HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 03062017 - 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
March 6, 2017
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
1. Introductions
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may
be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the February 6, 2017 meeting. (Page 4)
4.CONSIDER receiving an update on the status of Reentry Strategic and AB109 Operational Plan updates
and approving the Office of Reentry and Justice to commence a request for proposals process to contract for
facilitation and plan development services to assist with the update to both plans. (Lara DeLaney, Office
of Reentry and Justice)(Page 8)
5. CONSIDER accepting a verbal update on the status of certain fees assessed in the juvenile justice system
and determine whether the current moratorium on the assessment and collection of those fees should be
made permanent for final consideration by the Board of Supervisors. (Todd Billeci, County Probation
Officer)(Page 10)
6. CONSIDER introducing referral on County law enforcement participation and interaction with Federal
immigration authorities and provide direction to staff on next steps. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff)
(Page 26)
7. The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, April 3, 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:03/06/2017
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - February 6, 2017
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - February 6, 2017
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its February 6, 2017
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the February 6, 2017 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - February 2017
Page 4 of 39
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
February 6, 2017
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:David J. Twa, County Administrator
Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator - Committee Staff
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator - ORJ Director
1.Introductions
Convene - 9:00 AM
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
The Committee received public comment.
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the December 12, 2016 meeting.
Approved as presented.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4.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 the scoring had included a greater proportion of points dedicated to the
showing of an understanding and experience specifically related to cultural
2.
Page 5 of 39
competence, diversity, and race related issues.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Forward to the Board of supervisors on the consent calendar.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.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.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Schedule for discussion at the full Board of Supervisors
Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6.REVIEW and APPROVE a fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal, as recommended by
the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Bring the final allocation of the Community Advisory Board (CAB) budget back
to the Committee at a future date once the CAB has completed its recommendation.
2. Provide a budget to actuals comparison for fiscal year 2015/16 and 2016/17 to the
Committee at a future date.
3. Increase the "Jail to Community" allocation in the Sheriff's Office budget by
$8,000, from $200,000 to $208,000 (equivelant of 4%).
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 6, 2017 at 10:30 AM.
8.Adjourn
Adjourned - 11:11 AM
Page 6 of 39
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 7 of 39
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:03/06/2017
Subject:REENTRY STRATEGIC PLAN AND AB109 OPERATIONAL PLAN UPDATES
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: REENTRY STRATEGIC PLAN AND AB109 OPERATIONAL PLAN UPDATES
Presenter: Lara DeLaney, 5-1097 Contact: Lara DeLaney, 5-1097
Referral History:
On August 25, 2009, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council on how the
County might support and coordinate County and local non-profit organization resources to create a network of reentry services for individuals leaving jail or
prison and reintegrating in local communities. This initiative led to the creation of the County’s first Reentry Strategic Plan.
On March 22, 2011, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors accepted and approved the Reentry Strategic Plan, which was the product of a nine-month
process initiated in 2009 that involved approximately 200 reentry stakeholders from across Contra Costa County. The “Contra Costa County Reentry and
Reintegration Collaborative” (CCCRRC) convened 14 meetings including County, city and state agencies, elected officials, service providers, formerly
incarcerated individuals, community-based organizations, and residents from across the county to gather input and advise on the Reentry Strategic Plan. The
Contra Costa County Reentry Strategic Plan was intended to outline a path to improve coordination and collaboration among reentry stakeholders and,
ultimately, to improve outcomes for our returning residents. The Urban Strategies Council prepared the Reentry Strategic Plan[1], with funding from the California
Endowment.
Subsequent to the adoption of the Reentry Strategic Plan in March 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill
109), which transferred responsibility for supervising individuals convicted of specific low-level felony offenses from the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation to counties. This Act tasked local government at the county level with developing a new approach to reducing recidivism among this
population. AB 109 took effect October 1, 2011.
AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of Supervisors a plan for implementing Public
Safety Realignment. The Board of Supervisors adopted the FY 2011-12 Contra Costa County Realignment Implementation Plan on October 4, 2011 (Item
D.5[2]), as developed and recommended by the Executive Committee of the CCP. The Plan was based on an allocation of $4.6 million of AB 109 funding to
Contra Costa County and recognized “there is an ongoing need to secure funding for the County’s Strategic Reentry Plan separate and apart from the funding
allocated for criminal justice realignment.”
Recognizing the need to develop an overarching Operational Plan to guide the County’s implementation of Public Safety Realignment, the CCP Executive
Committee created an Ad Hoc Committee to develop an Operational Plan at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee developed the plan at meetings
held throughout the county during September and October 2012. The Executive Committee adopted the Operational Plan as amended on November 9, 2012[1].
The Operational Plan identified the “Overarching Approach” to AB 109 in the County: Use collaboration, innovation, and ongoing evaluation to foster safety and
long-term liberty in Contra Costa; the “Primary Approaches for Identifying Priorities:” Is it consistent with the statutory scheme and legislative intent of AB 109;
Agreements of Principle and Practice; and Objectives and Strategies for each stage of the reentry process from “Arrest and Pre-Trial” to “Coordination and
Administration of AB 109 Programs.”
Roughly six years have passed since these plans were developed and adopted, and the County’s reentry system has undergone a significant transformation in that
short amount of time. Many of the objectives of the plans have been accomplished including the following, to name just a few:
The County has implemented a Pre-Trial services program that uses an evidenced based assessment tool;
The County has implemented an Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program to provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all
cases;
The County has initiated a pre-release planning process;
The County has identified and supported the use of community-based service providers through multiple RFP processes;
The County has partnered with local law enforcement for information sharing, compliance checks, and service referrals;
The County has helped to develop and use evaluation practices to assess progress and needs;
The County has facilitated access to and sharing of inter-agency data, as appropriate;
The County seeks to maximize interagency coordination, and has recently established the Office of Reentry and Justice to continue in these efforts.
While much has been accomplished, there is now a need to update the Reentry Strategic Plan and the AB 109 Operational Plan
[1] Available at http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3091/Public-Safety-Realignment
[1] Available at http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/25650
[2] Available at
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2011/BOS/20111004_164/9178_Contra%20Costa%20County%20AB109%202011%20Implementation%20Plan%209-30-11.pdf
Referral Update:
In September 2016, the County was notified that it had been awarded a federal grant called “Smart Reentry: Focus on Evidence-based Strategies for Successful
Page 8 of 39
In September 2016, the County was notified that it had been awarded a federal grant called “Smart Reentry: Focus on Evidence-based Strategies for Successful
Reentry from Incarceration to Community.” During the first year planning phase of the grant, the County is required to develop a local reentry strategic plan that
describes our long-term reentry strategy, including measurable annual and 5-year performance outcomes that are related to the long-term goals of increasing
public safety and reducing recidivism. One goal of the plan must be achieving a 50 percent reduction in the rate of recidivism over a 5-year period.
The strategic planning process should provide an opportunity for the grant’s Reentry Task Force to ensure stakeholders and policymakers work together to
identify and address local policy driven or procedural barriers to effective reentry, especially among the transition age youth (18-25) population.
In developing the plan, we are expected to engage representatives from the fields of public safety, corrections, housing (including partnerships with public
housing authorities), homeless services providers, health, education, substance abuse, children and families, victims’ services, employment, and business.
The Reentry Strategic Plan must have the following components:
A multi-disciplinary, jurisdiction-wide reentry strategy to improve outcomes for individuals coming home from incarceration that incorporates the federally
established “Fundamental Principles of Evidence-Based Correctional Practice”
A detailed implementation schedule and sustainability plan
A description of the role local governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community stakeholders will play in the reentry strategy with
certification of the involvement of such agencies and organizations
Extensive evidence of collaboration with state and local government agencies overseeing health, mental health, housing (including partnerships with public
housing authorities), homeless services, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims’ services, employment services, and local law enforcement
A discussion of the role state corrections departments, community corrections agencies, local jails, and/or juvenile corrections systems have in ensuring
successful reentry of individuals into local communities from incarceration.
The Smart Reentry grant budget includes $40,000 for the Reentry Strategic Plan process. The FY 2016-17 budget for the establishment and operations of the
Office of Reentry and Justice has designated $20,000 for this purpose. Additional funding for the update of the AB 109 Operational Plan could be provided from
the AB 109 Planning and Implementation funds the County has received annually from the State, which is expected to be $200,000 in FY 2017-18.
ORJ staff recommends that the County undertake a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to identify a contractor(s) who can provide facilitation and plan
development services. Ideally, we would like to identify a contractor who is capable of undertaking the update of both plans, as there is a relationship between
the Plans and an understanding of the reentry and public safety realignment systems in Contra Costa County that would benefit from a single provider. ORJ staff
will assemble an RFQ Advisory Group to solicit input on the development of the RFQ.
The proposed timeline for the procurement process, which is anticipated to take 10 weeks, is as follows:
The timeline includes a mandatory Bidders Conference, which staff will endeavor to include remote access capabilities (webinar).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. RECEIVE an update on the status of Reentry Strategic and AB109 Operational Plan updates, and
2. APPROVE the Office of Reentry and Justice to commence a request for proposals process to contract for facilitation and plan development services to assist
with the update to both plans, and
3. PROVIDE additional direction to staff as necessary.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 9 of 39
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:03/06/2017
Subject:REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION
DEPARTMENT
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION
DEPARTMENT
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
On July 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a review
of fees assessed for services provided while a minor is in the custody of the Probation
Department. Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides that the County may assess a fee
for the provision of services to a minor in the custody of its Probation Department. This request
was following a statewide discussion as to whether or not these fees should be imposed by
counties on the parents or legal guardians of minors in the custody of the County. For reference,
included as an attachment is a survey conducted by the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) trying to determine what policies individual counties have put in place related to juvenile
fees (Attachment A). In addition, the County of Alameda adopted a resolution in March 2016
imposing a moratorium on juvenile fees and in July 2016 adopted an ordinance to repeal all
juvenile fees. Copies of the Board Letter, Resolution and Ordinance are included in the agenda
packet for reference (Attachment B).
Collection of Fees
For several years, the County operated an Office of Revenue Collection (ORC) to centralize the
collection of fees, fines and other assessments due to the County. The ORC was discontinued and
the responsibility for the collection of fees was returned to the departments that originally
imposed the fee. In the case of the Probation Department, the responsibility for both juvenile fees
and adult public defense fees were assigned. At the time, it was determined to be inefficient to
establish a collection unit in both the Probation Department and Public Defender's Office.
Authority for Juvenile Fees
California Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides counties the ability to recover costs
Page 10 of 39
California Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides counties the ability to recover costs
for the provision of services to juveniles in-custody. In 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted
Resolution No. 03/591 establishing a fee for reimbursement of the actual cost of care of a minor in
detention at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) and Juvenile Hall. The
Resolution authorized the Probation Department to collect $17.03 per day, per minor. In 2010,
the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/253 increasing the fee from $17.03 per
day to $30.00 per day following legislative action increasing the maximum recovery amount to
$30.00 per day. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2009-23 establishing a
$17-per-day fee for electronic surveillance of minors who are under Probation supervision.
Probation Collections Unit
The fiscal year 2016/17 budget authorizes 4.0 FTE employees to staff the Probation Collections
Unit (PCU); (2) two Collections Enforcement Officers, (1) one Accounting Technician and (1)
one Clerk-Specialist Level position. A summary of the Recommended Budget is summarized
below:
Note that the fiscal year 2016/17 budget plan for PCU anticipates a Net County Cost (NCC) of
($289,938). Since the NCC is a negative number, this should be looked at as a revenue for
purposes of analyzing budgetary impacts.
PCU Actual Performance Since Inception
The table below illustrates actual budget performance of PCU since inception in fiscal year
2010/11. Over the past six years, PCU has generated an between $200k-250k in net collections
revenue for the County each year. In fiscal year 2015/16 (shown in the YTD Actuals column) that
figure has increased to approximately $374k due to cost savings from a vacancy in the unit and
higher than average collection revenue.
Page 11 of 39
* Note that the "YTD Actuals" column reflects the fiscal year 2015/16 unaudited actuals.
Composition of Revenues
Since the PCU collects revenue for both the Probation and Public Defender departments, it is
important to illustrate the revenues generated from each stream of fee recovery revenue. The table
below shows the breakdown of Gross Revenue in each fiscal year, by fee type:
The most important finding to be made from the information in the table above is that annual fee
revenue from each source exceeds the average net collections revenue from year to year discussed
earlier in this report. That is to say that discontinuing one of the two fees would result in PCU
being unable to cover its annual operating costs from year-to-year.
How Does PCU Compare to the Cost of Running Juvenile Hall?
The PCU operates in a separate cost center within the Probation Department budget. However,
since the PCU currently provides a net collections revenue benefit to the department as a whole, it
is important to illustrate the relative costs to the County for operating the Juvenile Hall as an
illustration. A summary of the fiscal year 2016/17 Recommended Budget is provided below for
reference:
Current Status of Accounts Receivable
Currently, the PCU has $16.9 million in accounts receivable outstanding through June 30, 2016.
A breakdown by fee type and year of assessment is attached to this staff report for reference
(Attachment C). In summary, $8.55 million is attributable to Juvenile Fees and $8.34 million is
attributable to Public Defender fees with the oldest account dating back to 1990.
Referral Update:
The Public Protection Committee heard this item on September 26, 2016 and forwarded the issue
Page 12 of 39
The Public Protection Committee heard this item on September 26, 2016 and forwarded the issue
to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Ultimately, on October 25, 2016 the Board adopted
Resolution No. 2016/606, which established a moratorium on the assessment and collection of
juvenile fees. Concurrently, the Board directed staff to return to the Public Protection Committee
and forward a recommendation back to the Board by May 31, 2017.
Today's action is to receive an update from the County Probation Officer on the status of juvenile
fees and the current moratorium. In addition, the Committee is being asked to determine whether
or not to recommend the permanent repeal of juvenile fees for final consideration by the Board of
Supervisors.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT a verbal update on the status of certain fees assessed in the juvenile justice system,
and
2. DETERMINE whether the current moratorium on the assessment and collection of those fees
should be made permanent for final consideration by the Board of Supervisors
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A - CSAC Survey Results - Juvenile Fees
Attachment B - County of Alameda Resolution Establishing Moratorium and Ordinance on Juvenile Fees
Attachment C - PCU Outstanding Balances through June 30, 2016
Page 13 of 39
CSAC Survey Results
Juvenile Fees
August 2016
Alameda County placed a moratorium on the assessment and collection of fees in March 2016.
Los Angeles County placed a moratorium on the assessment of fees in 2009.
San Francisco County has not charged fees to date for these activities.
Fresno County the $50 juvenile administrative fee is charged to the parents when a juvenile is
cited by law enforcement.
Santa Barbara County does charge administrative fees to juveniles related to community service
work and we charge their parents for basic juvenile hall and camp costs related to their child's
support and enrollment. There is also a 10% restitution collection surcharge.
Santa Cruz County charges a daily juvenile hall charge, which is $ 27 per day. They do not charge
supervision fees, records sealing fees or charge for electronic monitoring.
Kern County does not charge juvenile administration fees.
Page 14 of 39
Page 15 of 39
Page 16 of 39
Page 17 of 39
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-6 6 ---
A RESOLUTION PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF ALL JUVENILE PROBATION FEES AND THE JUVENILE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
WHEREAS , the County of Alameda currently charges youth involved in the juvenile justice
system and their families six Probation Department fees and a Public Defender fee ; and
WHEREAS , the seven fees are as follows : 1) a fee for each night spent in Juvenile Hall , 2) a fee
for each night spent at Camp Wilmont Sweeney, 3) a one-time fee for public defender
representation, 4) a one-time investigation fee , 5) a daily electronic monitoring fee, 6) a monthly
supervision fee , and 7) a fee for drug testing and lab confirmation; and
WHEREAS , in 2009 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors increased the two existing
detention fees (Juvenile Hall and Camp Sweeney) and added four new fees to the existing fee
schedule, and in 2015 , the Board eliminated the juvenile record sealing fee; and
WHEREAS , families and advocates in Alameda County have reported that these fees cause
financial hardship and disrupt family stability; and
WHEREAS , unpaid administrative fees become civil judgments, which can result in referrals to
the Franchise Tax Board where parents ' wages can be garnished, their bank accounts can be
levied and their tax refunds can be intercepted ; and
WHEREAS , it is in the interest of the County, of young people involved in the juvenile justice
system and their families , and of the larger community that the County repeal the seven juvenile
probation fees and public defender fee; and
WHEREAS , it is in the interest of the County to adopt this resolution in order to allow staff to
develop a plan to address the effects of the repeal of these juvenile probation fees and to identify
funding for the services currently supported with these juvenile probation fees to maintain the
fiscal integrity of affected County departments , including , but not limited to , the Probation
Department, the Auditor-Controller 's Office, and the Office of the Public Defender; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors as follows:
Section 1. A moratorium is imposed on the assessment and collection of juvenile probation and
juvenile public defender fees , suspending the assessment and collection of:
A. Fees for time juveniles spend in Juvenile Hall ;
B. Feed for time juveniles spend at Camp Wilmont Sweeney;
C. Fees for the Public Defender 's and court-appointed counsel 's representation of juveniles ;
D. Fees for the Probation Department's investigation of juvenile cases;
E . Fees for the Probation Department's supervision of juveniles;
F. Fees for the electronic (GPS) monitoring of juveniles; and
G . Fees for drug testing of juveniles.
Page 18 of 39
Section 2. Unless extended by action of this Board, the moratorium shall expire upon repeal of
the fees listed in Section 1.
Section 3. For the purpose of implementing this moratorium , no later than June 28, 2016 ,
County staff is directed to return to the Board of Supervisors with a plan and ordinance for the
repeal of fees listed in Section 1.
Section 4. That the moratorium imposed by Section 1 ofthis Resolution shall be effective as
soon as it is reasonably possible for the County Auditor-Controller to stop collecting the fees.
THE FOREGOING WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors this 29th day
of March, 2016 , to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Carson, Chan, Miley, Valle & President Haggerty
NOES: None
EXCUSED: None
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DONN R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL
By:~-v-~~~~~----1-:r-~...._~~
Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel
Scott Haggerty, President
Board of Supervisors
Page 19 of 39
SUSAN S. MURANISHI
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Administration Building
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Board Members:
AGENDA June 28, 2016
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
June 22, 2016
SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 2.42.190
AND THE JUVENILE FEE SCHEDULES FOR PROBATION AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
TO REPEAL ALL JUVENILE FEES
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Consistent with your Board's direction on March 29, 2016:
A) Adopt an ordinance amending Section 2.42.190 of the Administrative Code of the County of
Alameda to remove the assessment and collection of juvenile probation fees; and
B) Amend Resolution No. 2009-468 to repeal juvenile fees collected by the Probation Department in
their existing fee schedule for drug or substance abuse testing, laboratory test confirmations and
electronic or Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring; and
C) Amend Resolution No. 2011-142 to repeal juvenile fees collected by the Public Defender's Office in
their existing fee schedule for the Public Defender fee that is assessed for each juvenile case referred
to their office.
DISCUSSION/SUMMARY:
On March 29, 2016, your Board passed and adopted Resolution No. 2016-66, which placed a moratorium on
the assessment and collection of all juvenile Probation fees and the juvenile Public Defender fee for Alameda
County youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The corresponding board letter requested that the
County Administrator's Office, Auditor-Controller's Agency, Probation Department and the Public
Defender's Office develop a plan and ordinance to amend Section 2.42.190 of the Administrative Code
("Collection of probation department fees") to repeal the portions related to assessment and collection of
juvenile fees, which had been allowed per California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 903 and 904.
Per the approved board letter and resolution, the Auditor-Controller's Agency immediately suspended the
collection of juvenile probation fees on March 29, 2016. Action was taken to immediately close two
financial hearing offices at the Juvenile Justice Center. Written notices regarding the moratorium were sent
to all families on April 6, 2016. Every payment that was received after March 29th was returned or refunded,
resulting in refunds totaling $4, 700 between March 29 and June 10. Over-the-counter payments, U.S. Postal
Service payments and any checks were returned to families immediately. Tax intercepts, wage garnishments
and lockbox check deposits were refunded promptly. All collections referred to the Franchise Tax Board
were immediately withdrawn, but additional time was required for the State to receive and remit payments to
the County. Since May 1, very few payments have been received resulting in fewer refunds processed.
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • 510 272-6984 • FAX 510 272-3784
www.acgov.org
SECOND READING - CONTINUED FROM 06/28/2016
Page 20 of 39
Honorable Board of Supervisors
June 22, 2016
Page 2
The Probation Department has also reached out to Presiding Judge Charles Smiley of the Juvenile
Dependency Court. Judge Smiley will continue to address each case and situation on its own merits, giving
careful consideration to the recommendations of probation and its effects on families in the juvenile justice
system.
County Impacts
Juvenile administrative fees paid for specific services provided to those involved in the system as allowed
under California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 903 and 904. Services included programs, activities
and staffing costs. The repeal of these juvenile fees represents a loss of revenue between $500,000 and
$550,000 annually for Alameda County. The Proposed Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget eliminated the
collection of juvenile administration fee revenue but expenditures remained in department's operating
budgets relying on alternative revenue sources, including the County's General Fund. Additionally, there
remains approximately $2 million in outstanding (assessed, but uncollected) fees assessed since.
Details on departmental revenue reduction impacts are provided below.
Public Defender's Office
In Fiscal Year 2014-15, the Public Defender's Office received just over $33,000 in revenue from the juvenile
Public Defender fee per Resolution No. 2011-142, which is the estimated annual revenue loss. The fees
were used to partially offset the cost of juvenile legal representation and were used to cover cost of telephone
charges, equipment supplies and expert witnesses when necessary. These service costs will now be covered
by other funding sources, primarily the General Fund, and there are no adjustments needed to continue the
same level of service.
Probation Department
Based on Fiscal Year 2014-15 totals, the Probation Department estimates that $275,000 in revenue for
juvenile probation fees will be lost annually due to the amendments to Section 2.42.190 of the
Administrative Code and Resolution No. 2009-468. These fees were used to support juvenile life skills and
educational programming in Camp Sweeney and Juvenile Hall, which could see a reduction in scope of
services, activities or events due to the loss ofrevenue. This includes but is not limited to: Camp Sweeney's
Freedom School, Camp Sweeney's Annual Tolerance Tour, Juvenile Hall's Annual Resource Fair and the
Destiny Arts Program. Ancillary costs such as special events, bus tickets, payment for bills, etc., are not
mandatory but do help youth and families complete their terms and conditions of probation. Other sources
of revenue, including the County General Fund, will be needed to continue these services.
Juvenile GPS monitoring is court-ordered per California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601. As
such, these are mandated services that the County must continue to provide. The estimated annual cost of
electronic/GPS monitoring for juveniles is $180,000. Today, there are 69 youth in Probation currently being
monitored. Additionally, each lost or damaged device costs over $23,000 to replace. GPS monitoring costs
have never been fully offset by juvenile fees, but now the Probation Department, through use of General
Funds, will be required to cover the whole cost of these services.
While drug testing for juveniles may also be court-ordered, it is also a term of probation and Camp
placement. Juvenile drug testing and post-testing laboratory confirmation costs the department
approximately $30,000 annually. Drug testing costs have never been fully offset by juvenile fees, but now
the Probation Department, through use of General Funds, will be required to cover the whole cost of these
services.
Page 21 of 39
Honorable Board of Supervisors
June 22, 2016
Page 3
Auditor-Controller's Office
The estimated revenue lost by the Auditor-Controller's Office is between $200,000 and $250,000 annually.
Staff in the Auditor-Controller's Office is assigned to the collection of a wide variety of fees, including these
juvenile fees. This fee revenue was used to support a portion of staff salary and benefits costs. Since the
establishment of the moratorium, affected staff has been assigned to other collection activities.
Given the steps that have been taken by the Auditor-Controller's Office to halt the assessment and collection
of fees and the actions that each affected department has taken to plan and assess how the loss of revenue
will affect programs, services and staffing, we ask that your Board approve the attached ordinance to repeal
the juvenile probation fees and the juvenile Public Defender fee effective immediately.
FINANCING:
The repeal of the juvenile fees translates into loss of revenue for the County of up to $558,000 annually in
newly assessed fees, which breaks down as follows:
Department Annual Revenue Loss*
Auditor-Controller $ 200,000 -250,000
Probation 275,000
Public Defender 33,000
Total $ 508,000 -558,000
*Approximate
As a result of the Board's action to enact a moratorium on Juvenile Administrative Fees, the FY 2016-17
Proposed Budget reduced revenue collections as indicated above. Department expenses funded previously
with fee revenue are budgeted to continue without a specific new revenue source. This revenue loss was part
of the FY 2016-17 funding gap and resulted in increased General Fund costs of up to $558,000.
Additionally, $2 million in outstanding fees assessed since 2009 will remain uncollected. With service-
related expenditures continuing, the net loss to the County is the full amount of revenue that had been
generated each year plus any prior year collections that we may have been able to recover.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. Muranishi
County Administrator
~~1 ~-w-fi1 rk~.Harris
Chief Probation Officer
SSM:MLC:mcp
cc: County Counsel
cYitue-f??~·
Steve Manning
Auditor/Controller
~ren~<_
Public Defender
Page 22 of 39
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-3 5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42 .190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDINANCE CODE TO REPEAL JUVENILE PROBATION FEES, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO . 2011-142 TO REPEAL THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE FOR
REPRESENTATION OF JUVENILES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO . 2009-468
TO REPEAL THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT JUVENILE SUPERVISION ,
JUVENILE ELECTRONIC AND GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS MONITORING,
AND JUVENILE DRUG AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING FEES
WHEREAS, on March 29 , 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2016-66 (the
Resolution) placing a moratorium on the assessment and collection of seven juvenile probation
fees and the Juvenile Public Defender Fee (collectively the Fees); and
WHEREAS, the Resolution directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors no later than
June 28 , 2016, with a plan and an ordinance for the repeal of the Fees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County to repeal
the Fees and terminate the moratorium;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows :
SECTION I
Section 2.42.190 of the Alameda County Administrative Ordinance Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
2.42 .190 -Collection of probation department fees .
The following fees and charges shall be paid to the Alameda County
probation department or the county of Alameda collection agent:
A. Fees for adult investigations and for providing probation supervision of
adults, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203 .1 b, as follows :
1. Adult investigations: Seven hundred ten dollars ($710.00) per case .
2. Adult supervision : Ninety dollars ($90 .00) per month .
The administrator of the home detention program or his designee, shall have the
option to waive the fees for program supervision .when deemed necessary,
justified or in the interest of justice. All fees paid for program supervision shall be
deposited into the general fund of the county . Inmates involuntarily participating
in the home detention program shall not be charged fees or costs for the
program.
B. Fees for the petition for a change of plea or setting aside of a verdict shall
be as follows, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4:
1. Costs of actual services rendered : Not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars
($150 .00) per case.
This fee shall be applied to a person whether or not the petition is granted and
the records are sealed or expunged.
Page 23 of 39
SECTION II
The Probation Department schedule of fees adopted in Resolution No . 2009-468 on
December 1 2009 , is amended to repeal the "Juven ile Supervision Fee " of $90 .00 per month,
the "Juvenile Electron ic and Global Positioning Systems Monitoring Fee " of $15.00 per day for
the cost of electronic surveillance of a minor, and the "Drug and Substance Abuse Testing Fee "
of $7 .17 per drug test and $21 .51 per laboratory confirmation for juveniles . The "Drug and
Substance Abuse Testing Fee " of $7 .17 per drug test and $21 .51 per laboratory confirmation for
adults shall remain in effect.
SECTION Ill
The Publ ic Defender schedule of fees adopted in Resolution No. 2011-142 on May 10 ,
2011 , is amended to repeal the .$300 fee for representation of juveniles established in Section
1.A of the Resolution .
SECTION IV
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
passage and before the expirat ion of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be publ ished
once with the names of the members voting for and aga inst the same in the Inter-City Express ,
a newspaper published in the County of Alameda .
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on
the _l_~y of July , 2016 , by the following called vote :
AYES : Supervisors Carson, Chan, Miley, Valle & President Haggerty
NOES: None
EXCUSED : None
ATTEST :
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ,
By :~
DeputY5efl<
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
::N_N_A_R._~..._IE_G_L_:_:_· -~-O;z_U-NT-~-CO-UN-S-EL
Andrea L. Weddle
Ass istant County Counsel
Page 24 of 39
PROBATION COLLECTIONS UNIT
OUTSTANDING BALANCES
as of June 30, 2016
CLIENT# (FEE TYPE)
DATE
ASSIGNED
BALANCE
REMAINING CLIENT# (FEE TYPE)
DATE
ASSIGNED
BALANCE
REMAINING
2010 86,408 1995 765
2011 306,104 1996 2,125
2012 482,550 1997 5,207
2013 325,120 1998 12,805
2014 269,911 1999 163,701
2015 316,778 2000 513,914
2016 148,480 2001 696,337
TOTAL 1,935,351$ 2002 649,684
2003 638,625
2009 16,914 2004 624,632
2010 697 2005 567,033
2011 91,223 2006 516,570
2012 102,513 2007 640,562
2013 107,228 2008 568,781
2014 86,587 2009 453,979
2015 192,691 2010 350,384
2016 113,138 TOTAL 6,405,105$
TOTAL 710,991$
1990 733
2010 229,117 1996 305
2011 560,683 1997 1,668
2012 377,524 1998 3,344
2013 467,078 1999 220,336
2014 486,320 2000 232,546
2015 615,274 2001 393,006
2016 301,178 2002 148,942
TOTAL 3,037,175$ 2003 135,039
2004 120,437
2010 183,485 2005 129,124
2011 253,115 2006 246,830
2012 276,178 2007 459,391
2013 284,910 2008 419,579
2014 251,175 2009 311,241
2015 294,444 2010 282,108
2016 152,238 2013 626
TOTAL 1,695,546$ TOTAL 3,105,256$
GRAND TOTAL 16,889,424$
30356 Ranch ‐ Probation
22005 Public Defender ‐
Probation
30305 Juvenile Hall/Ranch ‐
Office of Revenue Collections
20005 & 21005 Public Defender ‐
Office of Revenue Collections
30310 & 30310a Juvenile
Electronic Monitoring ‐ Probation
30355 & 30355a Juvenile Hall ‐
Probation
Page 25 of 39
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:03/06/2017
Subject:COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION
WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION
WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036
Referral History:
On February 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors referral to the Public Protection Committee the
topic of law enforcement participation and interaction with Federal immigration authorities. A
copy of the Board's referral is attached for reference.
Referral Update:
Today's action is an introductory discussion of the referral to solicit information from
stakeholders and direct staff as to next steps. Representatives from the Sheriff's Office and
Probation Department were invited to today's meeting to assist with the discussion.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. INTRODUCE referral on County law enforcement participation and interaction with Federal
immigration authorities, and
2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.
Attachments
Board of Supervisors' Referral
Senate Bill 54 (De León) as amended March 1, 2017
Page 26 of 39
RECOMMENDATION(S):
REFER the issue of Contra Costa County law enforcement participation and interaction
with federal immigration authorities to the Public Protection Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
There has been growing public concern around the county, especially among immigrant
communities, about the nature of local law enforcement interaction with federal immigration
authorities. This concern has been increasing due to the current political environment and
has impacted the willingness of residents of immigrant communities to access certain health
and social services provided by community-based organizations. For example, the
Executive Director of Early Childhood Mental Health has reported that a number of Latino
families have canceled mental health appointments for their children due to concerns over
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/07/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor
Contact: Supervisor John Gioia
(510) 231-8686
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 7, 2017
, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy
cc:
C. 97
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Date:February 7, 2017
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:REFERRAL TO PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT
PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
Page 27 of 39
being deported. It is timely and in the public interest to refer this issue to the Public
Protection Committee.
Page 28 of 39
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 1, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 24, 2017
SENATE BILL No. 54
Introduced by Senator De León
(Principal coauthor: Senator Pan)
(Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins, Pan, and Wiener)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chiu, Cooper, Gomez,
and Levine Levine, and Reyes)
December 5, 2016
An act to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and
to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7
of Title 1 of the Government Code, An act to add Chapter 17.25
(commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code, to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety
Code, and to add Sections 3058.10 and 3058.11 to the Penal Code,
relating to law enforcement, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take
effect immediately.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 54, as amended, De León. Law enforcement: sharing data.
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person
arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may
not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify
the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation
matters.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of
or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate
crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any
Page 29 of 39
crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual
exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report
or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.
This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law
enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from
using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest
persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified. The bill
would require, within 6 months after the effective date of the bill, state
agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes
necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited
to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed
for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require, within 3
months after the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General, in
consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies
limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent
possible for use by those entities for those purposes. The bill would
also require, within 3 months after the effective date of the bill, the
Attorney General to publish model contractual provisions for all state
agencies that partner with private vendors for data collection purposes
to ensure that those vendors comply with the confidentiality policies,
as specified. The bill would require all public schools, health facilities
operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses,
and shelters to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy.
The bill would state that all other organizations and entities that provide
services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education,
or access to justice, including the University of California, are
encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require a law
enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law
enforcement task force, as defined, to submit a report every 6 months
to the Department of Justice. The bill would require the Attorney
General, within 14 months after the effective date of the bill, and twice
a year thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law
enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to
post those reports on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. The bill
would require the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, as applicable, to notify the Federal
Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release on parole or postrelease
community supervision, or rerelease following a period of confinement
pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all
persons confined to state prison serving a term for the conviction of a
2
Page 30 of 39
violent felony, and would authorize the sheriff to notify the Federal
Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release of a person confined
to county jail for a misdemeanor offense who has a prior conviction
for a violent felony, as specified.
The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature
relating to these provisions.
By imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory
provisions noted above.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 2 repealed.
line 3 SEC. 2.
line 4 SECTION 1. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284)
line 5 is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
line 6
line 7 Chapter 17.25. Cooperation With with Federal
line 8 Immigration Authorities
line 9
line 10 7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the
line 11 California Values Act.
line 12 7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
line 13 (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the
line 14 California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign
line 15 born and one in two children in California has at least one
line 16 immigrant parent.
3
Page 31 of 39
line 1 (b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant
line 2 community and state and local agencies is central to the public
line 3 safety of the people of California.
line 4 (c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are
line 5 entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result
line 6 that immigrant community members fear approaching police when
line 7 they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health
line 8 services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and
line 9 the well-being of all Californians.
line 10 (d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration
line 11 enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs
line 12 the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal
line 13 governments.
line 14 (e) State and local participation in federal immigration
line 15 enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including
line 16 the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation
line 17 of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
line 18 targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal
line 19 Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on
line 20 immigration status.
line 21 (f) This act seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the
line 22 safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of
line 23 California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of
line 24 greatest concern to state and local governments.
line 25 7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have
line 26 the following meanings:
line 27 (a) “California law enforcement agency” means a state or local
line 28 law enforcement agency, including school police or security
line 29 departments.
line 30 (a)
line 31 (b) “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a
line 32 violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil
line 33 immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information
line 34 Center database.
line 35 (b)
line 36 (c) “Federal immigration authority” means any officer,
line 37 employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of
line 38 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United
line 39 States Customs and Border Protection, or any division thereof, or
line 40 any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting
4
Page 32 of 39
line 1 as an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security
line 2 who is charged with immigration enforcement.
line 3 (c)
line 4 (d) “Health facility” includes health facilities as defined in
line 5 Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in
line 6 Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and
line 7 substance abuse treatment facilities.
line 8 (d)
line 9 (e) “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,”
line 10 and “local law enforcement agency” have the same meaning as
line 11 provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests
line 12 include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs
line 13 Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as
line 14 well as any other federal immigration authorities.
line 15 (e)
line 16 (f) “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to
line 17 investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement
line 18 of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all
line 19 efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or
line 20 enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes
line 21 a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the
line 22 United States, including, but not limited to, violations of Section
line 23 1253, 1324c, 1325, or 1326 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
line 24 (g) “Joint law enforcement task force” means a California law
line 25 enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with
line 26 a federal law enforcement agency in investigating, interrogating,
line 27 detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for violations of federal
line 28 or state crimes.
line 29 (f)
line 30 (h) “Judicial warrant” means a warrant based on probable cause
line 31 and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that
line 32 authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into custody the
line 33 person who is the subject of the warrant.
line 34 (g)
line 35 (i) “Public schools” means all public elementary and secondary
line 36 schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter
line 37 school board, the California State University, and the California
line 38 Community Colleges.
line 39 (h)
5
Page 33 of 39
line 1 (j) “School police and security departments” includes police
line 2 and security departments of the California State University, the
line 3 California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices
line 4 of education, schools, and school districts.
line 5 (i) “State agency” has the same meaning as provided in Section
line 6 11000 of the Government Code.
line 7 7284.6. (a) State and local California law enforcement
line 8 agencies and school police and security departments shall not do
line 9 any of the following:
line 10 (1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property,
line 11 equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect,
line 12 or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including,
line 13 but not limited to, any of the following:
line 14 (A) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s
line 15 immigration status. status, except as required to comply with
line 16 Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
line 17 (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
line 18 (C) Responding to requests for notification or transfer requests.
line 19 (D) Providing or responding to requests for nonpublicly
line 20 available personal information about an individual, including, but
line 21 not limited to, information about the person’s release date, home
line 22 address, or work address for immigration enforcement purposes.
line 23 (E) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
line 24 (F) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview
line 25 individuals in agency or department custody for immigration
line 26 enforcement purposes.
line 27 (G) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the activities
line 28 described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States
line 29 Code.
line 30 (H) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether
line 31 pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code
line 32 or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
line 33 (2) Make agency or department databases, including databases
line 34 maintained for the agency or department by private vendors, or
line 35 the information therein other than information regarding an
line 36 individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone
line 37 or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement. Any
line 38 agreements in existence on the date that this chapter becomes
line 39 operative that conflict with the terms of this paragraph are
line 40 terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to
6
Page 34 of 39
line 1 agency or department databases shall certify in writing that the
line 2 database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this
line 3 section.
line 4 (3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies
line 5 or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or
line 6 special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers
line 7 remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace
line 8 officers and the policies of the employing agency.
line 9 (4) Use federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law
line 10 enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or
line 11 department custody.
line 12 (b) Nothing in this section shall prevent the department or any
line 13 state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or
line 14 security departments, from responding any California law
line 15 enforcement agency from doing any of the following:
line 16 (1) Responding to a request from federal immigration authorities
line 17 for information about a specific person’s criminal history, including
line 18 previous criminal arrests or convictions arrests, convictions, and
line 19 similar criminal history information accessed through the
line 20 California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS),
line 21 where otherwise permitted by state law.
line 22 (2) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long
line 23 as the purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not
line 24 immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section
line 25 7284.4.
line 26 (c) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to
line 27 participate in a joint law enforcement task force, it shall submit a
line 28 report every six months to the Department of Justice, as specified
line 29 by the Attorney General. Sensitive information, as determined by
line 30 the Attorney General, is not a public record for purposes of the
line 31 California Public Records Act pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section
line 32 6254 of the Government Code.
line 33 (d) The Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective
line 34 date of the act that added this section, and twice a year thereafter,
line 35 shall report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement
line 36 task forces. The report shall include, for the reporting period,
line 37 assessments on compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (b),
line 38 a list of all California law enforcement agencies that participate
line 39 in joint law enforcement task forces, a list of joint law enforcement
line 40 task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the number
7
Page 35 of 39
line 1 of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces
line 2 for the violation of federal or state crimes, and the number of
line 3 arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for
line 4 the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force
line 5 participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. The
line 6 Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision
line 7 on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site.
line 8 (c)
line 9 (e) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall state or
line 10 local law enforcement agencies or school police or security
line 11 departments a California law enforcement agency transfer an
line 12 individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of
line 13 immigration enforcement or detain an individual at the request of
line 14 federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration
line 15 enforcement absent a judicial warrant. This subdivision does not
line 16 limit the scope of subdivision (a).
line 17 (f) This section does not prohibit or restrict any government
line 18 entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal
line 19 immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or
line 20 immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual pursuant
line 21 to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
line 22 7284.8. (a) In order to ensure that eligible individuals are not
line 23 deterred from seeking services or engaging with state agencies,
line 24 all state agencies shall, within six months after the effective date
line 25 of the act that added this section, review their confidentiality
line 26 policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that
line 27 information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary
line 28 to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other
line 29 purpose. Any necessary changes to those policies shall be made
line 30 as expeditiously as possible, consistent with agency or department
line 31 procedures. The Attorney General shall, within three months after
line 32 the effective date of the act that added this section, publish model
line 33 contractual provisions for all state agencies that partner with private
line 34 vendors for data collection purposes to ensure that those vendors
line 35 comply with the confidentiality policies established pursuant to
line 36 this section.
line 37 (b) The
line 38 7284.8. The Attorney General, within three months after the
line 39 effective date of the act that added this section, in consultation
line 40 with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies
8
Page 36 of 39
line 1 limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest
line 2 extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public
line 3 schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political
line 4 subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards
line 5 Enforcement facilities, and shelters, to ensure and ensuring that
line 6 they remain safe and accessible to all California residents,
line 7 regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities
line 8 operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and
line 9 courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent
line 10 policy. All other organizations and entities that provide services
line 11 related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or
line 12 access to justice, including the University of California, are
line 13 encouraged to adopt the model policy.
line 14 7284.10. Nothing in this chapter prohibits or restricts any
line 15 government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from,
line 16 federal immigration authorities, information regarding the
line 17 citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an
line 18 individual pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the
line 19 United States Code.
line 20 7284.12.
line 21 7284.10. The provisions of this act are severable. If any
line 22 provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
line 23 shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
line 24 effect without the invalid provision or application.
line 25 SEC. 2. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 26 repealed.
line 27 11369. When there is reason to believe that any person arrested
line 28 for a violation of Section 11350, 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11353,
line 29 11355, 11357, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11363, 11366, 11368 or
line 30 11550, may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting
line 31 agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States
line 32 having charge of deportation matters.
line 33 SEC. 3. Section 3058.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 34 3058.10. (a) The Board of Parole Hearings, with respect to
line 35 inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, or
line 36 the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with respect
line 37 to inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, shall notify the
line 38 Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release on parole
line 39 or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a
line 40 period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a
9
Page 37 of 39
line 1 new commitment, of all persons confined to state prison serving
line 2 a term for the conviction of a violent felony listed in subdivision
line 3 (c) of Section 667.5.
line 4 (b) The notification shall be made at least 60 days prior to the
line 5 scheduled release date or as soon as practicable if notification
line 6 cannot be provided at least 60 days prior to release. The only
line 7 nonpublicly available personal information that the notification
line 8 may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be
line 9 released and the scheduled date of release.
line 10 SEC. 4. Section 3058.11 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 11 3058.11. (a) Whenever any person confined to county jail is
line 12 serving a term for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense and
line 13 has a prior conviction for a violent felony listed in subdivision (c)
line 14 of Section 667.5 or has a prior felony conviction in another
line 15 jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a violent
line 16 felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, the sheriff
line 17 may notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled
line 18 release of that person, provided that no local law or policy
line 19 prohibits the sharing of that information with either the Federal
line 20 Bureau of Investigation or federal immigration authorities.
line 21 (b) The notification may be made up to 60 days prior to the
line 22 scheduled release date. The only nonpublicly available personal
line 23 information that the notification may include is the name of the
line 24 person who is scheduled to be released and the scheduled date of
line 25 release.
line 26 SEC. 3.
line 27 SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 28 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 29 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 30 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 31 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
line 32 SEC. 4.
line 33 SEC. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
line 34 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
line 35 the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall
line 36 go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
line 37 Because changes in federal immigration enforcement policies
line 38 require a statewide standard that clarifies the appropriate level of
line 39 cooperation between federal immigration enforcement agents and
10
Page 38 of 39
line 1 state and local governments as soon as possible, it is necessary for
line 2 this measure to take effect immediately.
O
11
Page 39 of 39