 $40,411 $40,411
Total Admin/Operations $220,223 $8,389 $4,908 $5,098 $180,469 $25,884 $0 $10,047 ($131,672)$3,202 $5,222 $47,281 $35,594 $194,422 $25,801 $43,411 ($17,610) ($3,749)
Total BH AB109 budget $2,243,432 $74,189 $97,626 $89,149 $334,531 $132,016 $147,746 $84,877 $23,048 $110,804 $153,980 $225,650 $511,491 $1,987,659 $255,773
Unspent in $ and %$404,204 ($148,431) ($3,749)
Page 130 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Behavioral Health, p. 2
Behavioral Health AB109 Analysis
Staff
FTE FY15/16 as
budgeted
0.50 Patient financial specialist/SSI $64,201
2.00 Case Managers (Homeless)$76,632
1.00 Registered Nurse $169,605
3.00 MH Clinical Specialist $392,025
2.00 Community Health Workers $120,930
0.40 Psychiatrist $116,000
1.00 Clerk $80,591
0.10 Evaluator/planner $12,360
1.00 Substance use counselor $90,265
11.00 $1,122,609
Contracted services
Shelter beds $146,500
Transitional Housing (Uilkema House)$129,600
Residential SUD (Discover, Bi Bett,
NHNR, J Cole)$375,000
Outpatient SUD (Bi-Bett ind and group,
BACR Gateway, Anka Case Managers)$202,500
Mental Health Services/Assessment $0
Deputy Sheriff $47,000
Total contracted services $900,600
Administration/Operations
Lab & Pharmacy $120,000
Vehicle Operating Fee/ISF fees $9,018
Transportation assistance $3,000
Occupancy costs $88,205
Total Admin/Operations $220,223
Total BH AB109 budget $2,243,432
Unspent in $ and %
Notes
Began as Patient Health Specialist in the request; turned into
MH SSI Coordinator in reports, then Pat Fin Spex. Also, FTE has
varied over the years.
Why was June so high?
A note says that a "coding error" resulted in $104K being
booked for one position in one month. What was that error?
Does it stem from an error in 2014/2015, and should that
amount be deducted from the total BH budget as an item from
a previous fiscal year? Also, why was $53,916 assigned to the
cost of the same position in just one month, May? Why is the
total cost of that position recorded as $210,195, which is more
than 50% of the total budget for all three positions?
Why is this consistently budgeted far beyond cost? Why is
100% of total cost allocated to just month 12? Why is a psych
nurse practitioner budgeted at an FTE of $290K?
Seems to be budgeted above the amount needed
Where are the evaluator deliverables as described in the
budget narrative?
Why is this consistently not fully spent, year after year?
A note on the BH budget says that Feb charge represents bed
days from Jan-June. How many bed days were there? And how
many bed days for the June charge? How many people, for
how many days each?
A note on the BH budget says that a June charge of $93K
represents bed nights from March-June. How many bed days
were there? And how many bed days for all SUD providers?
How many people, for how many days each? And why aren't
each month's charges recorded as the months go along? How
can CCP approve quarterlies that don't reflect actual quarterly
costs
Why has this consistently gone underutilized? Why are the
charges for Anka case managers so variable? Why is there a
charge of $23698 for Anka case managers in just month 12?
What is this? Consistently not budgeted, yet costs are allocated
year after year. In 14/15: 100% charged in one month: June
2015
What are the causes for the very large charge in October and
very large credit in Feb? And why are charges in May and June
so large, representing 62% of the entire year's budget? Also, in
previous years, Labs and Meds was substantially overspent,
usually in Q4. Also: How are Medi-Cal reimbursements
returned to the AB109 account?
Why is this consistently overspent, year after year?
Not mentioned in approved budgets
Why is occupancy being charged? And why is it so variable?
Doesn't seem to be consistent with itself or with the budget
narrative
Page 131 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group County Administrator, p. 1
County Administrator's Office AB109 Budget Analysis
Use
FY15/16 as
budgeted July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total
$ spent as
approved
% spent as
approved
Staffing
Tran (Business Systems An)51,264$ 1,180$ 1,196$ 1,328$ 2,473$ 6,177$ 6,177$ 12.05%
Ewell -$ 7,018$ 7,097$ 7,404$ 8,549$ 30,068$ -$
Delaney 173,736$ 34,133$ 34,133$ 34,795$ 33,650$ 136,711$ 136,711$ 78.69%
Total staffing 225,000$ 42,331$ 42,426$ 43,527$ 44,672$ 172,956$ 142,888$ 63.51%
Evaluation 225,000$ 8,481$ 16,900$ 16,956$ 19,300$ 31,388$ 28,931$ 23,719$ 18,019$ 17,263$ 15,138$ 11,525$ 17,381$ 225,001$ 225,001$ 100.00%
Other
County Counsel 3,680$ 1,364$ 217$ 5,261$
Technology Services (DoIt)180$ (180)$ 180$ 120$ 120$ 120$ 540$
FedEx 27$ 156$ 23$ 117$ 114$ 437$
Meals 698$ 698$
Printing Services 138$ -$ 128$ 88$ 84$ 438$
-$ 7,374$
"AB 109 Support for LJI"-$ 51,264$ 51,264$
Total 450,000$ 456,595$
Page 132 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group County Administrator, p. 2
County Administrator's Office AB109 Budget Analysis
Use
FY15/16 as
budgeted
Staffing
Tran (Business Systems An)51,264$
Ewell -$
Delaney 173,736$
Total staffing 225,000$
Evaluation 225,000$
Other
County Counsel
Technology Services (DoIt)
FedEx
Meals
Printing Services
-$
"AB 109 Support for LJI"-$
Total 450,000$
Unspent on
approved
uses
Unapproved
reallocation
% spent on
unapproved Notes
45,087$
($30,068.00)
37,025$
82,112$ ($30,068.00)76.87%
($7,374.00)NC Not budgeted in request
($51,264.00)NC
Not line-itemed detailed in request; all expensed in
month 1. Budget narrative identified $51,264 as a staff
cost for Business Systems Analyst
$82,112 ($88,706.00)
Budget proposal indicated $225K specifically for 1.0 FTE
Senior Deputy and .5 FTE Business Systems Analyst, but
the invoices itemized costs for three staffers
Page 133 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Detention Health Services, p. 1
Detention Health Services AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved As spent July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Total Variance
Family Nurse, WCD/MDF 1.00 180,324$
LVN, WCD 2.80 283,376$
RN, MCD 2.80 475,004$
MH Clinic Specialist,
WCD/MCDF 1.00 116,858$
7.60 1,055,562$
Registry staff 22,956$ 23,076$ 21,964$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 67,996$
County staff 84,600$ 90,532$ 84,348$ 72,051$ 82,634$ 88,652$ 85,935$ 75,063$ 87,214$ 91,262$ 62,469$ 82,807$ 987,566$
107,556$ 113,608$ 106,312$ 72,051$ 82,634$ 88,652$ 85,935$ 75,063$ 87,214$ 91,262$ 62,469$ 82,807$ 1,055,562$ -$
Page 134 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Detention Health Services, p. 2
Detention Health Services AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved
Family Nurse, WCD/MDF 1.00 180,324$
LVN, WCD 2.80 283,376$
RN, MCD 2.80 475,004$
MH Clinic Specialist,
WCD/MCDF 1.00 116,858$
7.60 1,055,562$
Registry staff
County staff
% spent as
approved Notes
Why are there so many LVNs paid for through
AB109?
Why are there so many RNs paid for through
AB109?
Why does the County need 7.6 DHS professionals
when there are no more than 60 AB109ers in
custody at any time?
No justification/explanation provided for
changing the descriptions
100.0%
Page 135 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group District Attorney, p. 1
District Attorney AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE
FY15/16 as
budgeted July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Total
$ unspent on
approved line
item
% spent as
approved
2.00 ACER Arraignment attorneys $512,884 $37,030 $37,823 $39,090 $41,560 $61,310 $43,029 $48,234 $43,797 $43,797 $0 $0 $0 $395,670 $117,214 77.1%
1.00 Reentry Coordinator $272,007 $21,357 $21,357 $21,075 $21,357 $30,726 $22,965 $22,965 $22,965 $22,965 $22,965 $22,965 $22,961 $276,623
1.00 ACER clerk ("senior level")$79,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,632 0.0%
1.00 ACER clerk ("experienced level")$89,624 $6,412 $6,412 $6,412 $6,412 $6,412 $6,253 $3,582 $0 $0 $41,895 $47,729 46.7%
2.00 Victim Witness Specialists $87,434 $6,693 $6,693 $6,693 $3,393 $6,693 $0 $0 $3,014 $14,976 $10,974 $10,992 $11,057 $81,178 $6,256 92.8%
1.00 Reentry Notification Specialist $137,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,294 0.0%
1.00 DV Attorney $196,868 $18,530 $15,159 $15,159 $15,918 $15,910 $15,868 $15,868 $15,858 $9,659 $0 $0 $0 $137,929 $58,939 70.1%
Total staff 9.00 $1,375,743 $90,022 $87,444 $88,429 $88,640 $121,051 $88,115 $90,649 $85,634 $91,397 $33,939 $33,957 $34,018 $933,295 $447,064 67.8%
"Other Benefits Costs"
Paulson Cost $0 $283 $274 $280 $308 $374 -$374 $365 $320 $237 $236 $233 $233 $2,769
Benefits Adm Fee $0 $305 $307 $351 $0 $531 $715 $443 $459 $297 $438 $490 $4,336
Retiree Health Cost $0 $3,965 $4,021 $4,029 $4,264 $4,955 $37,212 $4,816 $4,174 $3,951 $3,000 $3,114 $3,210 $80,711
OPEB Pre-pay $0 $0 $0 $3,935 $0 $3,935 $3,935 $11,805
Health Care Savings Deduction $0 $280 $280
$0 $4,553 $4,602 $8,595 $4,572 $5,860 $37,553 $5,624 $4,953 $8,420 $3,674 $3,837 $7,658 $99,901 $0 #DIV/0!
Administration/Operations
Office Expense $2,156 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,156
Postage $656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $656
Communications $1,740 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,740
Minor furniture/equipment $364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364
Minor computer equipment $3,481 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,481
Clothing and personal $25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25
Memberships $1,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,560
Computer software $20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20
Auto mileage $1,995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,995
Other travel (employees)$264 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264
Court reporter transcript $207 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207
Other Special Dept. charges $96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96
Other interdepartmental $105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105
Occupancy Cost $52,938 $0 $0 $9,769 $0 $0 $9,769 $0 $0 $9,769 $0 $9,769 $0 $39,076 $13,862
Data processing cost $17,388 $0 $0 $2,374 $0 $0 $2,374 $0 $0 $2,374 $0 $2,374 $0 $9,496 $7,892
Services and supplies $0 $453 $997 $1,459 $1,512 $446 $407 $901 $821 $805 $1,587 $2,446 $2,784 $14,618 -
$82,995 $453 $997 $13,602 $1,512 $446 $12,550 $901 $821 $12,948 $1,587 $14,589 $2,784 $63,190 $34,423 76.1%
Total costs $1,458,738 $95,028 $93,043 $110,626 $94,724 $127,357 $138,218 $97,174 $91,408 $112,765 $39,200 $52,383 $44,460 $1,096,386 $481,487 75.2%
PRCS/Parole Revocation (separate funding source)
DDA basic $231,508 $21,192 $21,192 $19,659 $24,875 $19,403 $20,544 $25,774 $20,544 $20,995 $20,106 $14,361 $0 $228,645 $2,863 98.8%
Page 136 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group District Attorney, p. 2
District Attorney AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE
FY15/16 as
budgeted
2.00 ACER Arraignment attorneys $512,884
1.00 Reentry Coordinator $272,007
1.00 ACER clerk ("senior level")$79,632
1.00 ACER clerk ("experienced level")$89,624
2.00 Victim Witness Specialists $87,434
1.00 Reentry Notification Specialist $137,294
1.00 DV Attorney $196,868
Total staff 9.00 $1,375,743
"Other Benefits Costs"
Paulson Cost $0
Benefits Adm Fee $0
Retiree Health Cost $0
OPEB Pre-pay $0
Health Care Savings Deduction $0
$0
Administration/Operations
Office Expense $2,156
Postage $656
Communications $1,740
Minor furniture/equipment $364
Minor computer equipment $3,481
Clothing and personal $25
Memberships $1,560
Computer software $20
Auto mileage $1,995
Other travel (employees)$264
Court reporter transcript $207
Other Special Dept. charges $96
Other interdepartmental $105
Occupancy Cost $52,938
Data processing cost $17,388
Services and supplies $0
$82,995
Total costs $1,458,738
PRCS/Parole Revocation (separate funding source)
DDA basic $231,508
$ overspent
on approved
line item
% overspent on
approved line
item
spent on
unapproved line
item Notes
Why is November so high?
($4,616)-1.70%Why is November so high?
ACER clerical started off as one position, morphed into three?
The approved budget combined DV and Reentry Coordinator,
but the submitted demands separated the two
($4,616)-0.34% $ -
($2,769)
($4,336)
($80,711)
($11,805)
($280)
$0 #DIV/0!($99,901)
($14,618)
$0 0%($14,618)
($4,616)0%($114,519)
0% Separate funding source
None of these is included in the approved budget. And it's
believed that all of them, as benefits, are included within the
salary lines themselves. So this may represent double-counting.
These operating cost line items are not consistent with the
operating costs posed in the approved budget.
Page 137 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Police Departments, p. 1
Police Departments AB109 Budget Analysis
FTE
FY15/16 as
budgeted July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total Variance
% spent as
approved Notes
Antioch
1.00 Officer $ 130,500.00 18,814.71$ 14,745.82$ 14,669.99$ 15,257.05$ 14,787.49$ 19,643.02$ 15,239.00$ 15,559.76$ 1,783.15$ 130,499.99$ 0.01$ 100.00%
What are the AB109-related functions
of these officers?
Concord
1.00 Officer 130,500.00$ 44,484.48$ 49,876.08$ 36,139.44$ 130,500.00$ -$ 100.00%
Pittsburg
1.00 Officer 130,500.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 10,875.00$ 130,500.00$ -$ 100.00%
Richmond
1.00 Officer 130,500.00$ 17,504.27$ 17,437.25$ 17,404.29$ 17,955.45$ $17,857.46 $18,233.89 24,108.20$ 130,500.00$ -$ 100.00%
4.00 522,000.00$ 521,999.99$ 100.00%
Page 138 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Probation, p. 1
Probation AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved As spent July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Total
$ unspent on
approved items
% unspent as
approved
Overspent on
approved line
items
Spent on
unapproved
uses
Director Field Services 0.10 $25,994.00
Probation Manager 0.20 $47,878.00
Probation Supervisor I 1.00 $217,819.00
Deputy Probation Officer III 12.00 $2,060,450.00
Deputy Probation Officer OT $25,000.00
Clerk 1.00 $74,457.00
IT Support 0.06 $7,823.00
"Salary and benefits"$182,301.18 $195,899.36 $184,478.19 $208,967.56 $189,207.37 $195,192.68 $181,573.55 $184,774.88 $202,236.85 $178,005.95 $179,898.86 $175,060.00 $2,257,596.43
14.36 $2,459,421.00 $182,301.18 $195,899.36 $184,478.19 $208,967.56 $189,207.37 $195,192.68 $181,573.55 $184,774.88 $202,236.85 $178,005.95 $179,898.86 $175,060.00 $2,257,596.43 $201,824.57 8.21%
Operating Costs
Reentry Coordinator contract 1.00 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,250.01 $0.00 $10,416.67 $10,416.67 $10,416.67 $0.00 $20,833.34 $10,416.67 $10,416.67 $20,833.30 $125,000.00 $0.00 0.00%
Communications $8,000.00 $896.33 $1,000.60 $1,009.62 $854.66 $1,033.65 $1,259.01 $1,096.50 $1,103.54 $1,118.19 $1,122.20 $1,127.67 $1,686.24 $13,308.21 ($5,308.21)
Data processing service $144.00 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $1,027.50 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $727.50 $363.75 $8,666.25 ($8,522.25)
Vehicle operating costs $50,000.00 $6,011.83 $6,957.67 $0.00 $6,295.23 $10,904.53 $5,255.75 $0.00 $12,566.13 $0.00 $6,023.65 $11,868.15 $5,718.92 $71,601.86 ($21,601.86)
Food for T4C meetings $12,953.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $753.39 $847.62 $0.00 $8.66 $545.36 $185.86 $521.60 $878.53 $3,741.02 $9,211.98 71.12%
Warrant pick up $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 100.00%
BART/bus passes/incentives $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $1,161.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $775.00 $0.00 $2,236.00 ($1,236.00)
Office Expense $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40.00 $2,460.00 98.40%
VOEG contract/IPP $19,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,333.32 $1,583.33 $0.00 $1,583.33 $0.00 $1,583.33 $0.00 $0.00 $11,083.31 $7,916.69 41.67%
Minor equipment $0.00 $19.79 $0.00 $306.92 $798.74 $521.42 $171.17 $355.09 $0.00 $216.88 $599.51 $9,795.88 $12,785.40 #DIV/0!($12,785.40)
Minor computer $0.00 $39.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $289.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $328.99 #DIV/0!($328.99)
Comm Resource for Justice $0.00 $164.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $426.56 $0.00 $32.81 $0.00 $3,510.94 $360.94 $4,495.31 #DIV/0!($4,495.31)
Training and travel $23.50 $24.15 $138.51 $178.38 $36.23 $166.18 $0.00 $93.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $660.10 #DIV/0!($660.10)
1 $223,597.00 $7,659.16 $8,932.82 $33,125.64 $8,662.69 $32,165.03 $20,777.48 $13,428.34 $16,437.40 $23,297.20 $20,276.09 $29,547.04 $39,637.56 $253,946.45 $24,588.67 11.00%($36,668.32) ($18,269.80)
15.36 $2,683,018.00 $189,960.34 $204,832.18 $217,603.83 $217,630.25 $221,372.40 $215,970.16 $195,001.89 $201,212.28 $225,534.05 $198,282.04 $209,445.90 $214,697.56 $2,511,542.88 $226,413.24 8.44%($36,668.32) ($18,269.80)
Pretrial Services ($900K budget shared by Probation/Public Defender)
Total as approved
Deputy Probation Officers 4 $677,260.00 $51,030.56 $51,030.56 $48,336.35 $53,299.33 $52,163.09 $52,322.20 $53,017.43 $53,017.42 $53,550.84 $53,550.84 $53,999.41 $53,543.28 $628,861.31 $48,398.69 92.85%
Clerk 1 $74,457.00 $6,405.11 $6,405.11 $6,405.11 $6,405.11 $6,405.11 $6,407.65 $6,407.65 $3,353.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $48,194.67 $26,262.33 35.27%
5 $751,717.00 $57,435.67 $57,435.67 $54,741.46 $59,704.44 $58,568.20 $58,729.85 $59,425.08 $56,371.24 $53,550.84 $53,550.84 $53,999.41 $53,543.28 $677,055.98 $74,661.02 9.93%$0.00 $0.00
Operating costs
Pretrial program evaluation contract $2,500.00 $0.00 $164.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $426.56 $0.00 $0.00 $32.81 $98.44 $3,773.44 $4,495.31 ($1,995.31)
Vehicle maintenance $7,781.00 $297.83 $386.57 $818.77 $669.72 $532.64 $712.87 $301.76 $723.64 $315.05 $306.80 $305.30 $331.10 $5,702.05 $2,078.95 26.72%
0 $10,281.00 $297.83 $550.63 $818.77 $669.72 $532.64 $712.87 $728.32 $723.64 $315.05 $339.61 $403.74 $4,104.54 $10,197.36 $2,078.95 20.22%($1,995.31)$0.00
Non recurring
Vehicle purchase $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,184.98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,184.98 ($26,184.98)$0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,184.98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,184.98 ($26,184.98)
Total PTS $761,998.00
Subsequent adjustment in allocation ($4,550.00)
$757,448.00 $57,733.50 $57,986.30 $55,560.23 $86,559.14 $59,100.84 $59,442.72 $60,153.40 $57,094.88 $53,865.89 $53,890.45 $54,403.15 $57,647.82 $76,739.97 10.13%($28,180.29)-3.72%
Total allocations (general and PTS)20.36 $3,440,466.00 $247,693.84 $262,818.48 $273,164.06 $304,189.39 $280,473.24 $275,412.88 $255,155.29 $258,307.16 $279,399.94 $252,172.49 $263,849.05 $272,345.38 $3,224,981.20 $215,484.80 6.26%
Total
Page 139 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Probation, p. 2
Probation AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved
Director Field Services 0.10 $25,994.00
Probation Manager 0.20 $47,878.00
Probation Supervisor I 1.00 $217,819.00
Deputy Probation Officer III 12.00 $2,060,450.00
Deputy Probation Officer OT $25,000.00
Clerk 1.00 $74,457.00
IT Support 0.06 $7,823.00
"Salary and benefits"
14.36 $2,459,421.00
Operating Costs
Reentry Coordinator contract 1.00 $125,000.00
Communications $8,000.00
Data processing service $144.00
Vehicle operating costs $50,000.00
Food for T4C meetings $12,953.00
Warrant pick up $5,000.00
BART/bus passes/incentives $1,000.00
Office Expense $2,500.00
VOEG contract/IPP $19,000.00
Minor equipment
Minor computer
Comm Resource for Justice
Training and travel
1 $223,597.00
15.36 $2,683,018.00
Pretrial Services ($900K budget shared by Probation/Public Defender)
Total as approved
Deputy Probation Officers 4 $677,260.00
Clerk 1 $74,457.00
5 $751,717.00
Operating costs
Pretrial program evaluation contract $2,500.00
Vehicle maintenance $7,781.00
0 $10,281.00
Non recurring
Vehicle purchase $0.00
$0.00
Total PTS $761,998.00
Subsequent adjustment in allocation ($4,550.00)
$757,448.00
Total allocations (general and PTS)20.36 $3,440,466.00
Total
Notes
Why is the utilization so high?
Why is the utilization so high?
Why is the utilization so high?
Why is the utilization so low?
Why is the utilization so low?
Why is the utilization so high?
Why is the utilization so low?
Why is the utilization so low?
Not included in original budget
Not included in original budget
Not included in original budget
Not included in original budget
Why is the utilization so low?
Why is the utilization so high in June
and overall?
Why is utilization so low? Over-
budgeted?
Vehicle purchase included in original
budget
Specific staff line items and related
costs were detailed in approved budget
but lumped together in demands
Page 140 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Public Defender, p. 1
Public Defender AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE
FY15/16 as
budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Unspent
% unspent
as Overspent % Overspent Notes
2.00 ACER attorney DPD IV 473,000$ 125,572$ 123,729$ 111,828$ 111,828$ 472,957$ 43$
0.50 ACER attorney DPD III 110,000$ 31,047$ 28,626$ 27,019$ 27,019$ 113,711$ (3,710.71)-3.37%
2.00 ACER Legal Assistant 82,000$ 22,374$ 22,382$ 22,149$ 22,149$ 89,054$ (7,054.43)-8.60%
1.00 Clean Slate Legal Assistant 92,000$ 26,244$ 25,306$ 25,767$ 25,767$ 103,084$ (11,083.71)-12.05%
1.00 Domestic Violence DPD IV/Reentry 250,000$ 60,668$ 62,422$ 64,479$ 64,479$ 252,048$ (2,047.62)-0.82%
1.00 Social Worker 117,000$ 33,679$ 33,680$ 33,680$ 33,680$ 134,719$ (17,718.98)-15.14%
7.50 1,124,000$ 299,584$ 296,144$ 284,922$ 284,922$ 1,165,572$ $43 0.0%(41,615.45)-3.70%
Pretrial Services Fund
2.00 Legal Assistant 138,002$ $34,942 $38,088 $38,076 $38,076 $149,182
Subsequent reallocation from Probation 4,550$
2.00 142,552$ 34,942$ 38,088$ 38,076$ 38,076$ 149,182$ (6,630)$ -4.8%
9.50
AB109 dedicated Public Defender fund (separate source of dedicated funds)
1.00 PRCS Attorney 24,987$ 26,237$ 26,241$ 26,241$ 103,706$
1.00 Parole Revocation Attorney 19,085$ 16,940$ 18,958$ 59,691$ 114,674$
2.00 $231,508 44,072$ 43,177$ 45,199$ 85,932$ 218,380$ $13,128 94.3%
Page 141 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Sheriff, p. 1
Sheriff's Office AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June As spent
Approved
but unspent
% spent as
approved
Sergeant 1 266,599$
Deputy Sheriff 20 4,511,842$
Sheriff Specialist 3 401,009$
Clerk - Senior Level 2 218,911$
Detention Services Worker 2 195,339$
Lead Cook 1 107,787$
Administrative Analyst 1 126,295$
30
Deputy Sheriffs 20 400,547$ 390,926$ 426,751$ 431,869$ 458,914$ 425,212$ 456,344$ 439,270$ 436,020$ 381,693$ 411,781$ 406,328$ 5,065,655$
"Professional"9
BHC Deputy 1 16,144$ 15,324$ 16,796$ 18,638$ 18,824$ 16,924$ 17,828$ 20,198$ 16,912$ 15,822$ 16,878$ 29,701$ 219,989$ 90.7%
Overtime $272,923 4.7%
30 5,827,782$ 416,691$ 406,250$ 443,547$ 450,507$ 477,738$ 442,136$ 474,172$ 459,468$ 452,932$ 397,515$ 428,659$ 436,029$ 5,285,644$ 542,138$ 9.3%
Operating costs
Food/clothing/household 456,250$ 18,019$ 19,956$ 17,625$ 17,825$ 15,000$ 15,500$ 17,825$ 16,494$ 16,081$ 15,563$ 16,856$ 17,438$ 204,182$ 252,068$ 44.8%
Monitoring services 55,000$ 2,880$ 786$ 660$ 762$ 606$ 972$ 1,002$ 625$ 774$ 774$ 720$ 382$ 10,943$ 44,057$ 19.9%
"IT support, "Tech Services," "Equipment"40,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 0.0%
Vehicle 48,000$ 5,376$ 5,523$ 5,301$ 5,150$ 4,639$ 4,755$ 4,755$ 4,830$ 3,544$ 3,735$ 4,100$ 3,484$ 55,192$ 115.0%
599,250$ 26,275$ 26,265$ 23,586$ 23,737$ 20,245$ 21,227$ 23,582$ 21,949$ 20,399$ 20,072$ 21,676$ 21,304$ 270,317$ 336,125$ 45.1%
Behavioral Health Court "overhead"80,500$
BHC Occupancy 541$ 1,069$ 1,069$ 1,104$ 825$ 700$ 995$ 1,226$ 1,184$ 2,841$ 1,451$ 1,548$ 14,553$
BHC Rent/Leases 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 20,400$
BCH Office/Admin 95$ 208$ 102$ 638$ 2,434$ 651$ 318$ 48$ 204$ 139$ 242$ 211$ 5,290$
BHC Training -$ -$ -$ 95$ -$ 625$ -$ -$ 130$ -$ -$ -$ 850$
Behavioral Court totals 80,500$ 2,336$ 2,977$ 2,871$ 3,537$ 4,959$ 3,676$ 3,013$ 2,974$ 3,218$ 4,680$ 3,393$ 3,459$ 41,093$ 39,407$ 51.0%
Jail to community programs 200,000$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 16,666$ 199,992$ 8$ 100.0%
Bus "maintenance" "depreciation"79,032$ -$ 79,032$ 0.0%
Total cost of NON-RECURRING line items as approved by the BOS6,786,564$ 5,797,046$ 996,710$ 14.7%
One time capital costs
WCDF Renovation 1,600,000$ 172,118$ 1,427,882$ 10.8%
WCDF Visiting Center 400,000$ 15,728$ 384,272$ 3.9%
MDF Furniture 700,000$ 150,246$ 549,754$ 21.5%
2,700,000$ 338,092$ 2,361,908$ 12.5%
Set-aside for Global Tel Inmate Welfare Fund 754,000$ -$ 754,000$ 0.0%
Total costs billed to AB109 10,240,564$ 6,135,138$ 4,112,618$ 59.9%
Page 142 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Sheriff, p. 2
Sheriff's Office AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE As approved
Sergeant 1 266,599$
Deputy Sheriff 20 4,511,842$
Sheriff Specialist 3 401,009$
Clerk - Senior Level 2 218,911$
Detention Services Worker 2 195,339$
Lead Cook 1 107,787$
Administrative Analyst 1 126,295$
30
Deputy Sheriffs 20
"Professional"9
BHC Deputy 1
Overtime
30 5,827,782$
Operating costs
Food/clothing/household 456,250$
Monitoring services 55,000$
"IT support, "Tech Services," "Equipment"40,000$
Vehicle 48,000$
599,250$
Behavioral Health Court "overhead"80,500$
BHC Occupancy
BHC Rent/Leases
BCH Office/Admin
BHC Training
Behavioral Court totals 80,500$
Jail to community programs 200,000$
Bus "maintenance" "depreciation"79,032$
Total cost of NON-RECURRING line items as approved by the BOS6,786,564$
One time capital costs
WCDF Renovation 1,600,000$
WCDF Visiting Center 400,000$
MDF Furniture 700,000$
2,700,000$
Set-aside for Global Tel Inmate Welfare Fund 754,000$
Total costs billed to AB109 10,240,564$
Overspent
Other than as
approved Notes
Relevance of positions to AB109 intent not articulated
Why is the BHC deputy now paid for through AB109?
($272,923.00)
Overtime was not included in the approved budget. Why is it
now paid for through AB109, since all 30 of the budgeted FTE are
filled?
The titles/grouping of the positions as budgeted and as invoiced
are not consistent with one another, making accurate analysis
difficult
Justification and per-person cost and # served not included.
Increase of 16.5% over previous year "based on Title 115."
Please explain and justify, including # of AB109 inmates
($7,192.00)
($7,192.00)
Why are behavioral health court costs being paid by AB109?
Why is overhead being charged?
Contracts with nonprofit orgs: Should these be transferred to
the "community" budget?
Referred to as both "depreciation" and as "maintenance," Why is
the bus depreciation being booked as a cash expense? How
many AB109 passengers/trips is it now undertaking? Why was
nothing charged?
($7,192.00)
This amount was not spent in 15/16 and should not be carried
into the new year as an element of the base budget
Page 143 of 156
Analysis of FY 2015/2016 Approved-to-Actual AB109 Budgets for Public Agencies in Contra Costa County, CA
Submitted by Community Advisory Board (CAB), 12/9/16
Research and Analysis Conducted for CAB by Reentry Solutions Group Workforce Dvmt Board, p. 1
Workforce Development Board AB109 Budget Analysis
Staff FTE
FY15/16 as
budgeted
8/13-
9/11/15
9/12-
10/12/15
10/13-
11/12/15
11/13-
12/11/15
12/12/15-
1/13/16
1/14-
2/11/16
2/12-
31/11/16
3/12-
4/12/16
4/13-
5/11/16 5/12-6/13/16 6/14-7/13/16
7/14-
8/11/16 Total Variance
% spent as
approved Notes
?One Stop Administrator $16,000
Staff FTEs and associated costs not
provided in either sources or uses
?One Stop Staff $50,000
?Workforce Services Specialist $50,000
?Business Service Representative $70,000
?WDB Executive Director $10,000
0.00 $196,000 7,983.79 9,725.90 7,607.53 4,300.72 3,381.00 4,157.87 3,402.71 152.25 0.00 (1,597.89)33,838.54 6,640.19 79,592.61 116,407.39 40.61%
Operating Costs
Non-specified -$ 4,219.84 2,673.12 1,928.42 2,214.71 1,531.46 3,360.26 1,318.55 0.00 0.00 (2,605.14)17,255.53 4,101.00 35,997.75 (35,997.75)NC
Travel 4,000.00$ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 100.00%
4,000.00$ 12,203.63 12,399.02 9,535.95 6,515.43 4,912.46 11,518.13 4,721.26 152.25 0.00 (4,203.03)51,094.07 10,741.19 119,590.36 80,409.64 2989.76%
Why is this number 29x what was
approved?
Total $200,000 200,000.00
"County Expense Claims"$0 41,239.16 15,892.00 57,131.16 (57,131.16)
None of these show up on the
original budget
"Accruals" for staff position $0 15,387.41 15,387.41 (15,387.41)
"Accruals" for Operating Costs $0 11,891.05 11,891.05 (11,891.05)
Total non-approved elements $0 68,517.62 15,892.00 0.00 84,409.62 (84,409.62)42.2%
42.2% of entire budget spent on
non-approved line items
Totals 12,203.63$ 12,399.02$ 9,535.95$ 6,515.43$ 4,912.46$ 11,518.13$ 4,721.26$ 152.25$ -$ 64,314.59$ 66,986.07$ $10,741 203,999.98$ 71.0%
71% entire budget spent in 4th
quarter
Page 144 of 156
Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership
2017/18 AB109 Budget Proposal Form
Requestor:Contra Costa Superior Court
Funding Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding
Request FTEs
SALARY AND BENEFITS - -
Courtroom Clerk II, Step 3 Pretrial Release Calendar Support
Objectives
1.1.; 1.2.200,405 2.00 200,405 2.00 200,405 2.00
- -
Court Clerk III, Step 5 Veteran's Treatment Court Calendar support 22,844 0.25 22,844 0.25
Program Coordinator, Step 5 Veteran's Treatment Court Program Supervision 144,764 1.00 144,764 1.00
Subtotal 200,405 2.00 200,405 2.00 167,608 1.25 368,013$ 3.25
OPERATING COSTS -
N/A -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Subtotal - - - -$
CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)-
N/A -
-
Subtotal - - - -
Total 200,405$ 2.00 200,405$ 2.00 167,608$ 1.25 368,013$ 3.25
1. FY2017/18 Status Quo Request should reflect continuation of existing programming at the FY2016/17 funding level.
2. FY2017/18 New Funding Request should reflect proposed new programs for FY2017/18.
Objectives
2.1, 2.3, 4.1,
5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 6.2
2017/18 Total
Funding Request
2017/18 Status
Quo Request1
2017/18 New
Funding Request2
Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan
Item #
2016/17 Allocation
Page 145 of 156
DEPARTMENT:
PROGRAM NARRATIVE:
2017/18 Status Quo Request
2017/18 Status Quo Request
The Contra Costa Superior Court respectfully requests continuation of an allocation from the County's FY 17-18 AB 109 funding in the amount
of $200,405. The Court continues to calendar a significant number of cases involving “non serious-non-violent-non-sex related” offenders
returned to their home jurisdictions on Post Release Community Supervision. This additional workload continues to exceed what could
reasonably be handled by a single arraignment clerk. This allocation has allowed the Court allocate a second dedicated clerk to each of the very
busy, high volume arraignment calendars. The Court has assigned two experienced Courtroom Clerks for this purpose who have been trained
and can perform the duties required to expedite the needed processing of case files and data entry into case management. The additional staff
resources enables the Court to efficiently process these cases, reducing backlogs and delays. This portion of the proposal reinforces key
objectives articulated in the CCP's Strategic Plan, including:
Objective 1.1. Increase public safety
Objective 1.2. Following arrest, better identify persons who can safely be released and those who should be held in physical custody pretrial so
as to reduce the pretrial jail population to maximize capacity for the sentenced AB 109 population.
2017/18 New Funding Request
The Court is seeking new funding for FY 2017/18 in the amount of $167,608 to establish a Veteran's Treatment Court Program (VTC) beginning
2017 and equal on-going funding for the program thereafter. If approved, this funding will be used for the salaries and benefits costs of
employees assigned to the VTC. The amount needed for salaries is $106,365.21 plus $61,242.34 for benefit costs for one part-time court
employee and one full-time court employee to operate the VTC.
VTC's promote treatment, sobriety, recovery, and stability through a coordinated response involving cooperation and collaboration with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), county agencies and community based organizations.
VTC Programs come at a relatively low cost to local taxpayers and will lower recidivism and help to reintegrate veterans into their families and
communities. The VTC is in alignment with the Community Corrections Partnership’s (CCP) key objectives. The proposal reinforces key
objectives articulated in the CCP's Strategic Plan, including:
Objective 2.1. Provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all cases
Objective 2.3. Utilize evidence - based practices in sentencing
Objective 4.1. Establish and maintain an entry point to an integrated reentry system of care
Objective 5.1. Maximize public safety, accountability, and service referrals
Objective 5.2. Assist in providing access to a full continuum of reentry and reintegration services
Objective 5.3. Provide and enhance integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB109 Population
Objective 5.4. Increase mentoring, encourage family and community engagement in reentry and reintegration
Objective 6.2. Maximize interagency coordination
Page 146 of 156
SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
P.O. Box 911
Martinez, CA 94553
FY 17-18 Veteran’s Treatment Court Funding Request
Summary
The Contra Costa Superior Court is respectfully requesting both one-time and ongoing
funding from the Contra Costa County’s AB 109 allocation. The one-time funding in FY 2017-
18 would enable the court to establish a Veteran’s Treatment Court (VTC).
Veterans Treatment Court
A Veteran’s Treatment Court is a collaborative court focused on veterans who are
involved with the justice system and whose court cases are affected by issues such as sexual
trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental
health problems stemming from service in the United States military. The goal of the court is
to help participants avoid recidivism by addressing the root causes of their behaviors and by
reintegrating them into their communities with support.
Typical veteran’s court services include one-on-one judicial supervision, group
evaluation by the collaborative team, probation supervision, employment and housing
assistance, treatment and medication monitoring, counseling and mentoring.
Benefits of Veterans Treatment Court
Veterans Treatment Courts promote treatment, sobriety, recovery, and stability
through a coordinated response involving cooperation and collaboration with the District
Attorney’s Office, Criminal Defense, the Probation Department, and the county Veterans
Service Office, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), health-care networks, employment
Page 147 of 156
and housing agencies, community based organizations, volunteer mentors who are usually
also veterans, and family support organizations.
A Veterans Treatment Court can help veterans reclaim their lives, and repair the
collateral damage to their families caused by their service connected injury. Veterans
Treatment Courts have been shown to reduce criminal recidivism; facilitate participant
sobriety; increase compliance with treatment and other court-ordered conditions; improve
access to VA benefits and services; improve family relationships and social support
connections; improve life stability; and regain lost pride. These courts assist those who have
served our nation by helping them remove criminal convictions from their record1
Establishment of the Veterans Treatment Court (VTC)
According to the U.S. Department of Justice “In 2011–12, an estimated 181,500
veterans (8% of all inmates in state and federal prison and local jail excluding military-
operated facilities) were serving time in correctional facilities”.2
Veteran’s Treatment Courts can provide savings to counties. One way counties save
is by avoiding the costs of incarcerating offenders. Following AB 109 Realignment, offenders
now may serve jail and prison time in the county jail. Within Orange County, the cost of both
jail and prison bed days in 2015 was $136.58 per day. That year the Veterans Treatment
Court program in Orange County “saved 3,333 jail and prison bed days prior to the
application of custody credits, which resulted in an estimated cost savings of $453,021. Since
its inception the program has saved a total of 19,369 jail and prison bed days, for a cost
savings of $2,485,235”.3
Contra Costa County Probation Department has supervised approximately “2,500
AB109 offenders. Only 500 AB109 offenders were screened for veterans’ status. The
remaining 2,000 AB109 offenders’ veterans’ status is unknown”.4 We are in the process of
1 Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Santa Ana, CA, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, 2008, http://www.occourts.org/directory/collaborative-courts/reports/2014_annual_report.pdf.
2 Bronson, Jennifer et al. “Veterans in Prison and Jail, 2011–12.” U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs,
Dec. 2015, pp. 1–1. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf.
3 Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Santa Ana, CA, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, 2008, http://www.occourts.org/directory/collaborative-courts/reports/2014_annual_report.pdf.
4 Contra Costa County Probation Department, 2016
Page 148 of 156
contacting justice partners to develop a more comprehensive data collection process for
identifying local veterans.
Currently, there are 8 active AB109 offenders in Contra Costa County who have been
identified as veterans.5 AB109 offenders are provided ancillary services such as housing,
employment, and education, mentoring and legal services. The VA can provide these
ancillary services and also a host of other services including healthcare to qualified veterans
as a part of their VTC referral and program evaluation.
The costs to provide healthcare, housing and other services for eligible veterans can
be paid through the VA and save substantial county funds. In 2015 the VA paid $166,541.00
in medical care expenses for veterans in Contra Costa County.6 This amount includes the
costs for substance abuse treatment.
“The Justice Department’s most recent survey of prison inmates found that an estimated 60%
of the 140,000 veterans in Federal and State prisons were struggling with a substance use
disorder, while approximately 25% reported being under the influence of drugs at the time of
their offense. Many of these issues can be connected to the trauma of combat and other
service‐related experiences and, for this reason, require appropriate measures to address
them”.7
Seven AB109 offenders served by Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drug
Services were veterans.8 The estimated cost for residential substance abuse treatment
in Contra Costa County is $62.00 per day for a period of 90 days, which is $5,580.00.
The costs to provide services to eligible veterans can be shifted from the county to the
VA.
5 Contra Costa County Probation Department, 2016
6 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics
http://www.va.gov/vetdata/expenditures.asp
7 Mandated Treatment and Drug Courts." Human Rights and Drug Control: The False Dichotomy (n.d.): n. pag. The White
House. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 31 Aug. 2016
8 Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drug Services, 2016.
Page 149 of 156
According to Veterans Affairs (VA) there are 53,369 veterans within Contra Costa
County, of which 11,351 veterans are enrolled in VA services. It is estimated that there are
approximately 100-150 veterans within the court’s jurisdiction.9
Between July 2015 and June 2016 the Contra Costa County Veteran’s Service Office
has provided services to 7,600 veterans by connecting veterans to VA benefits. The
Veterans Service Office will connect Veteran’s Treatment Court participants with mentors to
support them through the court process.
After meeting with representatives of the Contra Costa Veteran’s Services Office, the
Contra Costa Superior Court purposes establishing a similar court in this jurisdiction.
Court Process
Once a veteran is identified within the criminal justice system a referral to the Veterans
Treatment Court (VTC) can be made. The overall purpose of this court is to enhance public
safety by providing a judicially supervised regimen of treatment intervention to justice-
involved veterans with military service related needs. The court session will be held the 2nd
Friday of each month from 1:30 p.m.to 5:00 p.m. The VTC will operate in a manner that is
consistent with evidence-based practices and California Penal Code Section 1170.9.
Offenders will be considered for the VTC pursuant to California Penal Code Section
1170.9. In addition to PC 1170.9 the court has established initial eligibility criteria for the VTC
(subject to modification):
To be considered for the VTC the offender must be a Contra Costa County resident.
The offender must be active duty, retired, honorably discharged or generally discharged from
the military. The court may consider a dishonorable discharge.
The VTC will not permit participation by someone convicted of causing the death of
another; crime involving great bodily injury; violent felony pursuant to PC 667.5(c); arson
pursuant to PC 457.1; 3rd DUI; sexual offense; elder abuse; or child abuse. Additionally, the
court will not permit the admission of a documented gang member. The court will
9 MacVicar, Duncan. Veteran's Treatment Court Offenses. Los Altos, CA, 2016.
Page 150 of 156
presumptively exclude offenders convicted of a Serious Felony pursuant to PC 1192.7. The
ultimate decision for inclusion or exclusion will rest with the VTC Judge.
The VTC will use an evidence-based, non-adversarial approach consistent with the
National Association for Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)10. Policies and procedures will
be developed consistent with the law, best practice standards and interagency agreements. A
collaborative team will be assembled consisting of a Superior Court Judge, Deputy District
Attorney, Criminal Defense, Probation Officer, a Mental Health Department Representative, a
Behavioral Health Department Representative, a Veterans Justice Outreach Specialist, and a
Veterans Services Officer.
The roles and responsibilities of each team members are as follows:
Role Responsibility
Judge
Reviews cases; decision maker; imposes sanctions; approves incentives
Deputy District Attorney Prosecutes; promotes public safety; negotiates plea agreements. Refers
appropriate defendants to the VTC.
Criminal Defense Legal Counsel for defendant; negotiate plea agreements; promotes clients
legal rights, health and well-being. Refers appropriate cases/defendants
to the VTC.
Probation Officer Community Supervision: provides enforcement of court orders; provides
court reports; drug and alcohol testing; conducts searches and arrest;
conduct visits.
Case Management: prepares rehabilitative plan; provides counseling;
assists in developing and coordinating treatment programs and other
services. Refers appropriate defendants to the VTC.
Veteran’s Service
Officer
Provides veterans benefits information; assists with filing benefits
applications; provides referrals for services; and provides mentor to
coach, guide, advocate, and support veterans.
County Mental Health
Representative
Provides Mental Health Assessment and care.
County Behavioral
Health Representative
Provides Substance Abuse Assessment and care. Coordinates Alcohol
and Other Drug Services.
Veteran’s Justice
Outreach Specialist
Ensures access to VA and other community services. Case management:
provides referral for veteran’s services.
10 “Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.” NADCP Home, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2013,
http://www.nadcp.org/standards.
Page 151 of 156
Personnel
The court is seeking $167,608.00 in fiscal year 2017-2018 for court personnel costs
beginning July 1, 2017 and this amount annually thereafter:
Court Personnel
0.25 FTE Clerk III
1 FTE Program Coordinator
Position Responsibilities
Clerk III Provides public assistance at the counter and on the phone.
Prepares and maintains case files and a variety of legal
documents. Enters data into court case files. Accepts and the
payment of fines and/or fees collected at the counter and
makes the appropriate entries on the automated case record.
Responds to correspondence from the public. Pulls cases for
court; and files documents.
Program Coordinator Provides program supervision. Oversees budget. Develops and
implements policies and procedures. Builds partnerships and
leverages resources; and community support. Oversees
contracts and program evaluation.
County Personnel
We understand the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation Department may
need additional funding to assign staff to the VTC. The Public Defender’s Office has
indicated that it is unable to assign a part-time Deputy Public Defender to the VTC without
additional funding.
The court is seeking $106,365.00 plus $61,243.00 for benefit costs, totaling
$167,608.00 annually to cover salaries and benefits for one part-time court employee and
one full-time court employee to operate the Veterans' Treatment Court. A detailed narrative
and budget are attached.
Recidivism Reduction
A recent survey of California Veteran’s Treatment Courts was conducted by Duncan
MacVicar, Consultant for the California Veterans Legal Task Force. The survey results
Page 152 of 156
included the following top three offenses within 8 surveyed Veteran Treatment Courts: 1)
DUI/Public Drunkenness; 2) Drug use/Drug Possession; 3) Domestic Violence11
“Treatment and case management in lieu of incarceration can dramatically reduce
recidivism while simultaneously lowering the costs of rehabilitation for society”12. Veterans
Treatment Courts not only benefit justice system-involved veterans, but taxpayers as well. In
addition to significantly lower recidivism rates for participants who complete them, they also
save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have otherwise been spent on
incarceration and treatment.
In addition, these programs contribute to the community by reducing the effects of
criminal behaviors on community well-being. Veterans Treatment Courts also connect eligible
participants to VA treatment services and resources — potentially off-setting substantial costs
that would have been otherwise incurred by a local jurisdiction if participants were to be
incarcerated and receive services through the traditional court system.
In 2013, the state of California’s recidivism rate was close to 70%.13 Courts have
focused on ways to reduce recidivism and one proven way is through VTC’s. In 2015 the
Recidivism Rate of Orange County Superior Court’s Veterans Treatment Courts was
10.5%14. Also, in 2016 the Santa Clara County Superior Court Veterans Treatment Court had
a 15% recidivism rate and Judge Stephen V. Manley stated, “I know with PTSD, if we’re not
treating it, they will continue in our system ”15.
Veterans Treatment Court Programs come at a relatively low cost to local taxpayers
and, again, will lower recidivism and help to reintegrate veterans into their families and
communities. VTC’s can have a positive impact by reducing recidivism and conserving
resources. It would, therefore, be beneficial for Contra Costa County to implement a veterans’
11 MacVicar, Duncan. Veteran's Treatment Court Offenses. Los Altos, CA, 2016, Veteran’s Treatment Court Offenses.
12 Jones, Allison E. "Veterans Treatment Courts: Do Status-Based Problem-Solving Courts Create an Improper Privileged
Class of Criminal Defendants?" Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. N.p., 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.
13 State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “2013 Outcome Evaluation Report”.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/research_documents/outcome_evaluation_report_2013.pdf
14 Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Santa Ana, CA, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, 2008, http://www.occourts.org/directory/collaborative-courts/reports/2014_annual_report.pdf.
15 Moga, Diana."9 Questions with A Veteran Treatment Court Judge." Task Purpose. N.p., 11 July 2016. Web.1 Sept. 2016.
Page 153 of 156
treatment court program. The Veteran’s Treatment Court is in alignment with the Community
Corrections Partnership’s (CCP) key objectives.
Key Objectives
This proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan,
including:
Objective 2.1.Provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all cases
Objective 2.3. Utilize evidence--‐based practices in sentencing
Objective 4.1. Establish and maintain an entry point to an integrated reentry system of care
Objective 5.1. Maximize public safety, accountability, and service referrals
Objective 5.2. Assist in providing access to a full continuum of reentry and reintegration
services
Objective 5.3. Provide and enhance integrated programs and services for successful reentry
of the AB 109 Population
Objective 5.4. Increase mentoring, encourage family and community engagement in reentry
and reintegration
Objective 6.2. Maximize interagency coordination
The Veteran’s Treatment Court is dependent upon the coordination of services and
collaborative efforts of the Court, District Attorney, Defense Counsel, Probation Department,
Mental Health Department, Behavioral Health Department, Veterans Service Officer, the
Department of Veteran’s Affairs, and other service providers. With your support we look
forward to implementing a Veteran’s Treatment Court to meet the needs of the community.
Page 154 of 156
Attachment E
as of December 6, 2016
2015/16 2016/17
ONGOING STATUS QUO
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Sheriff
Salaries & Benefits 5,827,782 5,983,717
Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250
Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000
IT Support 40,000 40,000
Vehicle Maintenance/Depreciation 48,000 -
Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500
Transport Bus Maintenance 79,032 -
"Jail to Community" Program 200,000 200,000
Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling - 731,000
Sheriff Total 6,786,564 7,546,467
Probation
Salaries & Benefits 2,459,421 2,489,970
Operating Costs 223,597 224,923
Salaries & Benefits‐Pre‐Trial Services Program 747,167 719,322
Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 10,281 75,497
Probation Total 3,440,466 3,509,712
Behavioral Health
Salaries & Benefits 827,352 827,352
Operating Costs 91,205 97,533
Contracts 1,315,858 1,285,900
Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 9,018 22,448
Travel - 10,200
Behavioral Health Total 2,243,433 2,243,433
Health Services--Detention Health Services
Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 180,324 180,324
Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 283,376 283,376
Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 475,004 475,004
Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 116,858 116,858
Detention Health Services Total 1,055,562 1,055,562
Public Defender
Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 209,000 316,930
Sal & Ben-ACER Program 665,000 697,958
Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordinator 250,000 257,399
Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program - 151,080
Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 142,552 147,541
Public Defender Total 1,266,552 1,570,908
District Attorney
Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 87,434 87,434
Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 592,516 592,516
Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 606,169 606,169
Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 89,624 89,624
Salaries & Benefits-Add (1) Gen'l Clerk - 68,059
Operating Costs 82,995 82,995
District Attorney Total 1,458,738 1,526,797
Employment & Human Services
Data Collection/Evaluation 40,000 -
EHSD Total 40,000 -
EHSD‐‐ Workforce Development Board
Salaries & Benefits 196,000 196,000
Travel 4,000 4,000
EHSD-WDB Total 200,000 200,000
County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice
Salaries & Benefits 225,000 233,650
Data Collection/ Program Review 225,000 -
Ceasefire Program Contract 110,000
Data Evaluation & Systems Planning 259,000
Operating Costs 26,600
CAO/ORJ Total 450,000 629,250 1
CCC Police Chief's Association
Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 522,000 522,000
CCC Police Chiefs' Total 522,000 522,000
Community Programs
Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000
Implementation of (3) One-Stop Centers 1,200,000 1,285,036
Short and Long-Term Housing Access 500,000 1,030,000
Peer and Mentoring Services 100,000 -
Development of a "Re-entry Resource Guide"15,000 15,000
Legal Services 80,000 150,000
Family Reunification 100,000 -
Mentoring and Family Reunification - 200,000
Community Programs Total 3,995,000 4,680,036
Superior Court
Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial - 200,405
Superior Court Total 200,405
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 21,458,315 23,684,570
Notes:
(as adopted in the 2016/17 County Budget with an adjustment for the Office of Reentry & Justice on October 18, 2016)
AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM
FY 2016/17 SUMMARY OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
1. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount only.
Page 155 of 156
2016/17 2017/18 2017/18 2017/18
ONGOING REQUEST 4% FLOOR ADJ.CCP RECOMMENDED
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Sheriff
Salaries & Benefits 5,983,717 6,649,947 - 6,649,947
Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 - 456,250
Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 - 55,000
IT Support 40,000 40,000 - 40,000
Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 - 80,500
"Jail to Community" Program 200,000 200,000 - 200,000
Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 731,000 755,000 - 755,000
Sheriff Total 7,546,467 8,236,697 - 8,236,697
Probation
Salaries & Benefits 2,489,970 2,564,669 26,759 2,591,428
Operating Costs 224,923 169,098 169,098
Salaries & Benefits-Pre-Trial Services Program 719,322 740,902 7,730 748,632
Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 75,497 77,762 77,762
Probation Total 3,448,962 3,552,431 34,489 3,586,920
Behavioral Health
Salaries & Benefits 827,352 996,180 - 996,180
Operating Costs 97,533 58,752 - 58,752
Contracts 1,285,900 1,292,088 - 1,292,088
Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 22,448 22,448 - 22,448
Travel 10,200 10,200 - 10,200
Behavioral Health Total 2,243,433 2,379,668 - 2,379,668
Health Services--Detention Health Services
Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 180,324 180,324 7,213 187,537
Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 283,376 283,376 11,335 294,711
Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 475,004 475,004 19,000 494,004
Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 116,858 116,858 4,674 121,532
Detention Health Services Total 1,055,562 1,055,562 42,222 1,097,784
Public Defender
Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 316,930 397,269 - 397,269
Sal & Ben-ACER Program 697,958 872,787 - 872,787
Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordinator 257,399 267,971 - 267,971
Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program 151,080 172,575 - 172,575
Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 147,541 190,401 - 190,401
Public Defender Total 1,570,908 1,901,003 - 1,901,003
District Attorney
Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 87,434 109,231 - 109,231
Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 592,516 649,491 - 649,491
Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 606,169 693,512 - 693,512
Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 89,624 64,094 - 64,094
Salaries & Benefits-Gen'l Clerk 68,059 63,536 - 63,536
Operating Costs 82,995 86,109 - 86,109
District Attorney Total 1,526,797 1,665,973 - 1,665,973
EHSD‐‐ Workforce Development Board
Salaries & Benefits 196,000 196,000 8,000 204,000
Travel 4,000 4,000 - 4,000
EHSD-WDB Total 200,000 200,000 8,000 208,000
County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice
Salaries & Benefits 233,650 489,479 27,600 517,079
Ceasefire Program Contract 110,000 110,000 - 110,000
Data Evaluation & Systems Planning 259,000 83,021 - 83,021
Operating Costs 26,600 7,500 - 7,500
CAO/ORJ Total1 690,000 690,000 27,600 717,600
CCC Police Chief's Association
Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 522,000 522,000 20,880 542,880
CCC Police Chiefs' Total 522,000 522,000 20,880 542,880
Community Programs
Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000
Implementation of (3) One-Stop Centers 1,285,036 - - -
Network System of Services - 820,000 - 820,000
Reentry Success Center - 465,000 - 465,000
Short and Long-Term Housing Access 1,030,000 1,030,000 - 1,030,000
Development of a "Re-entry Resource Guide"15,000 - - -
Legal Services 150,000 150,000 - 150,000
Mentoring and Family Reunification 200,000 200,000 - 200,000
Connections to Resources - 15,000 - 15,000
17/18 4% Floor Allocation - TBD - - 187,201 187,201
Community Programs Total 4,680,036 4,680,000 187,201 4,867,201
Superior Court
Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial 200,405 200,405 8,016 208,421
Superior Court Total 200,405 200,405 8,016 208,421
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 23,684,570 25,083,739 328,410 25,412,149
Notes:
as of January 13, 2017
1. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount only.
+=
AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM
FY 2017/18 CCP RECOMMENDED BUDGET SUMMARY
Page 156 of 156