The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 10022017 - PPC Agenda Pkt PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE October 2, 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 July 10, 2017 meeting. (Page 4) 4. CONSIDER allocating the balance of funds to the Reentry Strategic Plan Update project to enhance community engagement and outreach and PROVIDE direction to staff on the utilization of the balance of unexpended Community Recidivism Reduction Grant program funds. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 7) 5. CONSIDER recommending nominees for appointment to the CY2018 Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and CY2018 Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 17) 6. CONSIDER accepting a report on the refunding of certain fees assessed in the juvenile justice system and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. (Todd Billeci, County Probation Officer) (Page 25) 7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, November 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. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:10/02/2017 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - July 10, 2017 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - July 10, 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 July 10, 2017 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the July 10, 2017 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - July 2017 Page 4 of 41 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION ***Special Meeting*** July 10, 2017 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff 1.Introductions Convene - 1:06 PM 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). The Committee received public comment. 3.APPROVE Record of Action from the March 6, 2017 meeting. Approved as presented Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 4.1. ACCEPT a report on the refunding of certain fees assessed in the juvenile justice system; 2. FORWARD a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; 3. PROVIDE any additional direction to staff. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. The Committee accepted the staff report. 2. Direct staff to conduct additional research into juvenile care and juvenile electronic monitoring fees back to 2010 and report back to the Committee in October 2017. Page 1 of 2Minutes 9/20/2017http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=682&id=&mode=External&r... Page 5 of 41 For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us 3. Direct staff to forward recommendation for permanent repeal of juvenile care and juvenile electronic monitoring fees to the full Board of Supervisors as soon as possible. In addition, the Committee's recommendation to the Board includes a request to the Superior Court to expunge all existing court ordered debt related to the juvenile care and juvenile electronic monitoring fees. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:30 am. The August 7, 2017 meeting has been canceled and the Committee is not scheduled to meet on September 4, 2017 due to the Labor Day holiday. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30 AM. 6.Adjourn Adjourned - 1:50 PM The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. Page 2 of 2Minutes 9/20/2017http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=682&id=&mode=External&r... Page 6 of 41 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:10/02/2017 Subject:Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG) Program Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG) Program Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: The Public Protection Committee considered and acted on the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG) Program allocations in May and September of 2015. Referral Update: See the attached staff report. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): DIRECT staff on the utilization of the balance of CRRG funds in the amount of $16,040.12 derived from the John F. Kennedy School of Law “Driver’s License Restoration Clinic” project. 1. CONSIDER allocating the funds to the Reentry Strategic Plan Update for additional community engagement/outreach efforts. 2. Attachments Staff Report on CRRG Attachment A Attachment B Page 7 of 41 County of Contra Costa OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27, 2017 TO: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE FROM: LARA DeLANEY, Senior Deputy County Administrator SUBJECT: Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG) Program ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: 1. DIRECT staff on the utilization of the balance of CRRG funds in the amount of $16,040.12 derived from the John F. Kennedy School of Law “Driver’s License Restoration Clinic” project. 2. CONSIDER allocating the funds to the Reentry Strategic Plan Update for additional community engagement/outreach efforts. BACKGROUND: In August 2014, the CAO’s office was notified by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) that the Budget Act of 2014 had allocated $8 million to the BSCC for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant, as described in Penal Code section 1233.10. Counties were eligible to receive funds if the Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with the CCP, agreed to develop a competitive grant program intended to fund community recidivism and crime reduction services, which County staff performed. On September 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors passed item C. 51, confirming to the BSCC the County’s interest in receiving the funding, of which $250,000 was allocated to Contra Costa County. Other requirements of the statute included: “The board of supervisors, in collaboration with the county's Community Corrections Partnership, shall establish minimum requirements, funding criteria, and procedures for the counties to award grants consistent with the criteria established in this section. A community recidivism and crime reduction service provider that receives a grant under this section shall report to the county board of supervisors or the Community Corrections Partnership on the number of individuals served and the types of services provided. The board of supervisors or the Community Corrections Partnership shall report to the Board of State and Community Corrections any information received under this subdivision from grant recipients.” The Public Protection Committee directed the CAO’s office to develop a competitive process for distribution of the funding set at $50,000 per region of the County (West, Central, East) for adult reentry services and $100,000 for juvenile programs. The County Administrator’s Office, in Page 8 of 41 Public Protection Committee –Oct. 2, 2017 Meeting September 27, 2017 Page 3 collaboration with the Reentry Coordinator, the Probation Department, the Reentry Network Manager, and the director of the West County Reentry Resource Center, developed the RFP and the process timeline. RFP PROCESS FOR 2014 BUDGET ACT CRRG FUNDING The RFP for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG) made available up to $250,000 ($50,000 per grant) to provide Community Recidivism Reduction Grants to nongovernmental entities to provide community recidivism, crime reduction and other reentry-related services to persons who have been released from state prison, a county jail, or a juvenile detention facility, who are under the supervision of a parole or probation department, or any other person at risk of becoming involved in criminal activities, in Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Proposals were received from the following organizations: Adult Region Responder West 1 Bay Area Legal Aid West 2 Contra Costa Crisis Center West 3 Reach Fellowship International West 4 San Pablo Economic Development Corporation Central 1 John F. Kennedy University School of Law East 1 Rubicon Programs Central/East 1 Counseling Options and Parent Education Support Center, Inc. Juveniles 1 Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) 2 Contra Costa County Service Integration Team 3 Monument Crisis Center 4 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 5 RYSE Center 6 The Congress of Neutrals 7 The Youth Intervention Network Review Panels’ Recommendations The Review Panel recommendations for contract award were issued on April 17, 2015 and included: Page 9 of 41 Public Protection Committee –Oct. 2, 2017 Meeting September 27, 2017 Page 4 Adult Services Central County, $50,000: John F. Kennedy University College of Law—Establishment of a Probation Assistance Clinic in conjunction with the Contra Costa County Homeless Court, centered on driver’s license restoration. West County, $50,000: Reach Fellowship International— Residential and Job Training Program for women of West County. East County, $50,000: Rubicon Programs—Rental assistance in a Sober Living Environment (SLE) with career and financial coaching. Juvenile Services Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)—$50,000: A program to engage juveniles in east Contra Costa County in a comprehensive program utilizing employment training and leadership development. RYSE Center—$50,000: Pre-release transition planning, technical skills training, and the creation of a social media application focused on youth reentry for justice-involved youth at the RYSE Center. At its May 11, 2015 meeting, the PPC reviewed the results of the RFP process and concurred with the Review Panel contract award recommendations. At its June 9, 2015 meeting, the Board of Supervisors authorized contracts (C. 125) for these service providers in the amount of $50,000 each for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. BUDGET ACT OF 2015 CRRG FUNDING At their August 10, 2015 meeting, Public Protection Committee (PPC) was notified of an additional allocation from the State of $125,000 to Contra Costa County in Community Recidivism Reduction Grants for fiscal year 2015-16. Per direction from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC): “To afford maximum flexibility, if your county has already completed this competitive process with the FY 14-15 funding, counties may allocate FY 15-16 funding to those service providers who competed for the FY 14-15 funding, or counties may choose to initiate a new competitive process…The FY 14-15 funding as well as the FY 15-16 can be spent over four years after allocation of funding to counties. Any funds not used by a county or a service provider within four years will revert back to the state General Fund.” Page 10 of 41 Public Protection Committee –Oct. 2, 2017 Meeting September 27, 2017 Page 5 At their September 14, 2015 meeting, the PPC directed staff as follows, essentially dividing the $125,000 allocation evenly between adult ($62,500) and juvenile ($62,500) programs and utilizing the results of the initial RFP process to determine awards to service providers: Approved with the following direction to staff: Forward funding recommendations below to the Board of Supervisors for consideration: Adult Programs: $62,500 - Fund two proposals from the 2014 grant cycle that were unable to be funded at that time: a. Bay Legal: $31,250* - To fund free, expert attorney services that prevent homelessness, support family connections, ensure access to mental healthcare and alcohol and drug treatment, and public benefits programs to clients referred by the West County Reentry Success Center. b. Contra Costa Crisis Center: $31,250* - To fund the development and implementation of a Reentry Resource Web-based Icon Guide for reentry services in Contra Costa County. Juvenile Programs: $62,500 - Increase existing service provider contracts in the following denominations: a. Bay Area Community Resources (BACR): $31,250 - Continue program to engage juveniles in East Contra Costa County in a comprehensive program utilizing employment training and leadership development. b. RYSE Center: $31,250 - Continue pre-release transition planning, technical skills training, and the creation of a social media application focused on youth reentry for justice involved youth at the RYSE Center. *Note that these amounts were added to the organization’s existing AB 109 Community Programs contracts, rather than developing stand-alone contracts for the CRRG funding. CRRG RESULTS As required in the budget act, each county who receives Community Recidivism Reduction Grant funding must report on two specific data sets for each service provider: the types of services provided and the number of individuals served. This information is required to be reported on an annual basis on January 31 until the final reporting date of January 31, 2019 (for FY 14-15 funding) and January 31, 2020 (for FY 15-16 funding). The reports that CAO staff have submitted in compliance with this requirement are included in Attachments A and B. At this time, staff is seeking direction from the PPC on the utilization of the balance of funds from the $50,000 allocation to John F. Kennedy University, School of Law. After the conclusion of the Driver’s License Restoration Clinic, which was initiated in the fall of 2015 and ended after the summer session in 2016, there was a balance of $16,040.12 remaining on the contract. Page 11 of 41 Public Protection Committee –Oct. 2, 2017 Meeting September 27, 2017 Page 6 Basically when someone goes to Homeless Court in this county, usually all of their traffic tickets obtained in this county are waived. But many people may have tickets in other counties that prevent them from getting their license. The JFK Clinic was tasked with 1) providing some education prior to Homeless Court aimed at prevention – “know your rights for next time the person gets a traffic ticket,” and 2) meeting with people as they exit Homeless Court to get their DMV print out and walk them through what tickets remain in other counties, connect them to resources in those counties and help them create a plan for addressing those tickets. Because JFK did not charge for “Administrative Support” and other nonpersonnel expenses anticipated in the contract, a balance of funds remains at the conclusion of the contract. Staff recommends that the PPC consider allocating the balance of the funds to the Reentry Strategic Plan Update project, to increase the community engagement/outreach efforts in the development of that Plan. The Reentry Strategic Plan Update is being prepared by Resource Development Associates whose $60,000 contract is funded by a federal Smart Reentry grant. These additional funds will allow for additional community forums under that contract. Attachments Attachment A – CRRG Data Reporting Spreadsheet FY 14-15 Attachment B – CRRG Data Reporting Spreadsheet FY 15-16 Page 12 of 41 FY 14-15 FUNDING 2016 DATA REPORT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Reporting Cycle: January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Report Due Date: January 31, 2017 County Disbursement Questions Yes No Has your county disbursed FY 14-15 funding?X If no, do you anticipate disbursing the funding in the next year? Did your county use all the FY 14-15 funding during a previous reporting cycle?X Service Provider REACH FELLOWSHIP INTERNATIONAL - ($50,000) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Housing 9 Job Training (construction and landscaping)34 Court Support Services 42 GED Tutoring 20 Instructions: Please use the example cells below to insert your county's data for each service provider, to the extent it is available, for the reporting cycle of January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 for FY14-15 funding. You may add additional lines as needed using the exampled layout. If your county has not disbursed FY 14-15 funding or has used all the funding prior to this reporting cycle, please fill out the top portion of this report only. If you have any questions, please contact Adam Lwin at 916-324-2626 or adam.lwin@bscc.ca.gov. 36 Please note : When identifying the number of individuals served by service, please count a single person one time only. If you're unable to distinguish between the number of individuals served by service, you may provide the total number served. Data should be provided over the entire life of the grant funding (4 years). Attachment A Page 13 of 41 Service Provider RUBICON PROGRAMS INC. - ($50,000) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Sober Living Environment (SLE) Rental Assistance 13 Employment Assistance 13 Service Provider J.F. Kennedy University, College of Law - ($50,000) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Driver's License Restoration Clinic 582 Service Provider Bay Area Community Resources - ($50,000) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Assessment and Case Plan Development 26 Case Manager Meetings and Coaching Sessions 22 Life Skills and Employment Related Training 22 Subsidized Employment Placement 6 Unsubsidized Employment Placement 5 Service Provider RYSE Center - ($50,000) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Assessment and Case Plan Development 29 Case Manager Meetings and Coaching Sessions 27 Technology Career Training 5 27 29 582 13 Attachment A Page 14 of 41 FY 15-16 FUNDING 2016 DATA REPORT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Reporting Cycle: January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Report Due Date: January 31, 2017 County Disbursement Questions Yes No Has your county disbursed FY 15-16 funding?X* If no, do you anticipate disbursing the funding in the next year? *Not all funding disbursed by 12/31/16. The funding for Bay Area Legal Aid was combined with AB 109 for FY 16-17 contract. Service Provider CONTRA COSTA CRISIS CENTER - ($31,250) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Development of an icon-based Reentry Web Site 1106 visits to website Development of a Reentry mobile App of CCC reentry service providers 477 visits on mobile app Instructions: Please use the example cells below to insert your county's data for each service provider, to the extent it is available, for the reporting cycle of January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 for FY15-16 funding. You may add additional lines as needed using the exampled layout. If your county has not disbursed FY 15-16 funding, please fill out the top portion of this report only. If you have any questions, please contact Adam Lwin at 916-324-2626 or adam.lwin@bscc.ca.gov. Please note : When identifying the number of individuals served by service, please count a single person one time only. If you're unable to distinguish between the number of individuals served by service, you may provide the total number served. Data should be provided over the entire life of the grant funding (4 years). 1583 Attachment B Page 15 of 41 Service Provider BAY AREA LEGAL AID- ($31,250) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Civil legal services 52 Service Provider Bay Area Community Resources - ($31,250) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Assessment and Case Plan Development 37 Case Manager Meetings and Coaching Sessions 37 Life Skills and Employment Related Training 29 Subsidized Employment Placement 13 Unsubsidized Employment Placement 15 Service Provider RYSE Center - ($31,250) Type of Service Provided No. of Individuals Served Total No. Served Assessment and Case Plan Development 27 Case Manager Meetings and Coaching Sessions 24 Technology Career Training 4 52 40 31 Attachment B Page 16 of 41 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:10/02/2017 Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2018 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2018 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Presenter: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036 Referral History: The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011), which transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB109) took effect on October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: • Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders; • Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); • Transferred the custody responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail, administered by county sheriffs AB109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan (Plan) to the county Board of Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections Partnership is identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1. Presiding Judge (or designee)2. County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS3. Page 17 of 41 District Attorney4. Public Defender5. Sheriff6. Chief of Police7. Head of the County department of social services8. Head of the County department of mental health9. Head of the County department of employment10. Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs11. Head of the County Office of Education12. CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders13. Victims’ representative14. Later in 2011, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), which served as “clean up” legislation to AB109. Assembly Bill 117 (AB117) changed, among other things, the composition of the local CCP-Executive Committee. The CCP-Executive Committee is currently identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1. Presiding Judge (or designee)2. District Attorney3. Public Defender4. Sheriff5. A Chief of Police6. The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors) 7. Although AB109 and AB117 collectively place the majority of initial planning activities for Realignment on the local CCP, it is important to note that neither piece of legislation cedes powers vested in a county Board of Supervisors’ oversight of and purview over how AB109 funding is spent. Once the Plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors may choose to implement that Plan in any manner it may wish. Referral Update: Each year, the PPC reviews the membership of the Community Corrections Partnership and makes recommendations for appointment to non ex-offico seats to the Board of Supervisors. The Board has made these appointments on a calendar year basis. Today's action is seeking direction from the Public Protection Committee to either: 1. Forward nominees to the Board of Supervisors following a determination and vote of the Committee today, or 2. Direct staff to conduct a recruitment process for all or a portion of the Board appointment members of the CCP and CCP Executive Committee. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. RECOMMEND nominees for appointment to seats on the CY2018 Community Corrections Page 18 of 41 1. RECOMMEND nominees for appointment to seats on the CY2018 Community Corrections Partnership & Executive Committee (see attachments); 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on an alternative recruitment process for membership on the CCP and the CCP Executive Committee Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments CY2017 CCP Membership CY2017 CCP Executive Committee Membership CSAC Informational Letter Page 19 of 41 EXHIBIT A - 2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP Seat Appointee Term Expiration Chief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeci ex-officio Presiding Judge (or designee)Stephen Nash (designee of Presiding Judge)ex-officio County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS David J. Twa, County Administrator December 31, 2017 District Attorney Diana Becton ex-officio Public Defender Robin Lipetzky ex-officio Sheriff David O. Livingston ex-officio Chief of Police Allwyn Brown, City of Richmond December 31, 2017 Head of the County department of social services Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director ex-officio Head of the County department of mental health Cynthia Belon, Director of Behavioral Health Services ex-officio Head of the County department of employment Donna Van Wert, Executive Director-Workforce Development Board ex-officio Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs Fatima Matal Sol, Director of Alcohol and Other Drugs ex-officio Head of the County Office of Education Karen Sakata, County Superintendent of Schools ex-officio CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders Roosevelt Terry December 31, 2017 Victim's Representative Devorah Levine, Zero Tolerance Program Manager December 31, 2017 Page 20 of 41 EXHIBIT B - 2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Seat Appointee Term Expiration Chief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeci ex-officio Presiding Judge (or designee)Stephen Nash (designee of Presiding Judge)ex-officio District Attorney Diana Becton ex-officio Public Defender Robin Lipetzky ex-officio Sheriff David O. Livingston ex-officio Chief of Police Allwyn Brown, City of Richmond December 31, 2017 Representative approved by BOS from the following CCP members: Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director December 31, 2017 *Head of County department of Social Services *Head of County department of mental health *Head of County department of alcohol and substance abuse programs Page 21 of 41 MEMORANDUM July 12, 2011 To: Members, Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officers From: Paul McIntosh Executive Director Re: AB 117 and the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) There continues to be a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the changes in the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) encompassed in Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), passed as part of the 2011-12 budget. AB 117 did not change the make-up of the CCP, first formed in SB 678 in 2009, but does provide for revisions to the makeup of the CCP’s Executive Committee, which originally was established in AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011). The fourteen-member CCP in each county remains essentially unchanged and is comprised of the following (Penal Code Section 1230.1): Chief Probation Officer (Chair) Presiding Judge (or designee) County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS District Attorney Public Defender Sheriff Chief of Police Head of the County department of social services Head of the County department of mental health Head of the County department of employment Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs Head of the County Office of Education CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders Victims’ representative AB 117 requires the CCP to prepare an implementation plan that will enable the county to meet the goals of the public safety realignment. AB 117 is silent as to what those goals may be and provides counties with flexibility in how to address realignment. AB 117 does not abdicate the board of supervisor’s authority over appropriations and does not enable the CCP to direct how realignment funds will be spent. Page 22 of 41 The seven-member CCP Executive Committee, as provided in AB 117, is comprised of the following: Chief Probation Officer (Chair) Presiding Judge (or designee) District Attorney Public Defender Sheriff A Chief of Police The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors) Under AB 117, the CCP would develop an implementation plan and the Executive Committee would vote to approve the plan and submit it to the board of supervisors. The plan would be deemed accepted unless the board of supervisors voted via a 4/5 vote to reject the plan and send it back to the CCP. Concerns have been raised regarding why the CAO or board member is not part of the Executive Committee and why a 4/5 vote is required to reject the plan. CSAC’s role in the drafting of this component of AB 117 was as one of several stakeholders involved in the public safety realignment. While most of the county stakeholders maintained general agreement on realignment issues during each phase of negotiations in general, there were disparate opinions in how the planning process should unfold. CSAC felt strongly that the only way realignment will be successful is if the planning effort results in a significant shift away from a predominantly incarceration model and movement to alternatives to incarceration. Therefore, it was critical that the planning process be structured to encourage compromise in the CCP to reach the goals of the community in a manner acceptable to the board of supervisors. The CAO, as you know, must be in a position to remain objective and provide the board of supervisors with unvarnished recommendations on matters that come before them. Having the CAO or a board member as part of the Executive Committee, and therefore casting a vote on the plan to be presented to the board of supervisors, would represent a conflict of interest to the CAO or board member and place them in a position that could compromise their independence. Rather, this approach seemed to capture the best of both worlds – the CAO is part of the planning process and can bring that global vision to that process but is also free to make contrary recommendations to the board of supervisors should they disagree with the ultimate plan adopted. Likewise with a member of the board of supervisors being part of the executive committee. Some have commented that the 4/5 vote requirement to reject the plan submitted by the CCP limits local flexibility and discretion of the board of supervisors. While the dynamics of the planning process will differ from county to county, the goal was to force consensus within the CCP and the planning process and not Page 23 of 41 provide an avenue for a participant to try to push their opinion outside of the CCP with the board of supervisors. A super majority makes an “end run” difficult, but still enables the board to reject the plan if the board disagrees with it. A 4/5 vote requirement is not unusual, but does place a higher level of focus on the planning process. It should be noted, as well, that counsel has opined that meetings of the CCP and the Executive Committee will be subject to the Brown Act and all discussions will be required to be conducted in a public meeting. AB 117 is not a perfect solution but it represents a negotiated agreement that will enable California’s counties to move forward with the dramatic changes necessary to make realignment successful. Clearly the successful implementation of realignment will require a significant paradigm shift in our public safety communities. The successful model will not be an incarceration model, but one that seeks to divert and rehabilitate citizens, returning them to be productive members of our community. Hopefully, the construct of the CCP – that is intended to drive the local public safety community to a consensus about a “different way of doing business” - will ultimately lead to that approach. Page 24 of 41 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:10/02/2017 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 in 2010 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 25 of 41 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 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 26 of 41 * 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. Prior Public Protection Committee Actions Page 27 of 41 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. On March 6, 2017, the Committee received an update from the County Probation Officer on the status of juvenile fees and the current moratorium. At that time the Committee recommended that the juvenile fees subject to the temporary moratorium be permanently repealed and directed staff to return to the Committee with a recommendation as to how to refund certain juvenile justice fees that were erroneously charged by the County. On July 10, 2017, the Committee received an update from the Probation Department. Specifically, the Probation Department reviewed four years (11/1/12-11/1/16) of information and examined 5,497 Juvenile Hall administrative fee accounts. Of the 5,497 accounts, the department received full or partial payments on 1,652 accounts, which is a 30% collection rate. The Probation Department reviewed all 1,652 accounts to determine if there were any overpayments for minors in custody at Juvenile Hall where payments were made even though there was not a sustained petition. This included minors who were charged as adults but were housed in Juvenile Hall, regardless of the final disposition. Of the 1,652 accounts, Probation determined there were 224 accounts, which is 14% of the accounts, where an overpayment was made for a total of $58,172. It should be noted that of the 224 accounts, 17 accounts involved minors who were charged as adults. 15 of the 17 adult files matters resulted in convictions, while the other 2 matters were eventually referred to juvenile court and the petitions were sustained. The total dollar amount for the 17 adult file accounts is $33,033. The 3 largest overpayments, one for $6,000 and two for $8,000, totaling roughly $22,000, were adult file matters, which eventually resulted in convictions. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to permanently repeal the Juvenile Cost of Care and Electronic Surveillance of Minors fees. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors considered the Committee's recommendation on Tuesday, September 19, 2017. The Board approved the immediate repeal of the Juvenile Cost of Care fee and introduced an ordinance to effectuate the repeal of the Electronic Surveillance of Minors fee and scheduled adoption for the September 26, 2017 Board meeting. The ordinance was adopted by the Board, as scheduled, on September 26th and takes effect 30 days following passage. Referral Update: The Probation Department has begun reviewing two additional years (9/1/10-11/1/12) of Juvenile Hall administrative fee accounts. Those two additional years include 2,660 Juvenile Hall administrative fee accounts. Of the 2,660 Juvenile Hall accounts, the department received full or partial payments on 1,641 accounts, which is a 62% collection rate. To date the Probation Department has reviewed 1,585 accounts and determined there are 243 accounts (15%) where an overpayment was made for a total of $68,675. It should be noted that of the 243 accounts, 21 accounts involved minors who were charged as adults. All of the adult files matters resulted in convictions. The total dollar amount for the 21 adult file accounts is $40,209.Page 28 of 41 adult file accounts is $40,209. This is in addition to the 1,641 accounts Probation previously reviewed where 230 accounts, had overpayments was for a total of $64,686. To date from 9/1/10-11/1/16, there are 473 Juvenile Hall administrative fee accounts out of a total of 3,226 (15%) where an overpayment was made for a total of $133,361. The Probation Department was also asked to review Juvenile Electronic Monitoring accounts from 9/1/10-11/1/16. Of the 2,614 Juvenile Electronic Monitoring accounts, the department received full or partial payments on 1,309 accounts, which is a 50% collection rate. The Probation Department has not yet begun the review of these accounts but anticipates that it will begin in the next few weeks once the Juvenile Hall accounts are complete. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT a report on the refunding of certain fees assessed in the juvenile justice system; 2. FORWARD a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; 3. PROVIDE any additional direction to staff. 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 29 of 41 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 30 of 41 Page 31 of 41 Page 32 of 41 Page 33 of 41 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 34 of 41 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 35 of 41 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 36 of 41 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 37 of 41 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 38 of 41 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 39 of 41 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 .$300 fee for representation of juveniles established in Section 1.A of the Resolution . SECTION IV This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage and before the expirat ion of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be publ ished once with the names of the members voting for and aga inst the same in the Inter-City Express , a newspaper published in the County of Alameda . Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on the _l_~y of July , 2016 , by the following called vote : AYES : Supervisors Carson, Chan, Miley, Valle & President Haggerty NOES: None EXCUSED : None ATTEST : Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , By :~ DeputY5efl< APPROVED AS TO FORM : ::N_N_A_R._~..._IE_G_L_:_:_· -~-O;z_U-NT-~-CO-UN-S-EL Andrea L. Weddle Ass istant County Counsel Page 40 of 41 PROBATION COLLECTIONS UNIT OUTSTANDING BALANCES as of June 30, 2016 CLIENT# (FEE TYPE) DATE ASSIGNED BALANCE REMAINING CLIENT# (FEE TYPE) DATE ASSIGNED BALANCE REMAINING 2010 86,408 1995 765 2011 306,104 1996 2,125 2012 482,550 1997 5,207 2013 325,120 1998 12,805 2014 269,911 1999 163,701 2015 316,778 2000 513,914 2016 148,480 2001 696,337 TOTAL 1,935,351$ 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 41 of 41