Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02052018 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE February 5, 2018 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the December 7, 2017 meeting. (Page 4) 4. CONSIDER reviewing and approving the fiscal year 2018/19 AB 109 budget proposal, as recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 9) 5. CONSIDER accepting update from the Office of Reentry and Justice on the Racial Justice Task Force. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 62) 6. CONSIDER accepting reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including implementation of Senate Bill 54 (Chapter 475, Statutes of 2017), status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 77) 7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2018 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:02/05/2018 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - December 7, 2017 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - December 7, 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 December 7, 2017 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the December 7, 2017 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - December 2017 Page 4 of 421 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***RECORD OF ACTION*** December 7, 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 1.Introductions Convene - 9:01 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 November 6, 2017 meeting. Approved as presented Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 4.1. ACCEPT report from staff related to the upcoming implementation requirements of Senate Bill 54 (Chapter 475, Statutes of 2017) related to immigration; and 2. ACCEPT an update on potential impacts to the County certain immigration related federal grant conditions imposed on state and local jurisdictions; and 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors for determination; and 3. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Page 1 of 4Minutes 1/29/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=730&id=&mode=External&r... Page 5 of 421 Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Bring the revised Sheriff's Office Immigration Policy to the next Committee meeting. 2. Provide a revenue vs. expenditure analysis of the Sheriff's Office contract with ICE to the next Committee meeting. 3. Request County Counsel to provide analysis of legal strategy of how the County can comply with 8 USC 1373 if SB 54 is deemed to not compliant with 8 USC 1373. 4. Provide copies of all available amendments to the Sheriff's Office contract with ICE. 5. Provide an update on County compliance with SB 54 to the full Board of Supervisors in February 2018. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 5.1. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT a policy that requires contract award recommendations for all AB 109 Community Programs contracts valued at over $100,000 be approved by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee (CCP-EC) and (as their schedule permits) the Public Protection Committee (PPC) prior to submittal to the BOS for contract authorization. The information that the CCP-EC, PPC and BOS would be provided must include: a) A copy of the RFP/RFQ/RFI issued b) Copies of all Score Sheets for responses that are scored c) A summary of the proposed services by the recommended awardee d) A summary of the proposed budget for the services e) A staff report that summarizes the procurement process and Review Panel composition. 2. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT a policy that all issued RFP/RFQ/RFIs (or similar procurement documents) for AB 109 Community Programs contracts must contain a provision that the responses may be made public prior to the contract award. 3. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT a policy that contract periods may be established for up to two years of service (either calendar or fiscal year), with 3 additional one-year renewal options, subject to funding availability, satisfactory performance, and Board of Supervisors authorization for contracts over $100,000. This contract period will obviate the need for more frequent procurement processes. Performance reporting to the CCP may be provided in a manner that that it proscribes. Approved with the following direction to staff: 1. The Committee clarified that the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee does not have approval authority for contracts, but rather makes recommendations for consideration by the Public Protection Committee and the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 of 4Minutes 1/29/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=730&id=&mode=External&r... Page 6 of 421 2. The Committee also clarified that if any of the request for proposal response documents from bidders are released during the procurement process, then those are considered public documents, which should be shared by decision makers, including the Board of Supervisors. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 6.1. ACCEPT the Review Panels’ recommendations that the County: a) Not award a contract for a “Capacity Building Project” at this time, b) Award a contract to Fast Eddie’s Auto Tech Training for $75,000 for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, and c) Award a contract to the Richmond Workforce Development Board for $175,000 for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019. 2. DIRECT staff to utilize the remaining FY 16-17 revenue of Local Innovation Fund for a “Capacity Building Project.” Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Future submissions to the Committee and the Board of Supervisors should include summaries of all projects proposed for funding to understand the context for the recommendation before decision makers. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 7.1. APPROVE calendar year 2017 Public Protection Committee Annual Report for submission to the Board of Supervisors; 2. PROVIDE direction to staff as appropriate. Approved as presented Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for February 2018. 9.Adjourn Adjourned - 11:07 AM The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Page 3 of 4Minutes 1/29/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=730&id=&mode=External&r... Page 7 of 421 For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us 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 4 of 4Minutes 1/29/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=730&id=&mode=External&r... Page 8 of 421 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:02/05/2018 Subject:FY 2018/19 CCP RECOMMENDED BUDGET Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: AB109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Referral History: On September 22, 2017, budget instructions for the FY 2018/19 AB 109 budget were distributed to the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) subscriber list, including Committee members, staff and interested parties, requesting formal submission no later than October 23, 2017. This year, staff had again requested budget submissions to 1) maintain the status quo funding level at the fiscal year 2017/18 Ongoing budget level, and 2) contemplate new funding requests based on programming needs. On November 3, 2017, the CCP held a budget workshop, giving departments and funded agencies an opportunity to present and discuss budget proposals. Subsequently, a final vote of the CCP-Executive Committee was held on December 1, 2017. The budget approved by the CCP has been submitted to the Public Protection Committee for review and approval at today's meeting. Referral Update: On December 1, 2017, the CCP-Executive Committee approved a Recommended Budget for fiscal year 2018/19 for consideration by the Public Protection Committee. All budget submissions and a summary of the final Recommended Budget are included in today's packet for references (Attachments D and E, respectively) Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW and APPROVE a fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal, as recommended by the Page 9 of 421 REVIEW and APPROVE a fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal, as recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee. Fiscal Impact (if any): The fiscal year 2017/18 Ongoing Budget for AB 109 is $25,920,149, which is composed of $25,420,149 previous approved by the CCP and an additional allocation of $500,000 authorized by the BOS to fund the Stand Together CoCo program in the Public Defender's Office from the AB 109 fund balance. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is projecting that Contra Costa County will receive $23,342,798 in fiscal year 2017/18 in Base allocation funding. The Growth allocation for fiscal year 2016/17 (paid in 2017/18) is projected by CSAC to be $1,195,045 has been received by the County, 10% of which has been transferred to the Local Innovation account (pursuant to Government Code section 30029.07(b), effectively reducing our Growth allocation by $119,505 to $1,075,540. Since the new Growth formula is permanent for the foreseeable future, it is likely that any future Growth allocation will not exceed the 2016/17 amount described above. A detailed calculation of the Contra Costa Growth formula allocation is included in Attachment A. As proposed, the FY 2018/19 CCP Recommended Budget would increase expenditure appropriations by $1.9 million, from $25,920,149 to $27,802,938. The Governor's Proposed Budget includes an estimated increase to the County's Base allocation of $1,584,770, from $23,342,798 to $24,927,568. This figure will likely change in the May Revision and Enacted Budgets. Attachments Attachment A - CSAC Estimated Base & Growth Allocations by County (FY 2014-18) Attachment B - FY 2018/19 AB109 Budget Schedule Attachment C - FY 2018/19 Budget Request Summary Attachment D - FY 2018/19 Budget Requests Attachment E - FY 2018/19 CCP Recommended Budget Summary Correspondence from the Public Defender Page 10 of 421 2014-15 and 2015-16 Allocations Base and Growth County 2014-15 Base 2014-15 Growth 2015-16 Base 2015-16 Growth 2016-2017 Base 2016-17 Growth 2017-2018 Base Alameda $ 31,497,960 $ 4,100,990 $ 40,861,385 1,776,165$ 42,856,842$ 2,422,666$ 45,787,995$ Alpine $ 167,152 $ 13,366 $ 224,809 3,481$ 235,787$ 4,595$ 251,913$ Amador $ 1,368,104 $ 516,243 $ 1,378,795 382,541$ 1,446,128$ 75,669$ 1,545,035$ Butte $ 6,466,722 $ 1,697,507 $ 6,931,223 219,961$ 7,269,708$ 552,340$ 7,766,913$ Calaveras $ 992,402 $ 255,449 $ 1,114,713 90,663$ 1,169,150$ 54,214$ 1,249,113$ Colusa $ 589,667 $ 243,850 $ 693,231 20,003$ 727,085$ 49,694$ 776,813$ Contra Costa $ 20,669,679 $ 8,765,532 $ 20,831,204 727,382$ 21,848,491$ 1,195,045$ 23,342,798$ Del Norte $ 721,629 $ 436,564 $ 983,957 47,756$ 1,032,008$ 61,952$ 1,102,591$ El Dorado $ 3,586,615 $ 1,818,367 $ 3,614,643 234,813$ 3,791,163$ 222,252$ 4,050,456$ Fresno $ 24,164,305 $ 2,558,069 $ 32,711,894 941,281$ 34,309,372$ 2,975,703$ 36,655,930$ Glenn $ 846,022 $ 134,849 $ 1,153,582 321,454$ 1,209,917$ 100,668$ 1,292,668$ Humboldt $ 3,695,189 $ 806,028 $ 4,330,130 356,079$ 4,541,591$ 140,475$ 4,852,209$ Imperial $ 3,501,228 $ 409,231 $ 4,777,351 218,106$ 5,010,652$ 565,417$ 5,353,350$ Inyo $ 541,209 $ 61,046 $ 691,756 46,526$ 725,537$ 56,564$ 775,160$ Kern $ 31,628,367 $ 4,872,538 $ 36,104,558 3,753,017$ 37,867,716$ 1,399,164$ 40,457,643$ Kings $ 6,894,852 $ 2,618,439 $ 6,948,733 652,823$ 7,288,072$ 843,929$ 7,786,533$ Lake $ 1,934,887 $ 192,832 $ 2,497,419 105,656$ 2,619,380$ 112,486$ 2,798,530$ Lassen $ 1,080,925 $ 185,516 $ 1,358,884 152,545$ 1,425,245$ 54,397$ 1,522,723$ Los Angeles $ 290,538,549 $ 23,778,008 $ 344,481,162 17,755,186$ 361,303,819$ 22,298,545$ 386,014,858$ Madera $ 4,087,031 $ 640,018 $ 5,576,210 318,582$ 5,848,523$ 639,914$ 6,248,528$ Marin $ 4,900,330 $ 2,569,053 $ 4,938,624 182,798$ 5,179,800$ 408,743$ 5,534,068$ Mariposa $ 472,956 $ 92,075 $ 566,924 169,734$ 594,610$ 16,152$ 635,278$ Mendocino $ 2,205,821 $ 711,297 $ 2,322,880 156,857$ 2,436,317$ 79,842$ 2,602,947$ Merced $ 5,692,045 $ 1,444,201 $ 7,763,704 539,041$ 8,142,842$ 714,281$ 8,699,764$ Modoc $ 235,208 $ 45,018 $ 321,108 88,070$ 336,789$ 15,502$ 359,823$ Mono $ 428,294 $ 70,606 $ 584,103 44,113$ 612,628$ 64,198$ 654,528$ Monterey $ 8,633,838 $ 844,532 $ 11,159,775 647,463$ 11,704,760$ 756,797$ 12,505,297$ Napa $ 2,673,402 $ 551,811 $ 3,240,370 676,311$ 3,398,613$ 283,400$ 3,631,058$ Nevada $ 1,918,350 $ 783,916 $ 1,933,341 80,310$ 2,027,755$ 194,020$ 2,166,441$ Orange $ 63,045,168 $ 17,399,444 $ 70,813,993 2,931,181$ 74,272,178$ 6,055,331$ 79,351,954$ Placer $ 6,659,794 $ 1,930,434 $ 7,176,968 259,768$ 7,527,454$ 636,454$ 8,042,287$ Plumas $ 551,023 $ 197,629 $ 609,538 59,307$ 639,305$ 25,139$ 683,029$ Riverside $ 47,744,372 $ 5,381,263 $ 65,141,764 2,142,476$ 68,322,947$ 6,709,911$ 72,995,831$ Sacramento $ 30,485,341 $ 3,679,007 $ 41,572,174 1,337,531$ 43,602,342$ 2,532,450$ 46,584,483$ San Benito $ 1,203,382 $ 428,214 $ 1,593,050 203,766$ 1,670,846$ 143,765$ 1,785,122$ San Bernardino $ 68,145,357 $ 12,157,309 $ 83,729,133 4,712,958$ 87,818,026$ 5,398,263$ 93,824,259$ San Diego $ 63,164,783 $ 16,578,200 $ 68,458,956 1,518,743$ 71,802,133$ 5,740,690$ 76,712,973$ San Francisco 18,337,440$ 6,285,751$ 20,359,877$ 965,739$ 21,354,147$ 1,240,372$ 22,814,644$ San Joaquin $ 16,066,726 $ 1,771,257 $ 21,513,379 1,142,909$ 22,563,980$ 989,100$ 24,107,222$ San Luis Obispo $ 5,644,308 $ 545,788 $ 7,164,312 284,364$ 7,514,180$ 691,713$ 8,028,105$ San Mateo $ 14,450,429 $ 5,863,388 $ 14,563,353 885,694$ 15,274,551$ 956,884$ 16,319,240$ Santa Barbara $ 8,657,369 $ 1,118,182 $ 11,078,836 551,843$ 11,619,868$ 993,525$ 12,414,598$ Santa Clara $ 36,404,725 $ 8,409,131 $ 41,313,799 1,543,990$ 43,331,349$ 3,580,025$ 46,294,956$ Santa Cruz $ 5,637,055 $ 748,732 $ 6,832,189 612,916$ 7,165,838$ 764,181$ 7,655,938$ Shasta $ 6,741,871 $ 2,487,750 $ 6,794,556 342,732$ 7,126,367$ 256,950$ 7,613,768$ Sierra $ 178,831 $ 91,603 $ 231,033 5,697$ 242,315$ 16,329$ 258,888$ Siskiyou $ 1,110,942 $ 356,271 $ 1,296,058 52,299$ 1,359,351$ 86,398$ 1,452,322$ Solano $ 9,077,651 $ 3,143,755 $ 10,466,801 402,396$ 10,977,944$ 386,517$ 11,728,771$ Sonoma $ 9,657,516 $ 4,530,253 $ 9,732,986 371,092$ 10,208,294$ 604,266$ 10,906,481$ Stanislaus $ 13,899,952 $ 1,440,268 $ 17,764,873 1,180,382$ 18,632,416$ 1,530,289$ 19,906,763$ Sutter $ 2,692,639 $ 1,024,819 $ 2,713,681 287,448$ 2,846,203$ 161,826$ 3,040,867$ Tehama $ 2,824,325 $ 3,101,850 $ 2,846,396 46,705$ 2,985,399$ 266,558$ 3,189,582$ Trinity $ 427,173 $ 220,005 $ 580,154 26,124$ 608,486$ 27,350$ 650,103$ Tulare $ 12,723,594 $ 2,227,867 $ 15,875,860 587,520$ 16,651,153$ 1,502,507$ 17,789,994$ Tuolumne $ 1,389,149 $ 183,692 $ 1,776,122 133,987$ 1,862,858$ 145,887$ 1,990,266$ Ventura $ 16,115,645 $ 6,183,310 $ 16,300,317 439,395$ 17,096,339$ 931,118$ 18,265,628$ Yolo $ 6,506,453 $ 3,279,053 $ 6,689,128 221,316$ 7,015,790$ 644,623$ 7,495,628$ Yuba $ 2,424,248 $ 1,447,764 $ 2,443,192 126,925$ 2,562,505$ 70,526$ 2,737,765$ California $ 934,100,000 $ 173,428,945 $ 1,107,528,945 54,085,919$ 1,161,614,864$ 79,447,570$ 1,241,062,434$ * The 2014-15 growth numbers include an additional $64.8 million per Government Code section 30027.9, subdivision (a), paragraph (3). Although the Governor’s May Revision realignment estimates displays $998.9 million for base and $108.6 million for growth, this chart reflects the restoration in the growth column as it was distributed using the growth formula. While the display is different, the total statewide and individual county allocations are the same. ATTACHMENT A Page 11 of 421 September 12, 2017 Detailed Description of Growth Allocation For the growth formula to function as an incentive system, as it is designed to be, the incentives must be clear enough that counties know which outcomes are rewarded. The formula is broken down into three categories in which there are sub-categories. The three are: 1. 2nd Striker Reduction= $28,726 per reduction (10% from the top) 2. Probation= 80% 3. Incarceration= 20% In each of these categories, the formula rewards both ongoing success and yea r-over-year success. 2nd Striker Reduction The first step in calculating growth allocations is to determine which counties sent fewer felons to prison with second- strike designations than in the previous year. Counties get a direct allocation of $28,726 for each one fewer second striker than the previous year. This allocation is taken off the top, so it is not part of the portions allocated based on incarceration or probation. Due to the low growth revenue, there will be a cap of 10% from the top for 2nd striker reduction allocations. Probation – 80% Felony Probation Success – 60%: Sixty percent of growth funds are allocated by taking a county’s annual felony probation population and subtracting the number of those revoked to prison or jail. The number of each county’s non- revoked probationers is then calculated as a share of the number statewide and the county receives that share of these funds. Felony Probation Improvement – 20%: Twenty percent of growth funds are allocated to counties that improve their felony probation failure rate from one year to the next. A county’s failure rate is determined by dividing its annual felony probation population by the number of probationers revoked to prison or jail. If that rate decreases from one year to the next, then the difference is multiplied by the county’s total felony probation population . This gives the number that would have been revoked under the previous year’s higher revocation rate . That number is then calculated as a share of the total number among all counties that qualify and the county receives that share of these funds. Incarceration – 20% Incarceration Reduction – 10%: Ten percent of the growth funds are allocated to counties that send fewer felons to prison on new convictions from one year to the next. The difference is then calculated as a share of the total difference among all counties that qualify and the county receives that share of these funds. Low Incarceration Rate – 10%: Ten percent of the growth funds are allocated to counties that have a lower rate of incarceration per capita than the statewide rate. The rate is calculated by taking a county’s number of felon admissions for new convictions and dividing it by the county’s adult population (those aged 18 to 64). That rate is then compared to the statewide rate to determine how many more people would be imprisoned if the county’s rate were not lower than the statewide rate. That number is then calculated as a share of the total number for all counties that qualify and the county receives that share of these funds. ATTACHMENT A Page 12 of 421 2nd Strikers - 2015 2nd Strikers - 2014 Reduction 2nd striker share 2nd striker $ Contra Costa 53 44 - - -$ California 8477 10,278 1,891 100%7,944,757$ 2015 Probation Population Revoked to Jail or Prison Successes Statewide Share $ Contra Costa 3,188 77 3,111 1.16%497,441$ California 280,098 11,833 268,265 100%42,901,688$ 2015 Failure Rate 2014 Failure Rate Improvement # of Probationers Improvement Represents Statewide Share $ Contra Costa 2.42%2.74%0.32%10.19 0.25%35,374$ California 4.22%5.62%1.40%4,121 100%14,300,563$ Incarcerated from County - 2015 Incarcerated from County - 2014 Incarcerated from County - Difference Incarceration Reduction Statewide Share $ Contra Costa 455 422 7.82%- 0.00%-$ California 34,450 38,176 -9.76%4,099 100%7,150,281$ County Population Incarceration Rate - 2015 Rate Below Statewide Prisoners Fewer Because Lower Statewide Share $ Contra Costa 1,111,899 0.04%0.05%529.30 9.26%662,230$ California 38,915,880 0.09%5,715.00 100%7,150,281$ Statewide Share Total Growth $ Contra Costa 1.5042%1,195,045$ California 100.00%79,447,570$ Friday, September 08, 2017 Total Calculating Contra Costa County's 2016-17 Growth 2nd Striker Reduction ($28,726 per) (10% from top) Felony Probation Success (60%) Felony Probation Improvement (20%) Incarceration Reduction (10%) Low Incarceration Rate (10%) ATTACHMENT A Page 13 of 421 Local Innovation Subaccount The Local Innovation Subaccount exists only at the local level. The subaccount—funded by taking a ten percent share of four other specified realignment-related growth accounts—is intended to promote local innovation and county decision making. Government Code Section 30029.07 (b) Beginning in the 2015-16 fiscal year, each county treasurer, city and county treasurer, or other appropriate official shall transfer to the Local Innovation Subaccount 10 percent of the moneys received during a fiscal year from each of the following state accounts: (1) The Trial Court Security Growth Special Account. (2) The Community Corrections Growth Special Account. (3) The District Attorney and Public Defender Growth Special Account. (4) The Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account. In 2017, counties will transfer 2016-17 growth funds, which are distributed to counties in late October 2017, to the Local Innovation Account. Expenditure decisions for the Local Innovation Subaccount are determined by the Board of Supervisors. The subaccount can be used to fund any activity that is otherwise allowable for any of the underlying accounts that fund the innovation subaccount. Government Code Section 30025 (f)(15): Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the moneys in the Local Innovation Subaccount shall be used to fund local needs. The board of supervisors of a county or city and county shall have the authority to spend money deposited in the Local Innovation Subaccount as it would any funds in the Juvenile Justice Subaccount, the District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount, the Community Corrections Subaccount, or the Trial Court Security Subaccount. ATTACHMENT A Page 14 of 421 2016-17 Estimated Growth Allocations Including Local Innovation Subaccount County DA/PD Estimate Youthful Offender Estimate Juvenile Reentry Estimate Trial Court Estimate Community Corrections Estimate Local Innovation Subaccount (10% of each subaccount) Alameda 143,803$ 341,325$ 22,039$ 467,448$ 2,422,666$ 339,728$ Alpine 1,125$ 8,721$ -$ 265$ 4,595$ 1,471$ Amador 7,992$ 8,721$ -$ 12,087$ 75,669$ 10,447$ Butte 40,158$ 49,201$ 4,132$ 40,444$ 552,340$ 68,628$ Calaveras 5,211$ 8,721$ -$ 7,532$ 54,214$ 7,568$ Colusa 3,141$ 8,721$ -$ 3,136$ 49,694$ 6,469$ Contra Costa 75,236$ 278,746$ 26,744$ 290,301$ 1,195,045$ 186,607$ Del Norte 3,325$ 8,721$ -$ 7,013$ 61,952$ 8,101$ El Dorado 18,466$ 34,368$ -$ 51,863$ 222,252$ 32,695$ Fresno 131,928$ 345,516$ 45,374$ 316,646$ 2,975,703$ 381,517$ Glenn 4,850$ 8,721$ 2,755$ 10,063$ 100,668$ 12,706$ Humboldt 22,585$ 35,693$ 5,510$ 24,099$ 140,475$ 22,836$ Imperial 19,414$ 58,196$ -$ 25,995$ 565,417$ 66,902$ Inyo 2,807$ 8,721$ 1,377$ 7,796$ 56,564$ 7,726$ Kern 160,062$ 278,165$ 28,927$ 210,811$ 1,399,164$ 207,713$ Kings 42,157$ 72,789$ 1,377$ 20,201$ 843,929$ 98,045$ Lake 12,091$ 12,849$ 1,377$ 10,720$ 112,486$ 14,952$ Lassen 5,640$ 8,721$ -$ 3,453$ 54,397$ 7,221$ Los Angeles 1,682,657$ 2,249,215$ 192,844$ 3,156,918$ 22,298,545$ 2,958,018$ Madera 24,768$ 43,553$ 1,377$ 27,796$ 639,914$ 73,741$ Marin 20,691$ 47,418$ -$ 64,649$ 408,743$ 54,150$ Mariposa 2,429$ 8,721$ -$ 4,258$ 16,152$ 3,156$ Mendocino 14,611$ 24,206$ -$ 28,696$ 79,842$ 14,735$ Merced 36,749$ 118,432$ 20,662$ 60,793$ 714,281$ 95,092$ Modoc 1,136$ 8,721$ -$ 2,246$ 15,502$ 2,760$ Mono 1,540$ 8,721$ -$ 10,138$ 64,198$ 8,460$ Monterey 56,511$ 146,515$ 13,775$ 81,238$ 756,797$ 105,484$ Napa 15,696$ 37,473$ -$ 34,523$ 283,400$ 37,109$ Nevada 8,146$ 10,216$ -$ 17,839$ 194,020$ 23,022$ Orange 346,147$ 857,088$ 4,132$ 913,838$ 6,055,331$ 817,654$ Placer 43,894$ 68,090$ 1,377$ 81,503$ 636,454$ 83,132$ Plumas 2,290$ 8,721$ -$ 8,178$ 25,139$ 4,433$ Riverside 309,360$ 427,407$ 19,284$ 339,220$ 6,709,911$ 780,518$ Sacramento 193,831$ 487,213$ 30,564$ 543,315$ 2,532,450$ 378,737$ San Benito 8,019$ 9,304$ -$ 8,231$ 143,765$ 16,932$ San Bernardino 380,977$ 902,483$ 10,869$ 553,230$ 5,398,263$ 724,582$ San Diego 374,825$ 655,287$ 44,176$ 715,018$ 5,740,690$ 752,999$ San Francisco 79,633$ 113,625$ 11,020$ 240,133$ 1,240,372$ 168,478$ San Joaquin 100,328$ 280,282$ 6,887$ 180,696$ 989,100$ 155,729$ San Luis Obispo 32,851$ 49,609$ 1,377$ 87,911$ 691,713$ 86,346$ San Mateo 65,915$ 208,393$ 1,377$ 218,513$ 956,884$ 145,108$ Santa Barbara 56,958$ 120,638$ 9,642$ 144,467$ 993,525$ 132,523$ Santa Clara 191,006$ 350,518$ 4,132$ 635,909$ 3,580,025$ 476,159$ Santa Cruz 25,853$ 68,657$ 2,755$ 63,961$ 764,181$ 92,541$ Shasta 43,980$ 37,615$ -$ -$ 256,950$ 33,855$ Sierra 1,125$ 8,721$ -$ 583$ 16,329$ 2,676$ Siskiyou 6,521$ 10,469$ 1,377$ 13,495$ 86,398$ 11,826$ Solano 56,423$ 124,803$ 6,887$ 120,739$ 386,517$ 69,537$ Sonoma 49,520$ 78,239$ 16,529$ 152,041$ 604,266$ 90,060$ Stanislaus 88,173$ 123,072$ 16,529$ 98,515$ 1,530,289$ 185,658$ Sutter 17,233$ 28,726$ -$ 11,769$ 161,826$ 21,955$ Tehama 17,856$ 18,238$ -$ 12,065$ 266,558$ 31,472$ Trinity 2,123$ 8,721$ 1,377$ -$ 27,350$ 3,957$ Tulare 83,153$ 327,329$ 20,551$ 120,781$ 1,502,507$ 205,432$ Tuolumne 8,766$ 9,149$ -$ 21,811$ 145,887$ 18,561$ Ventura 86,404$ 250,247$ 2,755$ 238,438$ 931,118$ 150,896$ Yolo 43,619$ 65,712$ 1,377$ 58,166$ 644,623$ 81,350$ Yuba 14,794$ 30,224$ 1,377$ 11,515$ 70,526$ 12,844$ California 5,296,505$ 10,008,381$ 584,628$ 10,593,009$ 79,447,570$ 10,593,009$ 9/28/2017 ATTACHMENT A Page 15 of 421 Attachment B ATTACHMENT B Major Activity Due Date CCP Date PPC Date BOS Date Completed? Distribute 2018/19 CCP Budget Packet 9/22 P Departments Submit Preliminary Budget Proposals 10/23 P November 2017 CCP Agenda Packet Published 10/27 P November 2017 CCP Meeting - Budget Workshop 11/3 P December 2017 CCP Agenda Packet Published 11/24 P December 2017 CCP Meeting - Budget Deliberations 12/1 P Public Protection Comm. Agenda Packet Published (tentative)2/1 Public Protection Comm. - CCP Budget Discussion (tentative)2/5 County Budget Materials Due from Departments (tentative)2/9 County Recommended Budget available (tentative)4/6 Board of Supervisors Budget Hearings (tentative)4/17 County Budget Adoption (tentative)5/8 as of 11/20/17 FY 2018/19 CCP Budget Schedule Page 16 of 421 ATTACHMENT C 2017/18 ONGOING BASELINE +PROG. MOD.=TOTAL REQUEST PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Sheriff Salaries & Benefits 6,649,947 7,013,256 - 7,013,256 Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 - 456,250 Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 - 55,000 IT Support 40,000 40,000 - 40,000 Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 - 80,500 "Jail to Community" Program 208,000 243,650 - 243,650 Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 755,000 755,000 - 755,000 Sheriff Total 8,244,697 8,643,656 - 8,643,656 Probation Salaries & Benefits 2,591,428 2,625,279 - 2,625,279 Operating Costs 169,098 172,574 - 172,574 Salaries & Benefits-Pre-Trial Services Program 748,632 784,296 - 784,296 Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 77,762 77,762 - 77,762 Probation Total 3,586,920 3,659,911 - 3,659,911 Behavioral Health Salaries & Benefits 996,180 1,025,137 - 1,025,137 Operating Costs 58,752 58,752 - 58,752 Contracts 1,292,088 1,303,361 - 1,303,361 Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 22,448 22,448 - 22,448 Travel 10,200 10,200 - 10,200 Behavioral Health Total 2,379,668 2,419,898 - 2,419,898 Health Services--Detention Health Services Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 187,537 298,667 - 298,667 Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 294,711 402,595 - 402,595 Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 494,004 781,252 79,000 860,252 Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 121,532 142,703 - 142,703 Detention Health Services Total 1,097,784 1,625,217 79,000 1,704,217 Public Defender Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 397,269 407,197 286,330 693,527 Sal & Ben-ACER Program 872,787 875,646 - 875,646 Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordination 267,971 267,972 62,137 330,109 Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program 172,575 175,434 175,434 350,868 Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 190,401 195,542 97,771 293,313 Stand Together CoCo 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 Operating/Capital Costs - - 27,125 27,125 Public Defender Total 2,401,003 2,421,791 648,797 3,070,588 District Attorney Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 109,231 87,881 - 87,881 Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 649,491 682,494 - 682,494 Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 693,512 792,950 - 792,950 Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 64,094 72,372 - 72,372 Salaries & Benefits-Gen'l Clerk 63,536 60,399 - 60,399 Operating Costs 86,109 92,638 - 92,638 District Attorney Total 1,665,973 1,788,734 - 1,788,734 EHSD-- Workforce Development Board Salaries & Benefits 204,000 204,000 - 204,000 Travel 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 EHSD-WDB Total 208,000 208,000 - 208,000 County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice Salaries & Benefits 517,079 558,995 (30,415) 528,580 Ceasefire Program Contract 110,000 114,000 - 114,000 Research and Eval. Manager - - 155,608 155,608 Data Evaluation & Systems Planning 83,021 83,021 (83,021) - Operating Costs 7,500 7,500 - 7,500 CAO/ORJ Total1 717,600 763,516 42,172 805,688 CCC Police Chief's Association Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 542,880 564,596 - 564,596 Salaries and Benefits-MHET Teams (3)- - 423,447 423,447 CCC Police Chiefs' Total 542,880 564,596 423,447 988,043 Community Programs Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 Network System of Services 820,000 940,000 - 940,000 Reentry Success Center 465,000 525,000 - 525,000 Short and Long-Term Housing Access 1,030,000 1,030,000 - 1,030,000 Legal Services 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 Mentoring and Family Reunification 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 Connections to Resources 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 17/18 4% Floor Allocation - TBD 187,201 - - - CAB Support (via ORJ)- 7,021 - 7,021 18/19 4% COLA - Allocation TBD - 194,688 - 194,688 Community Programs Total 4,867,201 5,061,709 - 5,061,709 Superior Court Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial 208,421 208,421 - 208,421 Superior Court Total 208,421 208,421 - 208,421 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,920,149 27,365,449 1,193,416 28,558,865 Notes: 1. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount only. AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM FY 2018/19 CCP TOTAL REQUEST SUMMARY as of November 22, 2017 2018/19 BUDGET REQUEST Page 17 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - Sergeant Staff Supervision 3.1 297,449 1.00 313,471.00$ 1.00 313,471 1.00 Deputy Sheriff Inmate Management 3.1 5,246,280 20.00 5,524,337.00$ 20.00 5,524,337 20.00 Sheriff's Specialist Alternative Custody progrms 3.1 404,274 3.00 436,506.00$ 3.00 436,506 3.00 Senior Clerk Data and Admin Support 3.1 225,478 2.00 232,242.00$ 2.00 232,242 2.00 ASA III Administrative Support 5.1 167,938 1.00 177,455.00$ 1.00 177,455 1.00 DSW Additional Cleaning/Maintenance 3.1 195,339 2.00 208,214.00$ 2.00 208,214 2.00 Lead Cook Food Prep.3.1 113,189 1.00 121,031.00$ 1.00 121,031 1.00 - - Subtotal 6,649,947 30.00 7,013,256 30.00 - - 7,013,256$ 30.00 OPERATING COSTS - FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSEHOLD Inmate Management/Welfare 3.1 456,250 456,250.00$ 456,250 MONITORING COSTS Inmate Monitoring 3.1 55,000 55,000.00$ 55,000 IT SUPPORT Tech. Support 3.1 40,000 40,000.00$ 40,000 Behavioral Health Crt. Ops.Overhead for Behavioral Health Court 3.3 80,500 80,500.00$ 80,500 Program Administration Jail-to-Communities Programs 5.3 208,000 243,650.00$ 243,650 Program Services Inmate Program Services 755,000 755,000.00$ 755,000 - - - - - Subtotal 1,594,750 1,630,400 - 1,630,400$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- - - Subtotal - - - - Total 8,244,697$ 30.00 8,643,656$ 30.00 -$ - 8,643,656$ 30.00 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: Sheriff Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 18 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: The above funding requests reflect a maintenance of 18/19 staffing, operations and programs, with no request for capital costs. DEPARTMENT: Sheriff 2018/19 Baseline Request FY 2018-2019 SERGEANT (1) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 DEPUTY SHERIFF (16)* Facilities, (2) Transportation, (1) Classification, (1) Behaviorial Health Court Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs *(16) = (5) MDF + (2) MDF freetime; (5) WCDF + (2) WCDF freetime + (2) WCDF female freetime FY 2018-2019 SPECIALIST (3) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 SENIOR CLERK (2) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 ASA III - Inmate Programs (1) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 DETENTION SERVICE WORKER - DSW (2) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected slary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 LEAD COOK (1) Maintains same staffing approved for 17-18; increased personnel costs reflect rise in projected salary and benefits costs FY 2018-2019 Food/Clothing/Household Funding for food, clothing, and household expenses to meet inmates' needs and Title 15 requirements. These ongoing cost estimates are calculated from a Food/Clothing Services budget of approximately $4.1 million. ATTACHMENT D Page 19 of 421 FY 2018-2019 Monitoring Costs These costs are primarily related to the Custody Alternative Facility and the ongoing costs associated with the monitoring through contracts with SCRAM and 3M for alternative custody devices. This program enables defendants to remain out of physical/hard custody while being monitored (e.g.: electronically) under provisions recommended by the Court. FY 2018-2019 IT Support The ongoing costs associated with the Sheriff’s Office and contracts for IT support, which includes installation and maintenance for the alternative custody devices, Jail Management System maintenance, and other computer and elctronic requisites supported by the Sheriff's Technical Services Division. FY 2018-2019 Behavioral Health Court This item is to support the ongoing costs of the Behavioral Health Court as it currently exists, to include vehicle, rent, IT support, phones, PG&E, repairs, limited supplies, cell phones, computers, drug testing, and Deputy annual training classes FY 2018-2019 Program Administration Costs The Sheriff's Office was awarded $208,000 in FY 17-18 to administer "Jail to Community" programs in the detention facilities. Men and Women of Purpose has requested a 23% increase of $35,650 due to their expanded service to all three Sheriff's custody facilities. Thus, the requested total for 18-19 is 243,650. FY 2018-2019 Program Services The Sheriff's Office was awarded $755,000 in FY 17-18 for inmate program services in the detention facilities. Once the contract with Global Tel Link is finalized, the Sheriff's Office will receive no further revenue from the phones. The $755,000 offsets the loss of revenue from commissions that Office of the Sheriff will no longer be receiving from the new contract. ATTACHMENT D Page 20 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - Director Field Services Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 27,711 0.10 28,404 0.10 28,404 0.10 Probation Manager Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 51,041 0.20 52,317 0.20 52,317 0.20 Probation Supervisor I Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 223,944 1.00 226,792 1.00 226,792 1.00 Deputy Probation Officer III Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 2,148,521 12.00 2,200,909 12.00 2,200,909 12.00 DPO III Overtime Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 25,750 N/A 25,750 N/A 25,750 N/A Clerk Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 79,460 1.00 81,866 1.00 81,866 1.00 IT Support Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 8,242 0.06 9,241 0.06 9,241 0.06 17/18 4% Floor Allocation 26,759 N/A - - Subtotal 2,591,428 14.36 2,625,279 14.36 - - 2,625,279$ 14.36 OPERATING COSTS - Office Expense Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 3,090 1,500 1,500 Communication Costs Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 10,300 10,609 10,609 Minor Furniture/Equipment Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 1,545 30,000 30,000 Minor Computer Equipment Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 25,750 2,476 2,476 Food Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 10,300 4,250 4,250 Client Expenses/Incentives Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 17,688 15,000 15,000 Contracts Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 - - - Data Processing Services/Supplies Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 7,725 7,957 7,957 Travel/Training Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 10,300 15,910 Warrant Pick-up Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 - - - Annual Vehicle Operating Expenses (ISF)Post-release Community Supervision 5.1 82,400 84,872 84,872 Subtotal 169,098 172,574 - 172,574$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 2,760,526$ 14.36 2,797,853$ 14.36 -$ - 2,797,853$ 14.36 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: Probation Department 2018/19 Total Funding Request2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 ATTACHMENT D Page 21 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: Probation Department 2018/19 Baseline Request The Probation Department's proposed FY 2018/19 allocation of $2,797,853 will provide the following level of service: Salary and Benefit costs of $2,625,279 are requested for: · One (1) FTE Probation Supervisor · Twelve (12) FTE Probation Officers · The case load for each AB 109 Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) is 40 to 45 people · This includes a dedicated DPO to process the reentry of those being released from prison and local jail. This will include but is not limited to completion of the CAIS risk needs assessment tool, and begin the process to ensure the most seamless transition from being in custody and returning to our communities. · Projected Overtime for AB 109 DPOs · One (1) FTE clerk · Partial FTEs for additional management supervision and IT support. Operating costs of $172,574 are requested for: · $172,574 for ongoing vehicle maintenance, equipment, travel, training, communication costs, data processing services, incentives for probation clients including bus/BART tickets and food for weekly "Thinking for a Change" meetings. 2018/19 Program Modification Request Probation is not requesting any modifications for FY 2018/19 ATTACHMENT D Page 22 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Pre-Trial Pilot Project (Probation and Public Defender Departments) Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - Deputy Probation Officer III Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 664,786 4.00 705,689 4.00 705,689 4.00 Clerk Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 76,116 1.00 78,607 1.00 78,607 1.00 Legal Assistant (Public Defender)Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 190,401 2.00 195,542 2.00 97,771 1.00 293,313 3.00 17/18 4% Floor Allocation 7,730 N/A - - Subtotal 939,033 7.00 979,838 7.00 97,771 1.00 1,077,609$ 8.00 OPERATING COSTS - Office Expense Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 12,762 12,762 12,762 Travel/Training Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 10,000 10,000 10,000 Contract Pre-Trial Services Program 1.2 55,000 55,000 55,000 - Subtotal 77,762 77,762 - 77,762$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 1,016,795$ 7.00 1,057,600$ 7.00 97,771$ 1.00 1,155,371$ 8.00 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 23 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: Probation Pre-Trial 2018/19 Baseline Request The Pre-Trial Program's proposed FY 2018/19 allocation of $1,057,600 will provide the following level of service: Salary and Benefit costs of $979,838 are requested for: · Four (4) FTE Probation Officers · One (1) FTE Clerk (Probation) · Two (2) FTE Legal Assistants (Public Defender) Operating costs of $77,762 are requested for: · One-year contract in the amount of $55,000 for Pre-Trial program evaluation. · $10,000 for Travel & Training. · $12,762 for Office Expenses. 2018/19 Program Modification Request For FY 2018/19, the Public Defender's Office is requesting funding for an additional legal assistant at a cost of approximately $97,771. The PTS budget currently funds 2 PD Legal Assistants, one assigned to Richmond court and one assigned to Martinez court. Starting in January of 2018, the Superior Court is moving all East County arraignments from Martinez court to Pittsburg court. An additional PD Legal Assistant will be needed in Pittsburg arraignment court in order to maintain current arraignment court coverage levels and to ensure that all eligible individuals continue to be interviewed by the PTS team. ATTACHMENT D Page 24 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 25 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 26 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 27 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 28 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 29 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 30 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 31 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 32 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 33 of 421 ATTACHMENT D Page 34 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS Deputy Public Defender IV ACER 1.2, 2.1 535,942 2.00 535,942 2.00 - - 535,942 2.00 Deputy Public Defender III ACER 1.2, 2.2 120,758 0.50 120,758 0.50 - - 120,758 0.50 Deputy Public Defender III ACER 1.2. 2.2 120,758 0.50 120,758 0.50 - - 120,758 0.50 Legal Assistant ACER 1.2 95,329 1.00 98,188 1.00 - - 98,188 1.00 Deputy Public Defender II Clean Slate 5.2 67,656 0.50 67,656 0.50 - - 67,656 0.50 Legal Assistant Clean Slate 5.2 190,658 2.00 196,376 2.00 - - 196,376 2.00 Social Worker Client Support 5.3 138,955 1.00 143,165 1.00 - - 143,165 1.00 Deputy Public Defender IV Reentry Coordinator 2.1-2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 267,971 1.00 267,972 1.00 - - 267,972 1.00 Deputy Public Defender - Special Assignment FTA Reduction Program 1.2, 5.3 77,246 1.00 77,246 1.00 - - 77,246 1.00 Legal Assistant FTA Reduction Program 1.2, 5.3 95,329 1.00 98,188 1.00 - - 98,188 1.00 Deputy Public Defender - Special Assignment FTA Reduction Program 1.2, 5.3 - - - - 77,246 1.00 77,246 1.00 Legal Assistant FTA Reduction Program 1.2, 5.3 - - - - 98,188 1.00 98,188 1.00 Social Worker Client Support 5.3 - - - - 143,165 1.00 143,165 1.00 Social Worker Client Support 5.3 - - - - 143,165 1.00 143,165 1.00 Clerk Experienced Level Reentry Program Support 1.2, 2.1, 5.2, 5.3, - - - - 62,137 1.00 62,137 1.00 Subtotal 1,710,602 10.50 1,726,249 10.50 523,901 5.00 2,250,150$ 15.50 OPERATING COSTS Training/Travel - - - 10,000 10,000 Clean Slate event supplies - - - 845 825 Mileage - - - 9,379 9,379 Postage for FTA Reduction Program - - - 1,176 1,176 Promotional Materials Clean Slate - - - 925 925 - Subtotal - - 22,325 22,325$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME) Laptop purchase - - - 4,800 4,800 Subtotal - - 4,800 4,800 Total 1,710,602$ 10.50 1,726,249$ 10.50 551,026$ 5.00 2,277,275$ 15.50 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continung programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: Public Defender Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 35 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: Public Defender 2018/19 Baseline Request 1. ACER. Salary and benefits costs of $875,576 are requested for (2) FTE Deputy Public Defender IVs, (2) .5 FTE Deputy Public Defender III, and (1) FTE Legal Assistant. This program provides for early representation of in-custody clients at the first court appearance. The program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 2. Social Worker. Salary and benefits costs of $143,165 are requested for (1) FTE Social Worker. The Public Defender Social Worker provides social histories and needs assessments for adult clients to support appropriate case dispositions and to refer clients to services that will result in successful case outcomes and reduce recidivism. The program furthers the goals of providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry. 3. Clean Slate. Salary and benefits costs of $264,032 are requested for (2) FTE Clean Slate Legal Assistants and (1) .5 FTE Deputy Public Defender II. The .5 FTE Clean Slate attorney represents Clean Slate clients in litigating their record clearance cases. One of the Clean Slate Legal Assistants is dedicated to handling Expungements and the other Clean Slate Legal Assistant is dedicated to handling Prop 47/Prop 64 cases. The Clean Slate Program provides record clearance services county-wide. The program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry. 4. FTA Reduction Program/Early Representation Program. Salary and benefits costs of $175,434 are requested for (1) Deputy Public Defender – Special Assignment Attorney and (1) FTE Legal Assistant. This program furthers the goal of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 5. Reentry Coordinator. Salary and benefits costs of $267,971 are requested for (1) FTE Reentry Coordinator. The Reentry Coordinator supervises the Reentry Programs Unit and coordinates the Public Defender’s work with various reentry programs countywide in order to continue and expand our outreach to CBOs, other county agencies, and the greater community to support reentry services for our client population. This program furthers the goal of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 2018/19 Program Modification Request 1. FTA Reduction Program/Early Representation Program. Salary and benefits costs of $175,434 are requested for (1) FTE Deputy Public Defender – Special Assignment Attorney and (1) FTE Public Defender Legal Assistant. This Program is currently operating in East and West County and has dramatically reduced failures to appear in court and the associated costs of arrest and incarceration systemwide, as well as reduced the far reaching collateral consequences to those who were arrested. An Early Representation Program site in Central County in partnership with the Concord Police Department would allow us to provide early legal services to central county residents and to reduce FTA rates on central county cases. This program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 2. Social Worker. Salary and benefits costs of $286,330 are requested for (2) FTE Social Workers. One of the Social Workers will work with the Juvenile and Transitional-Aged Youth population in order to provide early intervention in those cases and to ensure a smooth and coordinated reentry after they are released from custody. The other Social Worker will work with the approximately 607 individuals eligible for Youth Offender Parole Hearings who will be represented by the Public Defender’s Office at their Franklin hearings in Contra Costa Superior Court. Our social workers will encourage releases from custody and reduce recidivism by aiding successful reentry and reintegration for those released. The program furthers the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, and providing and enhancing integrated programs and services for successful reentry. 3. Clerk Experienced Level. Salary and benefits costs of $62,137 are requested for (1) FTE Clerk Experienced Level. The Reentry Programs Unit at the Office of the Public Defender houses the Clean Slate Program, the Early Representation Program, the Arraignment Court Early Representation Program, a Reentry Social Worker and a Reentry Coordinator. The Unit currently has no dedicated clerical support and is in need of clerical support and assistance with tracking reentry data for quarterly reporting obligations, opening and closing files for these programs, assisting with client communication and many other clerical or support level tasks that come with the successful administration of these programs. This position would further the goals of reducing recidivism, reducing pretrial detention rates, reducing unnecessary court appearances, and facilitating early disposition of cases. 4. Operating costs. Ongoing operating costs of $22,325 are requested for: training and travel for Reentry Unit attorneys and Legal Assistants, Clean Slate event supplies, mileage for Reentry Unit staff, postage for the Early Representation Program, and promotional materials for the Clean Slate and Early Representation Programs. One time costs of $4800 are requested for 4 laptops, 2 for Clean Slate staff and 2 for the Early Representation Program staff. ATTACHMENT D Page 36 of 421 Proposal for Public Defender Reentry Programs Clerk Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender October 20, 2017 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Clerk Experienced Level to support the Reentry Programs Unit at the Office of the Public Defender. 2. Need The Reentry Programs Unit at the Office of the Public Defender houses the Clean Slate Program, the Early Representation Program, the Arraignment Court Early Representation Program, a Reentry Social Worker and a Reentry Coordinator. The Unit currently has no dedicated clerical support and is in need of clerical support and assistance with tracking reentry data for quarterly reporting obligations, opening and closing files for these programs, assisting with client communication and many other clerical or support level tasks that come with the successful administration of these programs. 3. Budget Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Clerk Experienced Level $62,137 Total $ 62,137 Page 37 of 421 Early Representation Program (“EarlyRep”) Central County Proposal, Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender October 20, 2017 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender (“CCPD”) is requesting funding for 1 FT Special Assignment Attorney and 1 FT Legal Assistant in order to expand our existing innovative and cost -saving Early Representation program to Central Contra Costa County through a partnership with the Concord Police Department. 2. Background and Context CCPD launched the Misdemeanor Early Representation program (“EarlyRep”) in East County in July 2016 under an AB109 grant in partnership with the Antioch Police Dep artment. EarlyRep launched in West County in February 2017 under a U.S. Department of Justice grant in partnership with the Richmond Police Department. Each pilot site employs one Deputy Public Defender and one Public Defender Legal Assistant. EarlyRep’s purpose is to alleviate the burdens felt by all partners of the criminal justice system caused by high failure to appear (“FTA”) rates in misdemeanor cases, which are often the result of a simple lack of understanding of the court process and timing delays between the incident and arraignment. Early data collection indicates that about one-half of individuals with a misdemeanor case in Contra Costa County fail to appear at their court dates. This high FTA rate is costly and burdensome for all criminal justice partners. Courts expend resources in issuing bench warrants for individuals who FTA, law enforcement agencies expend resources in finding and arresting these individuals with warrants, and the County expends resources in having to book these individuals into jail for several days before being transported to court. For those arrested on these FTA bench warrants, the costs of arrest and incarceration carry a host of collateral consequences that can be devastating to those arrested and their families. Reducing FTAs also helps law enforcement agencies by shortening the duration of a criminal case so that officers are less likely to have to testify many years after the incident occurred. The FTA problem can be substantially improved by giving individuals who are accused of misdemeanor offenses information about their court dates and access to due process resources. 3. Program Design The project will be a partnership between the Office of the Public Defender and the Concord Police Department. Each week, EarlyRep staff will collect misdemeanor request for prosecution forms from the Concord Police Department. Using the contact information from these documents, EarlyRep staff will then immediately attempt to reach individuals to offer assistance. Patrol officers will also distribute an information card with the EarlyRep phone number to each individual following a misdemeanor incident. These cards are also distributed by the court clerks and various community organizations. Innovative technology also allows individuals to text message the EarlyRep program for help, and multilingual automated reminder texts are also sent to individuals in advance of their court dates. Page 38 of 421 The EarlyRep attorney provides various levels of assistance to participating individ uals, including explaining the criminal justice process and the steps that must be taken following a misdemeanor incident; consulting on the offense, any existing probation or diversion terms, and possible case resolutions; connecting individuals with social and community resources; negotiating with the District Attorney prior to charges being filed; preparing individuals for their first court appearance; and appearing in court at the arraignment dates. 4. Outcomes East County (Antioch Police Dept.) West County (Richmond Police Dept.) Total participants assisted since inception 1,271 438 Number of citations & requests for prosecution received 776 253 FTA rate 27.4% (down from 57% in 2015) 17.3% ( down from an estimated 52% in 2015-2016) Through both the East and West County EarlyRep programs, we have seen a dr amatic reduction in FTA rates. Additionally, nearly one half of individuals who appeared at their first court date have informed EarlyRep staff that they knew about the court date only because they were contacted in advance through the program. Moreover, the EarlyRep program assists all criminal justice system partners to establish better practices that have benefits throughout the system by identifying significant trends in the timing of court dates and filing procedures. This data allows criminal justice system partners to collaborate in order to establish better practices that will avoid costly FTAs, streamline filing practices, and make the system more efficient and less costly. 5. Budget for FY 18/19 Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Deputy Public Defender, Special Assignment Classification $77,246 1 FT Legal Assistant $98,188 Total $175,434 Page 39 of 421 Juvenile/TAY Social Worker Proposal Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender October 20, 2017 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Public Defender Social Worker to work with our juvenile and transitional aged youth (“TAY”) clients. 2. Background and Context Providing effective defense to juvenile (under 18 years old) and TAY (18 through 25-year-old) clients necessitates that Public Defenders adopt a “holistic” model. Attorneys must be able to litigate not just the legal aspects of cases, but also be able to delve into the root causes of incarceration that lead young people to become system involved. These causes are complex and often include mental illness, substance use disorders, cognitive or learning issues, poverty, homelessness, trauma, and abuse. It is widely recognized that to effectively represent juvenile clients, Public Defenders should collaborate with social workers, who have subject matter expertise in mental health and educational advocacy, and integrate them into the defense team. In the juvenile arena, a social worker is critical to providing attorneys with the tools to advocate for alternatives to incarceration and to presenting sentence mitigation to the court. In addition, a social worker is the key to advocating for juvenile and TAY clients, in court and in the community, by connecting clients with early intervention, providing supportive counseling and helping guide individuals through a maze of legal and social service systems during the reentry process. For our TAY clients, as with our juvenile clients, the neurocognitive research in the field of brain development demonstrates that this group is still developing and susceptible to peer pressure, both positive and negative. The TAY population is specialized and, like those working with juvenile clients, those working with TAY clients need specialized skills. It was the high rate of recidivism of the local TAY population that led Contra Costa County to apply for and be awarded a Smart Reentry grant to solicit additional funding and resources in supervising this specialized population during their reentry. The TAY population tends to be the largest age group within the local custodial population in Contra Costa County’s jails and they suffer from the highest rates of homelessness in the County. (Application for Second Chance Act Smart Reentry Program, Contra Costa County Probation Department (June, 2016), page 1). 3. Program Design A Public Defender social worker will ensure smooth reentry to juvenile and TAY clients. The social worker will collaborate with the defense team, thoroughly research all of the social services available in the community, and build relationships with those that are most effective. In this way, the social worker will build a network of resources that enables them to connect clients quickly to the services they need to meet their short term needs and to achieve success in the long run with reentry into the community. Page 40 of 421 The Public Defender Juvenile/TAY Social Worker will: Interview, evaluate and divert juvenile/TAY clients to social services at the earliest point in time to ensure early intervention Provide juvenile/TAY clients with a detailed needs assessment, identifying mental health and substance use disorder issues Investigate and document an individual’s family, medical, mental health, social, educational, employment and forensic histories Assess incarcerated clients in order to develop a reentry transition plan into the community Work with clients post-release to navigate services and ensure reentry plans are successfully executed Write alternative disposition recommendations to the court and be able to testify regarding client’s ability to engage in out of custody programs and services and achieve reentry success 4. Outcomes A social worker will help assure that we are providing early intervention in cases involving juveniles and TAY clients and working with those clients to ensure a smooth and coordinated reentry after they are released from custody. Through the development of detailed client assessments and alternative dispositions, our Public Defender Social Worker will be integral to providing important alternatives to incarceration and aiding a smooth reentry into the community while increasing public safety. 5. Budget for FY 18/19 Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Social Work Supervisor $143,165 Total $143,165 Page 41 of 421 Proposal for Social Worker for Youth Offender Parole Hearings Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership by the Office of the Public Defender October 20, 2017 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Public Defender Social Worker to assist with preparation of Youth Offender Parole Hearings for those currently in State Prison. 2. Background and Context CCPD has received a large influx of new cases involving juvenile and young adult defendants due to significant legal reforms in the past two years. In 2014, Senate Bill 260 created a new process through which state prisoners who were under 18 at the time of their crimes and who were sentenced in adult court to lengthy prison terms would be eligible for early parole consideration based on their lack of maturity at the time of the offense. The law established that these inmates were entitled to a Youthful Offender Parole Hearing (“YOPH”) where, due to their lack of maturity and age at the time of the offense, the parole board should give the inmate a “meaningful opportunity” to be paroled. The new law instructed the parole board to give “great weight” to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, to the “hallmark features of youth,” and to any subsequent growth and maturity of the individual. In 2016, the state legislature enacted Senate Bill 261, which expanded eligibility for Youthful Offender Parole Hearings to those who committed their crimes prior to the age of 23. This was done in recognition of the overwhelming scientific evidence that brain development and thereby executive functioning are not fully intact until a person reaches their mid-twenties. Subsequent to SB 261, Governor Brown signed AB 1308 on October 11, 2017, which further expanded YOPH eligibility to persons who committed crimes before age 25. Normally, CCPD would not be tasked with conducting parole hearings on behalf of their former clients. However, in 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Franklin that all inmates eligible for youth offender parole are entitled to a hearing before their parole eligibility date where they should be afforded an opportunity to present all mitigating evidence tied to their youthfulness at the time of the crime. These hearings are to be conducted in the Superior Court of the county of the original conviction. The evidence from these hearings would subsequently be used by the Parole Board in determining whether the individual is fit to reenter society despite having committed a serious crime while a child or young adult. Based on these new laws, CCPD has an obligation to investigate the social and family history for all clients under 25 who currently have pending cases and who are facing potential incarceration for longer than 15 years. This means that CCPD attorneys must obtain such things as school records, medical records, dependency court records, and mental health records for their youthful clients. These records are to be used in presenting a mitigating case on behalf of our clients so that, when they are eligible for parole, the board can appropriately consider the client’s youth and lack of maturity at the time of the offense. Significantly, based on the Franklin decision, CCPD now has an additional obligation to conduct this mitigation investigation on behalf of all former clients who are currently in state prison and who are eligible for a YOPH. While representing clients at their parole hearings is not the responsibility of the CCPD, the law now requires the CCPD to make a record of youth-related mitigating evidence in Superior Court. Page 42 of 421 The pool of inmates eligible for a YOPH from Contra Costa is quite large. The Department of Corrections has identified approximately 607 prison inmates sentenced by the Contra Costa County Superior Court who are potentially eligible for a Franklin hearing. This is a low estimate of those eligible, as this list of 607 includes only those who were under 23 at the time of their offense, and not those who were under 25 at the time of their offense. This group encompasses those sentenced from the 1980s forward. Many of these individuals have already served 15-25 years, meaning that they are immediately eligible for a hearing. This immediate eligibility has been confirmed in at least 129 cases. Many of these cases are required to be heard before January 1, 2020. The consequence of an incompetently-handled hearing can be a lifetime in prison versus early parole. 3. Program Design At the present time, CCPD has dedicated one senior Deputy Public Defender to handling this new caseload. It is recognized as an effective practice for an attorney to work closely with a social worker as part of a multidisciplinary team to prepare for this type of hearing. CCPD will add one social worker to work closely with the attorney handling Franklin hearings for those eligible in Contra Costa. The social worker assigned to YOPH will: Investigate mitigation, including collection of records (birth, medical, mental health, education, dependency/delinquency, military, jail/prison, etc.) for both our client and their immediate family members Communicate with the client to discuss their life circumstances at the time of the offense, their subsequent insight about their behavior at the time of the offense, the steps they have made towards rehabilitation while incarcerated and to plan for a successful reentry into the community Interview family members and other contacts who may have relevant testimony for the hearing Identify adverse childhood experiences and trauma and document these experiences Prepare a compelling statement in mitigation and social history, including the client’s involvement in the offense, the impact of youth-related factors, and the client’s likelihood of responding to rehabilitation, and what a reentry plan back into the community would entail 4. Outcomes With the addition of a YOPH Social Worker, CCPD will be able to fulfill its duty to provide a meaningful opportunity for parole to those individuals entitled to this potential relief. This will further the goal of encouraging releases from custody and reduce recidivism by aiding successful reentry and reintegration for those released. 5. Budget Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Social Work Supervisor $143,165 Total $143,165 Page 43 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS DDA-Advanced Level Realignment Coordinator Attorney 295,962 1.00 317,842 1.00 317,842 1.00 DDA-Advanced Level Arraignment Court/Realignment Attorney 571,306 2.00 596,289 2.00 596,289 2.00 Senior Level Clerk Clerical/file support-Arraign. Court 78,185 1.00 86,205 1.00 86,205 1.00 Experienced Level Clerk Clerical/file support-Arraign. Court 64,094 1.00 72,372 1.00 72,372 1.00 Experienced Level Clerk Clerical/file support 63,536 1.00 60,399 1.00 60,399 1.00 V/W Assist. Prog Specialist Reentry Notification Specialists 109,231 1.00 87,881 1.00 87,881 1.00 V/W Assist. Prog Specialist Reentry Notification Specialists 186,082 2.00 180,658 2.00 180,658 2.00 DDA-Basic Level Violence Reduction/Recidivism Attorney 211,468 1.00 294,450 1.00 294,450 1.00 - - - - - - - - Subtotal 1,579,864 10.00 1,696,096 10.00 - - 1,696,096$ 10.00 OPERATING COSTS - Office Expense 2,156 3,516 3,516 Postage 656 1,561 Communication Costs 1,740 3,557 Minor Furniture/Equipment 364 1,383 Minor Computer Equipment 3,481 678 Clothing & Supply 25 14 Memberships 1,560 592 Computer Software Cost 20 - - Auto Mileage 1,995 5,052 5,052 Other Travel Employees 264 3,789 3,789 Court Reporter Transcript 207 - Occupancy Costs 56,052 56,048 56,048 Data Processing Services/Supplies 17,388 14,836 14,836 Other Interdepartmental Charges 105 105 105 Other Special Dept. Charges 96 - - Books-Periodicals-Subscription 1,132 Non Cnty Prog Speclzd Svcs 375 375 - Subtotal 86,109 92,638 - 92,638$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 1,665,973$ 10.00 1,788,734$ 10.00 -$ - 1,788,734$ 10.00 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: District Attorney Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 44 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: District Attorney 2018/19 Baseline Request The District Attorney's Office proposed FY 2018/19 Baseline allocation of $ 1,788,734. Any increases over the prior year budget is due to applicable COLA's and step increases. The realignment team will continue to address the additional challenges presented by the realignment of our criminal justice system pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h). Salary and Benefit costs of $ 1,696,096 are requested for Four (4) FTE Deputy District Attorneys, One (1) Senior Level Clerk, Two (2) Experienced Level Clerk, and Three (3) Victim/Witness Assistance Program Specialists. Operating costs includes Office Expense $ 3,516, Postage $ 1,561, Communication Costs $ 3,557, Minor Furniture Equipment $ 1,383, Minor Computer Equipment $ 678, Clothing and Supply $ 14, Membership $ 592, Auto Mileage $ 5,052, Other Travel Employees $3,789, Occupancy Costs $ 56,048, Data Processing Services/Supplies $ 14,836, Other interdepartmental Charges $ 105, Books-Periodicals-Subscription $ 1,132, Non County Program Sepcialized Services $ 375 2018/19 Program Modification Request N/A ATTACHMENT D Page 45 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - One Stop Administrator Coordination with One-Stop system 16,000 16,000 16,000 - One Stop Case Managers & Employment Placement Counselors Linkage with direct service providers 40,000 40,000 40,000 - Workforce Services Specialist Engagement with public & private partners 50,000 50,000 50,000 - Business Service Representative Recruitment & engagement of businesses 65,000 65,000 65,000 - SBDC Director Small business & entrepreneurship linkages 5,000 5,000 5,000 - SBDC Advisors Small business & entrepreneurship linkages 10,000 10,000 10,000 - Workforce Board Executive Director Oversight & coordination with workforce system 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 17/18 4% Floor Allocation 8,000 8,000 8,000 - - Subtotal 204,000 - 204,000 - - - 204,000$ - OPERATING COSTS - Training/Travel 4,000 4,000 4,000 - e.g. Training/Travel - Small Equipment Purchase - Computer (1), radios (2), etc.- IT Support - Vehicle Operating - Office Supplies - Communication Costs Outfitting Costs - - Subtotal 4,000 4,000 - 4,000$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 208,000$ - 208,000$ - -$ - 208,000$ - 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. NOTE: Ops Plan Item #FTEs - each position is a full FTE funded through multiple sources Department: Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 46 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming that will be provided on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County 2018/19 Baseline Request The Contra Costa Workforce Development Board (WDB) is seeking status quo level funding of $208,000 for the fiscal year 2018-2019. The budget reflects the amount of time key staff will devote to AB109 in order to continue to provide linkages to the One-Stop AJCC system, direct service providers, business engagement and small buisiness and entrepreneurship connections. In accordnace with the WDB's orginal submittal the WDB will us AB109 funds to leverage other funds to provide services to previously incarcerated individuals. 2018/19 Program Modification Request The Workforce Development Board is not seeking new funding at this time. While labor agreements resulting in wage increases will increase staffing costs by about 5%, through working with CCP partner agencies and other organizations, the WDB is committed to pursuing and securing additional resources that can further support, link, align and leverage related work to serve AB109 participants and concurrerntly expand efforts to serve other populations that are returning to communitites in Contra Costa County and help them with employment and training needs. ATTACHMENT D Page 47 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - - - Senior Deputy County Administrator Program Administration 6.2 156,651 0.90 182,490 0.90 (30,415) (0.15) 152,075 0.75 ORJ Deputy Director Program Administration 6.2 185,136 1.00 185,136 1.00 185,136 1.00 Senior Management Analyst Program Administration 6.2 108,502 1.00 148,632 1.00 148,632 1.00 Advanced Secretary Program Administration 6.2 39,189 0.50 42,737 0.50 42,737 0.50 Research & Evaluation Manager Program Administration 6.2 155,608 1.00 155,608 1.00 - - - - 17/18 4% Floor Allocation 27,601 N/A - - Subtotal 517,079 3.40 558,995 3.40 125,193 0.85 684,188$ 4.25 OPERATING COSTS - - Ceasefire Program Coordinator 5.1 110,000 114,000 114,000 Data Evaluation & System Planning 6.3, 6.4 83,021 83,021 (83,021) - Communications, office supplies, travel/transp.6.2 7,500 7,500 7,500 - - - - - - Subtotal 200,521 204,521 (83,021) 121,500$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- - - Subtotal - - - - Total 717,600$ 3.40 763,516$ 3.40 42,172$ 0.85 805,688$ 4.25 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: County Administrator 2018/19 Total Funding Request2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 ATTACHMENT D Page 48 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: The CAO's Office of Reentry & Justice (ORJ) pilot program is requesting support for the last fiscal year of the authorized 2.5 years of the pilot, to perform work consistent with the adopted ORJ Work Plan: AB 109 Community Programs; Racial Justice Task Force; Reentry Strategic Plan implementation; Stepping Up initiative; Central-East County Ceasefire Program; Pre-Release Planning Project; Pre-Trial Program; Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE); Youth Justice Initiative evaluation; grant development. DEPARTMENT: County Administrator 2018/19 Baseline Request The FY 2018-19 Baseline Request utilizes the actual costs of the existing ORJ staff, assumes step increases in 2018-19, and makes no changes to the data and operating expenses. However, this does not represent the proposing staffing composition of the ORJ in FY 2018-19, as authorized by the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 18, 2016 (C. 117). In that authorization for FY 18-19, the CAO had proposed to reduce the allocation of the Director to 0.5 FTE and to add a Research & Evaluation Manager. However, given the workload of the ORJ, the CAO is proposing to increase the ORJ Director allocation in FY 18-19 to 0.75 FTE, recognizing the additional management support that the Office requires to fulfill its charge. With the addition of a Research & Evaluation Manager, the prior allocation for data and evaluation work is eliminated. The Baseline Budget also assumes a 4% cost of living increase for the Ceasefire Program Coordinator, which is provided by the City of Pittsburg Police Department. 2018/19 Program Modification Request The 2018-19 Program Modifications include the proposal to change the ORJ Director allocation from the proposed 0.5 FTE in 2018-19 to 0.75 FTE; and the addition of the authorized Research & Evaluation Manager position (at step 1). With the addition of the Research & Evaluation manager, the prior allocation for data evaluation and system planning is no longer required. ATTACHMENT D Page 49 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - Antioch Police Officer AB 109 Officer 5.1 135,720 1.00 141,149 1.00 - - 141,149 1.00 Concord Police Officer AB 109 Officer 5.1 135,720 1.00 141,149 1.00 - - 141,149 1.00 Pittsburg Police Officer AB 109 Officer 5.1 135,720 1.00 141,149 1.00 - - 141,149 1.00 Richmond Police Officer AB 109 Officer 5.1 135,720 1.00 141,149 1.00 - - 141,149 1.00 Richmond Police Officer (West)MHET Officer 5.1 - - - - 141,149 1.00 141,149 1.00 Walnut Creek Police Officer (Central)MHET Officer 5.1 - - - - 141,149 1.00 141,149 1.00 Pittsburg Police Officer (East)MHET Officer 5.1 - - - - 141,149 1.00 141,149 1.00 Subtotal 542,880 4.00 564,596 4.00 423,447 3.00 988,043$ 7.00 OPERATING COSTS - e.g. Training/Travel - Small Equipment Purchase - computer, printer, etc.- IT Support - Vehicle Operating - Office Supplies - Communication Costs - Outfitting Costs - Subtotal - - - -$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 542,880$ 4.00 564,596$ 4.00 423,447$ 3.00 988,043$ 7.00 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: CCC Police Chief's Association Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 50 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: CCC Police Chief's Association 2018/19 Baseline Request Enter narrative information here... 2018/19 Program Modification Request The Contra Costa County Police Chief's Association has requested $423,447 to fund these three (3) postions. These positions have operated for the past three (3) years. These officers participate in coordinated efforts of handling referrals of potentially "high risk" dangerous persons with mental health issues and combative behaviors towards police and others including AB109 and Prop 47 clients within the County. This collaborative approach is consistent with the Contra Costa County MHET Operation Plan. Each Police Officer maintains a current knowledge of MHET programs to ensure countywide potentially "high risk" dangerous persons with mental health issues and combative behaviors are referred to services, if deemed appropriate. The goal is to reduce potential conflicts or confrontations between police and citizens. ATTACHMENT D Page 51 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Department: Community Advisory Board Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs COUNTYWIDE SERVICES - - Employment (West/East)Rubicon Programs 5.3b 1,100,000 9.30 1,100,000 9.30 1,100,000 9.30 Employment (Central/East)Goodwill Industries 5.3b 900,000 7.20 900,000 7.20 900,000 7.20 Housing Shelter Inc.5.3c 980,000 6.85 980,000 6.85 980,000 6.85 Female Housing (West)Reach Fellowship International 5.3c 50,000 1.00 50,000 1.00 50,000 1.00 Peer Mentoring Men and Women of Purpose 5.4a 110,000 2.25 110,000 2.25 110,000 2.25 Family Reunification Center for Human Development 5.4b 90,000 1.40 90,000 1.40 90,000 1.40 Legal Services Bay Area Legal Aid 5.4c 150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 One Stops see below 5.2b see below 12.13 see below 12.13 see below 12.13 CAB Support Via Office of Reentry & Justice 3.3 7,201 -7,201 --7,201 - Subtotal 3,387,201 41.93 3,387,201 41.93 - - 3,387,201$ 41.93 NETWORK SYSTEM OF SERVICES 5.2b - Network Management HealthRIGHT360 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 605,000 6.10 605,000 6.10 605,000 6.10 Contracted Services - Sober Living Homes Mz. Shirliz 150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 150,000 1.80 Auto Repair Training Fast Eddie's Auto Services 65,000 1.20 65,000 1.20 65,000 1.20 Emp. & Ed. Liason (women)Reach Fellowship International 15,000 0.25 0.25 - 0.25 Emp. & Ed. Liason (men)Men and Women of Purpose 60,000 2.60 60,000 2.60 60,000 2.60 Transition Planning (women)Centerforce 45,000 0.75 60,000 0.75 60,000 0.75 Subtotal 940,000.0 12.70 940,000 12.70 - 940,000$ 12.70 REENTRY SUCCESS CENTER 5.2b - Operation and Management Rubicon Programs 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 525,000 2.50 525,000 2.50 525,000 2.50 Connections to Resources Rubicon Programs 15,000 15,000 15,000 Subtotal 540,000 2.50 540,000 2.5 - 540,000 2.5 Cost of Living Adjustment 4% COLA Increase 194,688 194,688 Total 4,867,201$ 57.13 5,061,889$ 57.13 -$ - 5,061,889$ 57.13 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. 2018/19 Total Funding Request2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 Description of Item CONTRACTED PROVIDER Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 ATTACHMENT D Page 52 of 421 Please provide a narrative describing the Status Quo programming that will be provided with the budget requests identified above. DEPARTMENT: Community Advisory Board PROGRAM NARRATIVE: 2018/19 Status Quo Request CAB continues to recommend that CCP invest significant funds in community programs to continue development of the local non-profit services sector. The CCP should therefore continue to support community based programs. Funding these programs is consistent with the nationwide effort of justice reinvestment. Staying this course will ensure our communities gain the capacity to provide reentry services with high levels of quality and fidelity, and is the best way to achieve lasting reductions in recidivism and long term enhanced public safety outcomes. As CAB submits this 2018/2019 AB109 Budget Request, we have considered the previous budget increase and acknowledge that the funded agencies have only completed a year of programming under their most recent contracts. As part of this status quo budget request, CAB recommends that the CCP Executive Committee fund each of the funded reentry service areas at an amount that is no less than what was allocated for each program during the current fiscal year. CAB is also aware that last year marked a shift in the recommendation on how to best spend money that was previously spent to develop and support the Reentry Resource Guide. With much consideration, CAB asked that the Network and Center work together to develop a communications strategy that would inform the public about the reentry services available in the community, and direct people to the Center and Network to ensure they are "Conneted to the Resources" they need. Jointly, the two entities pledged to: 1) create and circulate quarterly newsletters for the people incarcerated in Contra Costa Detention facilities, 2) facilitate countywide community events to inform the reentry population and their families of the services available, and 3) recruit volunteers to engage the public in the reentry work being done in the community. To date, this collaboration has led to the release of the first edition of the Contra Costa Reentry Voice in August 2017. The second edition is currently in the works, as are efforts to accomplish the other two communications strategies mentioned above. Because this effort is still in its infancy, CAB is recommending continued funding for the joint communications effort between the Network and Center. The recommended status quo funding amounts are as follows: Employment Support and Placement Services: $2,000,000 Housing Services: $1,030,000 Peer Mentoring: $110,000 Family Reunification: $90,000 Civil Legal Services: $150,000 Network System of Services: $940,000 Reentry Success Center: $525,000 Center/Network Joint Communications Strategy $15,000 2018/19 New Funding Requests Additional Funding Increase of 4% The Community Advisory Board (CAB) continues to recommend that CCP invest significant funds in community programs to continue development of the local non-profit services sector. CAB therefore requests a 4% COLA increase in funding for community programs that amounts to $194,688. Funding these programs is consistent with the nationwide effort of justice reinvestment. Staying this course will ensure our communities gain the capacity to provide reentry services with high levels of quality and fidelity, and is the best way to achieve lasting reductions in recidivism and long term enhanced public safety outcomes. ATTACHMENT D Page 53 of 421 Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership 2018/19 AB109 Budget Proposal Form Current Allocation FTEs Funding Request FTEs Funding Request FTEs Total Funding Request FTEs SALARY AND BENEFITS - - Courtroom Clerk II, Step 3 Pretrial Release Calendar Support 1.1, 1.2 208,421 2.00 208,421 2.00 - - 208,421 2.00 - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal 208,421 2.00 208,421 2.00 - - 208,421$ 2.00 OPERATING COSTS - - e.g. Training/Travel - Small Equipment Purchase - Computer (1), radios (2), etc.- IT Support - Vehicle Operating - Office Supplies - Communication Costs - Outfitting Costs - - Subtotal - - - -$ CAPITAL COSTS (ONE-TIME)- e.g. Vehicle Purchases (2)- - Subtotal - - - - Total 208,421$ 2.00 208,421$ 2.00 -$ - 208,421$ 2.00 1. FY 2018/19 Status Quo Request reflects the FY 2017/18 Funding Allocation. 2. FY 2018/19 Baseline Request should reflect the cost of continuing programs in the FY 2018/19 Status Quo column in 2018/19 dollars. 3. FY 2018/19 Program Modification Request should reflect proposals for the cancellation of existing programs and/or funding of new programs for FY2018/19. Department: Contra Costa Superior Court Description of Item Program/Function Ops. Plan Item # 2018/19 Status Quo Allocation1 2018/19 Baseline Request2 2018/19 Program Modification Request3 2018/19 Total Funding Request ATTACHMENT D Page 54 of 421 PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Please provide a narrative describing the programming is being proposed on the AB 109 Budget Proposal Form. DEPARTMENT: Contra Costa Superior Court 2018/19 Baseline Request The Contra Costa Superior Court respectfully requests one-time funding from the County’s FY 2018-19 AB 109 allocation in the amount of $208,421.00. The funding described under Program 1 would address the extra workload associated with PRCS cases, parole violation petitions, and the Pretrial Release Program by funding two dedicated arraignment courtroom clerks whose sole focus is on capturing court proceedings, and entering the appropriate case information timely. This portion of the proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including: • Objective 1.1. Increase public safety • Objective 1.2. Following arrest, better identify persons who can safely be released and those who should be held in physical custody pretrial so as to reduce the pretrial jail population to maximize capacity for the sentenced AB 109 population. The Program 2 request would allow the court to establish a Veteran’s Court Intensive Support Program beginning in April 2016. This proposal reinforces key objectives articulated in the CCP’s Strategic Plan, including: • Objective 2.1.Provide timely, informed and appropriate adjudication of all cases • Objective 2.3. Utilize evidence---based practices in sentencing • Objective 4.1. Establish and maintain an entry point to an integrated reentry system of care • Objective 5.1. Maximize public safety, accountability, and service referrals • Objective 5.2. Assist in providing access to a full continuum of reentry and reintegration services • Objective 5.3. Provide and enhance integrated programs and services for successful reentry of the AB 109 Population • Objective 5.4. Increase mentoring, encourage family and community engagement in reentry and reintegration • Objective 6.2. Maximize interagency coordination ATTACHMENT D Page 55 of 421 2017/18 ONGOING CCP Recommended PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Sheriff Salaries & Benefits 6,649,947 7,013,256 Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 IT Support 40,000 40,000 Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 "Jail to Community" Program 208,000 243,650 Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 755,000 755,000 Sheriff Total 8,244,697 8,643,656 Probation Salaries & Benefits 2,591,428 2,695,085 Operating Costs 169,098 175,862 Salaries & Benefits-Pre-Trial Services Program 748,632 784,296 Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 77,762 80,872 Probation Total 3,586,920 3,736,116 Behavioral Health Salaries & Benefits 996,180 1,036,027 Operating Costs 58,752 61,102 Contracts 1,292,088 1,343,772 Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 22,448 23,346 Travel 10,200 10,608 Behavioral Health Total 2,379,668 2,474,855 Health Services--Detention Health Services Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 187,537 195,038 Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 294,711 306,499 Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 494,004 513,764 Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 121,532 126,394 Detention Health Services Total 1,097,784 1,141,696 Public Defender Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 397,269 413,160 Sal & Ben-ACER Program 872,787 907,698 Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordination 267,971 340,827 Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program 172,575 354,912 Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 190,401 295,788 Stand Together CoCo 500,000 500,000 Public Defender Total 2,401,003 2,812,385 District Attorney Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 109,231 87,881 Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 649,491 682,494 Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 693,512 792,950 Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 64,094 72,372 Salaries & Benefits-Gen'l Clerk 63,536 60,399 Operating Costs 86,109 92,638 District Attorney Total 1,665,973 1,788,734 EHSD-- Workforce Development Board Salaries & Benefits 204,000 212,160 Travel 4,000 4,160 EHSD-WDB Total 208,000 216,320 County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice Salaries & Benefits 517,079 528,580 Ceasefire Program Contract 110,000 114,000 Research and Eval. Manager - 155,608 Data Evaluation & Systems Planning 83,021 (83,021) Operating Costs 7,500 7,500 CAO/ORJ Total1 717,600 722,667 CCC Police Chief's Association Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 542,880 564,596 Salaries and Benefits-MHET Teams (3)- 423,447 CCC Police Chiefs' Total 542,880 988,043 Community Programs Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 Network System of Services 820,000 940,000 Reentry Success Center 465,000 525,000 Short and Long-Term Housing Access 1,030,000 1,030,000 Legal Services 150,000 150,000 Mentoring and Family Reunification 200,000 200,000 Connections to Resources 15,000 15,000 17/18 4% Floor Allocation - TBD 187,201 - CAB Support (via ORJ)- 7,021 18/19 4% COLA - Allocation TBD - 194,688 Community Programs Total 4,867,201 5,061,709 Superior Court Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial 208,421 216,758 Superior Court Total 208,421 216,758 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,920,149 27,802,938 Notes: 1. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM FY 2018/19 CCP RECOMMENDED BUDGET SUMMARY as of January 16, 2018 2018/19 (as approved by the CCP-Executive Committee on December 1, 2017) Page 56 of 421 Juvenile/TAY Social Worker Proposal Submitted to the Public Protection Committee by the Office of the Public Defender February 5, 2018 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Public Defender Social Worker to work with our juvenile and transitional aged youth (“TAY”) clients. 2. Background and Context Providing effective defense to juvenile (under 18 years old) and TAY (18 through 25-year-old) clients necessitates that Public Defenders adopt a “holistic” model. Attorneys must be able to litigate not just the legal aspects of cases, but also be able to delve into the root causes of incarceration that lead young people to become system involved. These causes are complex and often include mental illness, substance use disorders, cognitive or learning issues, poverty, homelessness, trauma, and abuse. It is widely recognized that to effectively represent juvenile clients, Public Defenders should collaborate with social workers, who have subject matter expertise in mental health and educational advocacy, and integrate them into the defense team. In the juvenile arena, a social worker is critical to providing attorneys with the tools to advocate for alternatives to incarceration and to presenting sentence mitigation to the court. In addition, a social worker is the key to advocating for juvenile and TAY clients, in court and in the community, by connecting clients with early intervention, providing supportive counseling and helping guide individuals through a maze of legal and social service systems during the reentry process. For our TAY clients, as with our juvenile clients, the neurocognitive research in the field of brain development demonstrates that this group is still developing and susceptible to peer pressure, both positive and negative. The TAY population is specialized and, like those working with juvenile clients, those working with TAY clients need specialized skills. It was the high rate of recidivism of the local TAY population that led Contra Costa County to apply for and be awarded a Smart Reentry grant to solicit additional funding and resources in supervising this specialized population during their reentry. The TAY population tends to be the largest age group within the local custodial population in Contra Costa County’s jails and they suffer from the highest rates of homelessness in the County. (Application for Second Chance Act Smart Reentry Program, Contra Costa County Probation Department (June, 2016), page 1). 3. Program Design A Public Defender social worker will ensure smooth reentry to juvenile and TAY clients. The social worker will collaborate with the defense team, thoroughly research all of the social services available in the community, and build relationships with those that are most effective. In this way, the social worker will build a network of resources that enables them to connect clients quickly to the services they need to meet their short term needs and to achieve success in the long run with reentry into the community. Page 57 of 421 The Public Defender Juvenile/TAY Social Worker will: Interview, evaluate and divert juvenile/TAY clients to social services at the earliest point in time to ensure early intervention Provide juvenile/TAY clients with a detailed needs assessment, identifying mental health and substance use disorder issues Investigate and document an individual’s family, medical, mental health, social, educational, employment and forensic histories Assess incarcerated clients in order to develop a reentry transition plan into the community Work with clients post-release to navigate services and ensure reentry plans are successfully executed Write alternative disposition recommendations to the court and be able to testify regarding client’s ability to engage in out of custody programs and services and achieve reentry success 4. Outcomes A social worker will help assure that we are providing early intervention in cases involving juveniles and TAY clients and working with those clients to ensure a smooth and coordinated reentry after they are released from custody. Through the development of detailed client assessments and alternative dispositions, our Public Defender Social Worker will be integral to providing important alternatives to incarceration and aiding a smooth reentry into the community while increasing public safety. 5. Budget for FY 18/19 Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Social Work Supervisor $143,165 Total $143,165 Page 58 of 421 Public Defender AB109 Funded Social Worker Proposal Submitted to the Public Protection Committee by the Office of the Public Defender February 5, 2018 The use of Social Workers as part of a “holistic” defense team is widely recognized as a best practice and is essential for connecting justice-involved individuals with the reentry resources available throughout the County. Public Defender Social Workers help address the root causes of incarceration and system involvement, which are complex and often include mental health, substance use disorders, poverty, homelessness, trauma and abuse. To be effective, Public Defender attorneys must collaborate with social workers, who have subject matter expertise in mental health, and integrate them into the defense tea m. The Office of the Public Defender currently has only 1 FT Social Worker to work with over 80 attorneys in 3 branches of the Department (the Martinez Office, the Richmond Office, and the Alternate Defender’s Office). The Public Defender is requesting additional AB109 funding for 2 FT Social Workers as part of the AB109 budget submissions for Fiscal Year 2018-19 as follows: 1) Social Worker for Youth Offender Parole Hearings: to address a new legal obligation of the Department to handle Youth Offender Parole Hearings. Th is new duty was added to the Public Defender’s office as a result of a series of judicial decisions and legislation over the past two years and means the Department will potentially represent over 600 individuals at Franklin hearings in Superior Court to present youth-related mitigating evidence on their behalf to provide a meaningful opportunity for parole. (Please see attached proposal for more information). 2) Social Worker for Juvenile / Transition Aged Youth (TAY): a Social Worker is critical in working with the specialized populations of juvenile and transition aged youth (TAY) to connect individuals with early intervention and support in the community . (Please see attached proposal for more information). Bay Area Public Defender Social Workers by County County Population Number of Adult & Juvenile Social Workers San Francisco 874,228 10 Alameda 1,645,359 6.5* Santa Clara 1,938,180 3 Solano 436,023 2 San Mateo Defender Program 770,203 1 (soon to be 2) Contra Costa 1,139,513 1 * In Alameda County, 2 of the 6.5 Social Workers are employed by the Conflict Panel Page 59 of 421 Proposal for Social Worker for Youth Offender Parole Hearings Submitted to the Public Protection Committee by the Office of the Public Defender February 5, 2018 1. Request The Office of the Public Defender is requesting funding for 1 FT Public Defender Social Worker to assist with preparation of Youth Offender Parole Hearings for those currently in State Prison. 2. Background and Context CCPD has received a large influx of new cases involving juvenile and young adult defendants due to significant legal reforms in the past two years. In 2014, Senate Bill 260 created a new process through which state prisoners who were under 18 at the time of their crimes and who were sentenced in adult court to lengthy prison terms would be eligible for early parole consideration based on their lack of maturity at the time of the offense. The law established that these inmates were entitled to a Youthful Offender Parole Hearing (“YOPH”) where, due to their lack of maturity and age at the time of the offense, the parole board should give the inmate a “meaningful opportunity” to be paroled. The new law instructed the parole board to give “great weight” to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, to the “hallmark features of youth,” and to any subsequent growth and maturity of the individual. In 2016, the state legislature enacted Senate Bill 261, which expanded eligibility for Youthful Offender Parole Hearings to those who committed their crimes prior to the age of 23. This was done in recognition of the overwhelming scientific evidence that brain development and thereby executive functioning are not fully intact until a person reaches their mid-twenties. Subsequent to SB 261, Governor Brown signed AB 1308 on October 11, 2017, which further expanded YOPH eligibility to persons who committed crimes before age 25. Normally, CCPD would not be tasked with conducting parole hearings on behalf of their former clients. However, in 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Franklin that all inmates eligible for youth offender parole are entitled to a hearing before their parole eligibility date where they should be afforded an opportunity to present all mitigating evidence tied to their youthfulness at the time of the crime. These hearings are to be conducted in the Superior Court of the county of the original conviction. The evidence from these hearings would subsequently be used by the Parole Board in determining whether the individual is fit to reenter society despite having committed a serious crime while a child or young adult. Based on these new laws, CCPD has an obligation to investigate the social and family history for all clients under 25 who currently have pending cases and who are facing potential incarceration for longer than 15 years. This means that CCPD attorneys must obtain such things as school records, medical records, dependency court records, and mental health records for their youthful clients. These records are to be used in presenting a mitigating case on behalf of our clients so that, when they are eligible for parole, the board can appropriately consider the client’s youth and lack of maturity at the time of the offense. Significantly, based on the Franklin decision, CCPD now has an additional obligation to conduct this mitigation investigation on behalf of all former clients who are currently in state prison and who are eligible for a YOPH. While representing clients at their parole hearings is not the responsibility of the CCPD, the law now requires the CCPD to make a record of youth-related mitigating evidence in Superior Court. Page 60 of 421 The pool of inmates eligible for a YOPH from Contra Costa is quite large. The Department of Corrections has identified approximately 607 prison inmates sentenced by the Contra Costa County Superior Court who are potentially eligible for a Franklin hearing. This is a low estimate of those eligible, as this list of 607 includes only those who were under 23 at the time of their offense, and not those who were under 25 at the time of their offense. This group encompasses those sentenced from the 1980s forward. Many of these individuals have already served 15-25 years, meaning that they are immediately eligible for a hearing. This immediate eligibility has been confirmed in at least 129 cases. Many of these cases are required to be heard before January 1, 2020. The consequence of an incompetently-handled hearing can be a lifetime in prison versus early parole. 3. Program Design At the present time, CCPD has dedicated one senior Deputy Public Defender to handling this new caseload. It is recognized as an effective practice for an attorney to work closely with a social worker as part of a multidisciplinary team to prepare for this type of hearing. CCPD will add one social worker to work closely with the attorney handling Franklin hearings for those eligible in Contra Costa. The social worker assigned to YOPH will: Investigate mitigation, including collection of records (birth, medical, mental health, education, dependency/delinquency, military, jail/prison, etc.) for both our client and their immediate family members Communicate with the client to discuss their life circumstances at the time of the offense, their subsequent insight about their behavior at the time of the offense, the steps they have made towards rehabilitation while incarcerated and to plan for a successful reentry into the community Interview family members and other contacts who may have relevant testimony for the hearing Identify adverse childhood experiences and trauma and document these experiences Prepare a compelling statement in mitigation and social history, including the client’s involvement in the offense, the impact of youth-related factors, and the client’s likelihood of responding to rehabilitation, and what a reentry plan back into the community would entail 4. Outcomes With the addition of a YOPH Social Worker, CCPD will be able to fulfill its duty to provide a meaningful opportunity for parole to those individuals entitled to this potential relief. This will further the goal of encouraging releases from custody and reduce recidivism by aiding successful reentry and reintegration for those released. 5. Budget Employee Classification Salary and Benefits 1 FT Social Work Supervisor $143,165 Total $143,165 Page 61 of 421 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:02/05/2018 Subject:REPORT ON STATUS OF RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: REPORT ON STATUS OF RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE Presenter: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097 Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097 Referral History: ACCEPT update from the Office of Reentry and Justice on the Racial Justice Task Force Referral Update: See attachment Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): See attachment Fiscal Impact (if any): See attachment Attachments Racial Justice Task Force Update Page 62 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 1 Memo to PPC: Update on RJTF Introduction Project Overview The Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force (RJTF) formally launched on April 5, 2017. The RJTF has met monthly since that time to identify priorities, review data, discuss best practices, and develop recommendations related to racial disparities in criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes in Contra Costa County. An overview of the project timeline and topics is presented here: • April – June 2017: Project Launch o Review of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems and Data o Identification of Initial Priority Areas • July 2017 – Oct. 2017: Focus on Local Law Enforcement o Review data on juvenile and adult arrest trends to identify disparities o Discussion of Best Practices o Development of Preliminary Recommendations • Nov. 2017 – Jan. 2018: Focus on Juvenile Justice o Review data on County juvenile justice trends to identify disparities o Discussion of Best Practices o Development of Preliminary Recommendations • Feb. 2018 – April 2018: Focus on Criminal Justice o Review data on County criminal justice trends to identify disparities o Discussion of Best Practices o Development of Preliminary Recommendations • May 2018 – June 2018: Prioritize and Finalize Recommendations o Integrate and prioritize preliminary recommendations o Finalize recommendations In addition to meeting monthly, the Task Force has hosted the first of two rounds of community forums to increase residents’ awareness about the Task Force and solicit feedback on focus areas. The sections below provide additional information about project findings and preliminary recommendations. Page 63 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 2 Findings and Recommendations: Local Law Enforcement Disparities in Local Law Enforcement Practices The Task Force began by focusing on disparities in arrest rates across Contra Costa County in order to understand whether and to what extent there are disparities in people’s entry to the criminal or juvenile justice system. Based on arrest data from the State of California Department of Justice, the Task Force established 6 key findings, related to arrests, diversion, and data collection. (Data to support these findings is available in Appendix A: Local Law Enforcement Data.) Arrest Patterns 1. Across cities in Contra Costa County, Blacks are more likely to be arrested than other racial/ethnic group. 2. Racial disparities in arrests are often greater in cities with smaller Black populations. 3. While Black adults are more likely to be arrested than White adults across cities, there are important variations for what offenses disparities are greatest, indicating that different local processes drive city-level disparities. 4. Disparities for Black youth are greater than disparities for Black adults. Diversion 5. There is no standardization in diversion processes and practices across Contra Costa County, meaning that individuals can be diverted for different offenses and with different resources in different cities. Data Collection 6. There is no standardization in data collection across law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County. In addition, there is limited-to-no data collected on most diversion programs, limiting the County’s ability to determine who is being diverted and for what. Recommendations for Local Law Enforcement Practices To address the issues described above, the Task Force developed the following preliminary recommendations. Diversion Practices • LEAs increase partnerships with appropriate stakeholders, such as CBOs, District Attorney’s office, Probation Department, etc., to provide diversion programs in partnership with local LEAs. • LEAs issue citations and establish non-enforcement diversion programs as an alternative to arrests Page 64 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 3 • CCC and LEAs consult best practices around data collection on diversion to protect confidentiality of community members and avoid unintended consequences. • LEAs consider the use of diversion criteria to include appropriate felony level crimes. Crisis Response Teams • CCC evaluates the feasibility/need to build out Crisis Intervention Teams, Mobile Crisis Teams, or System-Wide Mental Health Assessment Teams countywide. • Integrate de-escalation and mental health intervention trainings into LEA regional academy and/or department orientation Procedural Justice • CCC identifies funding for procedural justice training utilizing the train the trainer model for all LEAs across the county. • CCC [e.g. Office of Reentry & Justice] works with the Chief’s Association to create a forum to share information and strengthen promising practices around procedural justice. • CCC provides resources to incentivize LEAs to implement improved procedural justice practices countywide. Community Education and Engagement • CCC [e.g. Office of Reentry & Justice] and LEAs host community forum to educate community members on how to identify a potential concern versus a reportable crime and what resources can be leveraged [e.g. 311-phone line]. Data Collection • LEAs collect race-specific data on diversion, arrest, and outcomes of all calls for service and shared with a county entity. • CCC publishes race-specific data (diversion, arrest, and outcomes on calls for service) online to create greater transparency and accountability of the County’s LEAs. Other Recommendations In addition to these agreed upon recommendations, the RJTF would like further discussion about the following recommendations • CCC creates a workgroup that includes, representatives from the Board of Supervisors, Community Advisory Board, region-wide CBOs, representatives from school districts, Probation, Judges, the DA’s office, and the Public Defender’s office to review LEA data on a quarterly basis to identify where disparities exist in the county’s system and identify mechanisms for reducing racial disparities. Page 65 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 4 • CCC conducts quarterly community report-backs (e.g. BOS Public Safety Committee) across the county related to data collection and findings. • CCC identifies a workgroup to review policy and procedures related to LEA hiring practices and recruitment approaches. • LEAs improve capacity for data collection and analysis including expanding staff with data analysis capabilities. Findings and Recommendations: Juvenile Justice Systems and Processes The second phase of this project has focused on disparities in the County’s juvenile justice systems and processes. Based on data from the Contra Costa County Probation Department, the Task Force established six key findings related to disparities in the juvenile justice system. The largest disparity occurs at the point of referral to probation, with Black youth referred to the Probation Department at a significantly higher rate than other youth. Once youth are referred to Probation, there are no disparities in the rate at which the Department files petitions. These and other findings are described here. (Data is available in Appendix B: Juvenile Justice Data.) 1. Black youth in Contra Costa County were 9 times more likely than White youth and 6 times more likely than Hispanic youth to be referred to Probation. 2. Of all youth referred to Probation, Black and Hispanic youth are 50% more likely than White youth to be detained prior to adjudication. 3. The Probation Department filed petitions at the same rate for all referred youth regardless of race; however, relative to their proportion of the overall county population, Black youth were 10 times more likely to have petitions filed than all other groups. 4. Among youth who had petitions filed, there were not disparities in who was deemed to be a ward of the court. There were still disparities compared to the overall rate within the population. 5. Among youth who were adjudicated delinquent, there were no disparities in which youth received a disposition of placement. There were still disparities compared to the overall rate within the population. 6. Among all youth who were made a ward of the court, Hispanic youth were 3 times more likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to White youth and Black youth were 2 times more likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to White youth. Preliminary Recommendations To address the issues described above, the Task Force developed the following preliminary recommendations. Page 66 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 5 Juvenile Justice Recommendations Non-Punitive School Discipline • All schools in Contra Costa County expand or implement existing non-punitive discipline practices, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Justice • Contra Costa County Office of Education should provide training and technical assistance to all schools in the County to support implementation of PBIS and Restorative Justice, as well as data collection to assess implementation and impact. Diversion • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and Office of Reentry and Justice should continue to establish formal partnerships with community-based organizations to provide diversion programs and services for youth. • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and Office of Reentry and Justice should establish criteria for diversion programs, with a focus on those offenses with greatest racial disparity. This must be done in partnership with cities and the County Police Chiefs Association. • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and Office of Reentry and Justice should work with the County Police Chief’s Association to clarify and formalize appropriate offenses for diversion. This must be done in partnership with cities and the County Police Chiefs Association. • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and Office of Reentry and Justice should establish data collection parameters and processes for diversion practices. • Office of Reentry and Justice should support analysis of diversion programs to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities. Structured Decision-Making • Probation should develop or identify and validate the following evidence-based SDM tools for implementation: o Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) o Dispositional Recommendations Matrix o Graduated Response Grid • Probation should regularly assess tools to measure impact on racial disparities. Alternatives to Confinement • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office and the Court should create an alternative to confinement eligibility with a focus on reducing racial disparities. Page 67 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 6 • Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Courts should establish formal partnerships with community-based organizations to provide alternatives to confinement like Reporting Centers. • Office of Reentry, Probation, and the Court should support data collection and analysis of alternatives to confinement interventions to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities. Holistic Defense These services should be provided pre- and post-disposition: • The Public Defender’s Office should hire additional social workers that can assess youths’ psychosocial needs and link them to services. • The Public Defender’s Office should increase its capacity to provide civil legal representation and educational advocacy to youth. Next Steps The Racial Justice Task Force is currently in the process of reviewing data on racial disparities in Contra Costa County criminal justice systems and processes in order to develop recommendations for amelioration. The Task Force will then work to integrate and prioritize recommendations from across justice system domains to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations. These will be presented to the larger County public via a series of community forums, which will take place in East, Central, and West County in May. The Task Force will finalize recommendations for submission to the Board in June. Page 68 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 7 Appendix A: Local Law Enforcement Data Finding #1. Across cities in Contra Costa County, Blacks are more likely to be arrested than other racial/ethnic group. Figure 1. Contra Costa County, Adult Arrests per 1,000 Figure 1 illustrates countywide arrest trends among Black, Hispanic, White and Other adults. Black adults are 6 times more likely than White adults to be arrested for a violent offense, as well as 5 times more likely to be arrested for a property crime and over 2 times as likely to be arrested for a drug offense. Figure 2. Contra Costa County, Juvenile Arrests per 1,000 Figure 2 illustrates countywide arrest trends among Black, Hispanic, White and Other youth. Black youth are 12 times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime than White youth, while they are 7 times more likely to be arrested for a property offense and twice as likely to be arrested for a drug offense than White youth. A greater disparity among arrests rates by race exists within youth as compared to adults. 18 20 17 2 5 5 7 0 3 4 7 0 2 2 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Violent Property Drug Sex Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other 12 7 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Violent Property Drug Sex Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other Page 69 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 8 6% 12% 51% 31% Total Population: 24, 136 Black Hispanic White Other 80 177 14 40 3 8 6 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Felony Misdemeanor Arrest Rate 37 20 11 10 2 3 8 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Felony Misdemeanor Arrest Rate 23% 41% 17% 19% Total Population: 106,469 Black Hispanic White Other Figure 4. El Cerrito Adult Arrest Rates per 1,000 Finding #2. Racial disparities in arrests are often greater in cities with smaller Black populations. While these graphs are city specific data, they are examples of a larger trend across most cities in Contra Costa County. Figure 3. El Cerrito Population Figure 3 represents a breakdown of El Cerrito’s total population demographics. Despite comprising only 6% of the city population, Black comprise a majority of individuals arrested, as shown in Figure 4. By contrast, the City of Richmond has a much larger overall Black population, as shown in figure 5, but a much smaller disparity in arrest rates. This trend is common across the County. Figure 6. Richmond, Adult Arrests Rates per 1,000 Figure 5. Richmond City Population Page 70 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 9 Finding #3. While Black adults are more likely to be arrested than White adults, there are variations across cities for what offenses disparities are greatest. Figures 7 and 8, below, demonstrate the variation in disparities across cities in Contra Costa County. While all cities show higher arrest rates for Black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic residents, than Whites, the specific arrest offenses and disparities vary, indicating variation in local processes and decision- making. Figure 7. City of El Cerrito, Adults Arrest Rates per 1,000 Figure 8. City of Antioch, Adult Arrest Rates per 1,000 26 72 33 1 3 14 7 0 2 4 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 Violent Property Drug Sex Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other 24 14 14 1 6 8 9 0 0 20 40 60 80 Violent Property Drug Sex Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other Page 71 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 10 Finding #4. Across most cities in Contra Costa County, Black youth are more likely to be arrested than White or Latino youth. Disparities for Black youth are greater than disparities for Black adults. Figure 9. Contra Costa County, Felony Arrest Rates per 1,000 Figure 9 and 10 present countywide data comparing felony and misdemeanor arrest rates for youth and adults, by race. Compared to White adults, Black adults are approximately 5 times more likely to be arrested for a felony while Black youth are 11 times more likely to be arrested than White youth. Compared to White adults, Black adults are 3 times more likely to be arrested for a misdemeanor while Black youth are approximately 6 times more likely to be arrested. It is important to note that while overall arrest rates are higher for adults of all races than youth of all races, the disparity between arrests rates is greater for Black youth than Black adults. Figure 10. Contra Costa County, Misdemeanor Arrest Rates per 1,000 Finding #6. Although LEAs have implemented diversion practices, there is no systematic data collection on these programs, who is diverted, or their impact None of the following law enforcement agencies collect race-specific data on diversion practices: 50 11 14 2 11 1 4 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Adult Juvenile Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other 39 19 16 3 13 3 6 1 0 20 40 60 Adult Juvenile Arrest Rate Black Hispanic White Other Page 72 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 11 • Richmond PD partners with RYSE to divert youth from official processing. • Antioch PD partners with Reach to divert youth from official processing. • Pittsburg and Concord PD have implemented the community court model to divert some adult and juvenile cases from formal processing. Appendix B: Juvenile Justice Data Disparities in County Juvenile Justice Systems The following data use two different measures to assess racial disparities in Contra Costa County juvenile justice processes. The first measure is a population rate, which looks at each racial/ethnic group’s representation in a justice system process compared to their representation in the overall population. The second measure is a relative rate index (RRI), which compares each racial/ethnic group’s representation in a justice system process compared to their representation at the prior stage in the process. The measure is important for understand which decision-points see an increase—or decrease— in disparities. Finding #1. In 2015, Black youth in Contra Costa County were much more likely than Hispanic and White youth to be referred to Probation. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate overall, in 2013 and 2014, Black youth were more likely to be referred to probation compared to White youth in Contra Costa County. 1.0 1.0 9.1 11.1 1.5 2.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2013 2014 9.7 6.2 88.5 68.4 14.7 13.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 2013 2014 9x 11x Figure 13. Rates of Referral to Probation per 1,000 youth, by Race White Black Hispanic Figure 14. Referrals to Probation RRI, by Race Page 73 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 12 Finding #2. Of all youth referred to Probation, Black and Hispanic youth are 50% more likely than White youth to be detained prior to adjudication. As seen in Figure 15, in 2013 and 2014, Black youth were over 10 times more likely to be detained prior to adjudication than White youth. Figure 16 shows that of the number of youth referred to probation, Black and Hispanic youth were more likely to be detained prior to adjudication than White youth. Finding #3. The Probation Department filed petitions at the same rate for all referred youth regardless of race; however, relative to their proportion of the overall county population, Black youth were 10 times more likely to have petitions filed than all other groups. Figure 17 illustrates Black youth were 10 times more likely to have a petition filed than White youth. However, of the youth that were referred to probation, all groups had petitions filed at the same rate as seen in Figure 18. 2.3 1.3 32.8 21.0 5.4 4.2 0 10 20 30 40 2013 2014 14x 16x Figure 15. Pre-Adjudication Detention Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Hispanic 5.2 3.3 56.9 36.2 9.6 7.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2013 2014 10x 10x Figure 17. Rates of Petitions Filed per 1,000 youth by Race 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Hispanic Figure 16. Pre-Adjudication Detention RRI, by Race Figure 18. Petitions Filed RRI, by Race Page 74 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 13 Finding #4. Among youth who had petitions filed, there were not disparities in who was deemed to be a ward of the court. There were still disparities compared to the overall rate within the population. In 2013 and 2014, Black youth were 11 times more likely to be deemed a ward of the court than White youth, as seen in Figure 19. However, Figure 20 shows that relative to the petitions filed in 2013 and 2014, the rate of wardship was approximately the same across all racial groups. Finding #5. Among youth who were adjudicated delinquent, there were no disparities in which youth received a disposition of placement. There were still disparities compared to the overall rate within the population. As Figure 21 illustrates, Black youth were placed at a higher rate than Hispanic and White youth. However, Figure 22 shows how relative to court wardship, youth across all groups received placement at the same rate. 4.3 2.5 44.5 26.0 8.5 5.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 2013 2014 11x 11x Figure 19. Ward of the Court Rates per 1,000 by Race 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 Figure 20. Ward of the Court RRI, by Race White Black Hispanic 3.3 2.0 32.4 18.7 6.1 4.1 0 10 20 30 40 2013 2014 10x 9x Figure 21. Placement Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 Figure 22. Placement RRI, by Race White Black Hispanic Page 75 of 421 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force January 2018| 14 Finding #6. Among all youth who were made a ward of the court, Hispanic youth were 3 times more likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to White youth and Black youth were 2 times more likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to White youth. In 2013 and 2014, Black youth were over 15 times more likely to be sent to secure confinement than White youth, as seen in Figure 23. However, relative to being a ward of the court, Hispanic youth were more likely to be confined compare to other youth, as seen in Figure 24. 0.7 0.2 10.5 6.0 2.3 1.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2013 2014 16x 24x Figure 23. Secure Confinement Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.8 3.0 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Hispanic Figure 24. Secure Confinement RRI, by Race Page 76 of 421 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:02/05/2018 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. Subsequently, the PPC introduced this referral at it's March 2017 meeting, primarily to discuss Senate Bill 54 (De Leon), which at the time was newly introduced in the Legislature. The Committee directed the County Probation Department to have County Counsel review the current policy on immigration (including cooperation with the federal government and serving clients that are undocumented residents of the County) and return to the Committee with an update. In addition, the Committee requested a review of the Sheriff's Office contract with the US Marshal service, which is also used by the Department of Homeland Security - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to house undocumented individuals who are in the custody of the federal government. Page 77 of 421 The Committee has not heard an update on this issue, pending the outcome of SB 54, which ultimately was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this year. Following its passage and enrollment, the Probation Department and Sheriff's Office have worked with County Counsel proactively to ensure that the County is in compliance with the requirements of the new law. Federal Grant Requirements and Related Legal Challenges Following the March 2017 meeting of the Committee, the US Department of Justice began conditioning certain federal grant awards to state and local governments on the cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This has been rolled out in the form of 1) requesting the jurisdictions receiving grants to self certify (under penalty of perjury by the Chief Legal Officer, in our case County Counsel) that the jurisdiction is in compliance with the conditions of 8 USC 1373, and 2) that the jurisdiction would honor 48-hour detainer requests for undocumented individuals already in local custody for separate criminal law violations. Neither the Probation Department nor the Sheriff's Office honor detainer requests from the federal government and have not done so for several years. There have been several legal challenges to the Administration's various actions on immigration. Most notably with regard to the withholding of funding from state and local governments is City of Chicago vs. Sessions III, where a nationwide injunction has been ordered against the new regulations sought to be imposed by the USDOJ. An article from the Chicago Tribune has been included in today's packet for additional information. Also, a coalition of local jurisdictions nationwide, including cities and counties, filed an amicus brief in City of Philadelphia vs. Sessions III on October 19th of this year in support of the City's motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, the City is largely requesting an injunction very similar to that ordered in the Chicago case. A copy of the brief is included in today's packet for reference. Potential for Financial Impact to the County As the legal challenges described above progress, the County will continue to be mindful of the potential impacts to County programs. At first glance, it may be easy to determine that any financial impact from the change in federal policy would only impact law enforcement activities; however, several County Page 78 of 421 departments receive funding from USDOJ and DHS. The summary below illustrates a worst case scenario to the County - that is, that all grant funds from both federal agencies are discontinued. The federal government has been choosing certain grants to apply the new regulations to, but there generally does not seem to be a specific criteria used to determine what grants the regulations may be applied to. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that the entire $24.7 million could be impacted, but in the interest of proactively understanding the portfolio of grants maintained by the County, staff prepared this chart as a tool for discussion purposes. On November 6, 2017, the Committee received an update on this referral and directed staff to schedule a special meeting in December for followup. Specifically, staff presented a report on how the County is working proactively to ensure smooth implementation of the requirements of SB 54, to the extent that the County does not already meet those requirements. This included an analysis by County Counsel of the current policies for each department against the new requirements of SB 54 for easy reference. The Committee asked for an updated version of the analysis for the December meeting, which is included in today's packet. Also, the actual policies from both the Sheriff's Office and the Probation Department (draft) were included for reference. In addition, Committee staff provided a brief overview on the issues related to the potential financial impacts from US DOJ and DHS grant conditions on certain federal grant awards. The Committee also discussed the Sheriff's Office contract with the US Marshal services, which is used by ICE to house detainees currently in the custody of the federal government and requested a copy of the contract be included in the December packet for reference. Page 79 of 421 On December 7, 2017, the Committee received an update on various, ongoing litigation items across the country and the status of updates to the immigration policies of the Sheriff's Office and Probation Department. In addition, County Counsel prepared an updated analysis of existing policies and Committee staff included a copy of the interagency agreement between the US Marshal Service and the Sheriff's Office for review. The US Marshal contract is used by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency to house undocumented detainees that are already in the custody of the federal government in County jail facilities. The Committee requested that the issue return at the February 5, 2018 Committee meeting for an update. Referral Update: Staff will be present to provide an update on the following items: 1. Various litigation items being tracked by the Committee related to immigration. 2. Implementation of SB 54 in Contra Costa County, including revision of Probation Department and Sheriff's Office policies on immigration. 3. Update on USDOJ action against the County related to its compliance with 8 USC 1373. 4. Implementation of Stand Together CoCo by the Public Defender's Office Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including implementation of Senate Bill 54 (Chapter 475, Statutes of 2017), status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Attachments Board of Supervisors' Referral Senate Bill 54 (De León), Chapter 495 Statutes of 2017 Senate Bill 54 (De León) - Redline of Existing Law Senate Bill 54 Analysis - County Counsel Chicago Tribune Article, October 13, 2017 Brief of Amici Curiae - City of Philadelphia vs Sessions III, filed October 19, 2017 Letter from USDOJ to Contra Costa re: 8 USC 1373 Compliance Page 80 of 421 Letter from USDOJ to Contra Costa re: 8 USC 1373 Compliance UPDATED: Interagency Service Agreement ICE w/ Amendments UPDATED: Probation Department Immigration Policy UPDATED: Sheriff's Office Immigration Policy Stand Together CoCo - PowerPoint Presentation Stand Together CoCo - RFP Response Stand Together CoCo - Partner Advisory Letter Page 81 of 421 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 82 of 421 being deported. It is timely and in the public interest to refer this issue to the Public Protection Committee. Page 83 of 421 Senate Bill No. 54 CHAPTER 495 An act to amend Sections 7282 and 7282.5 of, and to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, the Government Code, and to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to law enforcement. [Approved by Governor October 5, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State October 5, 2017.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 54, 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 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 and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, 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 90 Page 84 of 421 that a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, submit a report annually pertaining to task force operations to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually 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 law enforcement agencies to report to the department annually regarding transfers of persons to immigration authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General to publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations regarding state and local law enforcement databases, for purposes of limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a specified written consent form in advance of any interview between a person in department custody and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration violations. This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools and local law enforcement agencies, 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. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 7282 of the Government Code is amended to read: 7282. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “Conviction” shall have the same meaning as subdivision (d) of Section 667 of the Penal Code. (b) “Eligible for release from custody” means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred: (1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed. (2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her. (3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (4) The individual has posted a bond. (5) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law, or local policy. 90 — 2 —Ch. 495 Page 85 of 421 (c) “Hold request,” “notification request,” and “transfer request” have the same meanings as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other immigration authorities. (d) “Law enforcement official” means any local agency or officer of a local agency authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances or to operate jails or to maintain custody of individuals in jails, and any person or local agency authorized to operate juvenile detention facilities or to maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities. (e) “Local agency” means any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision of the state. (f) “Serious felony” means any of the offenses listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code and any offense committed in another state which, if committed in California, would be punishable as a serious felony as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code. (g) “Violent felony” means any of the offenses listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and any offense committed in another state which, if committed in California, would be punishable as a violent felony as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code. SEC. 2. Section 7282.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 7282.5. (a) A law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy, and where permitted by the California Values Act (Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284)). Additionally, the specific activities described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of, and in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of, Section 7284.6 shall only occur under the following circumstances: (1) The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of, or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of, the Penal Code. (2) The individual has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. (3) The individual has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor for a crime that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony for, or has been convicted within the last 15 years of a felony for, any of the following offenses: (A) Assault, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 217.1, 220, 240, 241.1, 241.4, 241.7, 244, 244.5, 245, 245.2, 245.3, 245.5, 4500, and 4501 of the Penal Code. (B) Battery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 242, 243.1, 243.3, 243.4, 243.6, 243.7, 243.9, 273.5, 347, 4501.1, and 4501.5 of the Penal Code. (C) Use of threats, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 71, 76, 139, 140, 422, 601, and 11418.5 of the Penal Code. (D) Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or crimes endangering children, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266d, 90 Ch. 495— 3 — Page 86 of 421 266f, 266g, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 269, 288, 288.5, 311.1, 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, and 647.6 of the Penal Code. (E) Child abuse or endangerment, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 270, 271, 271a, 273a, 273ab, 273d, 273.4, and 278 of the Penal Code. (F) Burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 211, 215, 459, 463, 470, 476, 487, 496, 503, 518, 530.5, 532, and 550 of the Penal Code. (G) Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but only for a conviction that is a felony. (H) Obstruction of justice, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 69, 95, 95.1, 136.1, and 148.10 of the Penal Code. (I) Bribery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 67, 67.5, 68, 74, 85, 86, 92, 93, 137, 138, and 165 of the Penal Code. (J) Escape, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 107, 109, 110, 4530, 4530.5, 4532, 4533, 4534, 4535, and 4536 of the Penal Code. (K) Unlawful possession or use of a weapon, firearm, explosive device, or weapon of mass destruction, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 171b, 171c, 171d, 246, 246.3, 247, 417, 417.3, 417.6, 417.8, 4574, 11418, 11418.1, 12021.5, 12022, 12022.2, 12022.3, 12022.4, 12022.5, 12022.53, 12022.55, 18745, 18750, and 18755 of, and subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 26100 of, the Penal Code. (L) Possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, under the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 16000) of the Penal Code). (M) An offense involving the felony possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, or trafficking of controlled substances. (N) Vandalism with prior convictions, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 594.7 of the Penal Code. (O) Gang-related offenses, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.22, 186.26, and 186.28 of the Penal Code. (P) An attempt, as defined in Section 664 of, or a conspiracy, as defined in Section 182 of, the Penal Code, to commit an offense specified in this section. (Q) A crime resulting in death, or involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (d) of Section 245.6 of, and Sections 187, 191.5, 192, 192.5, 12022.7, 12022.8, and 12022.9 of, the Penal Code. (R) Possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense. (S) An offense that would require the individual to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, 290.002, or 290.006 of the Penal Code. (T) False imprisonment, slavery, and human trafficking, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 181, 210.5, 236, 236.1, and 4503 of the Penal Code. (U) Criminal profiteering and money laundering, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.2, 186.9, and 186.10 of the Penal Code. 90 — 4 —Ch. 495 Page 87 of 421 (V) Torture and mayhem, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 203 of the Penal Code. (W) A crime threatening the public safety, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 219, 219.1, 219.2, 247.5, 404, 404.6, 405a, 451, and 11413 of the Penal Code. (X) Elder and dependent adult abuse, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 368 of the Penal Code. (Y) A hate crime, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 422.55 of the Penal Code. (Z) Stalking, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 646.9 of the Penal Code. (AA) Soliciting the commission of a crime, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (c) of Section 286 of, and Sections 653j and 653.23 of, the Penal Code. (AB) An offense committed while on bail or released on his or her own recognizance, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 12022.1 of the Penal Code. (AC) Rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration, as specified in, but not limited to, paragraphs (2) and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 of, paragraphs (1) and (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 of, Section 264.1 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 286 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 288a of, and subdivisions (a) and (j) of Section 289 of, the Penal Code. (AD) Kidnapping, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 207, 209, and 209.5 of the Penal Code. (AE) A violation of subdivision (c) of Section 20001 of the Vehicle Code. (4) The individual is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry. (5) The individual has been convicted of a federal crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony as set forth in subparagraphs (A) to (P), inclusive, of paragraph (43) of subsection (a) of Section 101 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101), or is identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the subject of an outstanding federal felony arrest warrant. (6) In no case shall cooperation occur pursuant to this section for individuals arrested, detained, or convicted of misdemeanors that were previously felonies, or were previously crimes punishable as either misdemeanors or felonies, prior to passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 as it amended the Penal Code. (b) In cases in which the individual is arrested and taken before a magistrate on a charge involving a serious or violent felony, as identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, respectively, or a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in state prison, and the magistrate makes a finding of probable cause as to that charge pursuant to Section 872 of the Penal Code, a law enforcement official shall additionally have discretion to cooperate with immigration 90 Ch. 495— 5 — Page 88 of 421 officials pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 7284.6. SEC. 3. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read: Chapter 17.25. Cooperation with Immigration Authorities 7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act. 7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. (b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. (c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians. (d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. (e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status. See Sanchez Ochoa v. Campbell, et al. (E.D. Wash. 2017) 2017 WL 3476777; Trujillo Santoya v. United States, et al. (W.D. Tex. 2017) 2017 WL 2896021; Moreno v. Napolitano (N.D. Ill. 2016) 213 F. Supp. 3d 999; Morales v. Chadbourne (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 208; Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (D. Or. 2014) 2014 WL 1414305; Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) 745 F.3d 634. (f) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments. (g) It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall not be construed as providing, expanding, or ratifying any legal authority for any state or local law enforcement agency to participate in immigration enforcement. 7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “California law enforcement agency” means a state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments. 90 — 6 —Ch. 495 Page 89 of 421 “California law enforcement agency” does not include the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (b) “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database. (c) “Immigration authority” means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions. (d) “Health facility” includes health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abuse treatment facilities. (e) “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,” and “local law enforcement agency” have the same meaning as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other immigration authorities. (f) “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. (g) “Joint law enforcement task force” means at least one California law enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with at least one federal law enforcement agency in investigating federal or state crimes. (h) “Judicial probable cause determination” means a determination made by a federal judge or federal magistrate judge that probable cause exists that an individual has violated federal criminal immigration law and that authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody the individual. (i) “Judicial warrant” means a warrant based on probable cause for a violation of federal criminal immigration law and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody the person who is the subject of the warrant. (j) “Public schools” means all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. (k) “School police and security departments” includes police and security departments of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices of education, schools, and school districts. 7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not: (1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: (A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status. (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. 90 Ch. 495— 7 — Page 90 of 421 (C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy. (D) Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public. (E) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants. (F) Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code. (G) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency. (3) Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody. (4) Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5. (5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility. (6) Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310). (b) Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating: (1) Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a). (2) Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through 90 — 8 —Ch. 495 Page 91 of 421 the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law. (3) Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met: (A) The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4. (B) The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement. (C) Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject. (4) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. (5) Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)). (c) (1) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member: (A) The purpose of the task force. (B) The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved. (C) The total number of arrests made during the reporting period. (D) The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes. (2) All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer, pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a). (3) All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed. (4) If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this 90 Ch. 495— 9 — Page 92 of 421 section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement. (d) The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney General’s report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. (e) This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code. (f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters. 7284.8. (a) The Attorney General, by October 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, shelters, libraries, and 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. (b) For any databases operated by state and local law enforcement agencies, including databases maintained for the agency by private vendors, the Attorney General shall, by October 1, 2018, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations aimed at ensuring that those databases are governed in a manner that limits the availability of information therein to the fullest extent practicable and consistent with federal and state law, to anyone or any entity 90 — 10 —Ch. 495 Page 93 of 421 for the purpose of immigration enforcement. All state and local law enforcement agencies are encouraged to adopt necessary changes to database governance policies consistent with that guidance. (c) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2), the Department of Justice may implement, interpret, or make specific this chapter without taking any regulatory action. 7284.10. (a) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall: (1) In advance of any interview between the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and an individual in department custody regarding civil immigration violations, provide the individual with a written consent form that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that he or she may decline to be interviewed or may choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present. The written consent form shall be available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. (2) Upon receiving any ICE hold, notification, or transfer request, provide a copy of the request to the individual and inform him or her whether the department intends to comply with the request. (b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not: (1) Restrict access to any in-prison educational or rehabilitative programming, or credit-earning opportunity on the sole basis of citizenship or immigration status, including, but not limited to, whether the person is in removal proceedings, or immigration authorities have issued a hold request, transfer request, notification request, or civil immigration warrant against the individual. (2) Consider citizenship and immigration status as a factor in determining a person’s custodial classification level, including, but not limited to, whether the person is in removal proceedings, or whether immigration authorities have issued a hold request, transfer request, notification request, or civil immigration warrant against the individual. 7284.12. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 4. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed. SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. O 90 Ch. 495— 11 — Page 94 of 421 Page 95 of 421 Page 96 of 421 Page 97 of 421 Page 98 of 421 Page 99 of 421 Page 100 of 421 Page 101 of 421 Page 102 of 421 Page 103 of 421 Page 104 of 421 Page 105 of 421 Page 106 of 421 A Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities By Jason Meisner Chicago Tribune OCTOBER 13, 2017, 5:00 PM federal judge in Chicago on Friday refused to alter his previous ruling barring Attorney General Jeff Sessions from requiring sanctuary cities nationwide to cooperate with immigration agents in exchange for receiving public safety grant money. In granting the preliminary injunction last month, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber said Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration could suffer “irreparable harm” in its relationship with the immigrant community if it were to comply with the U.S. Department of Justice’s new rules. The judge also said the attorney general overstepped his authority by imposing the special conditions, agreeing with the city’s argument that it was an attempt to usurp power from Congress over the country’s purse strings. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks about the asylum system at the Executive Office for Immigration Review in Falls Church, Va., on Oct. 12, 2017. (Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA-EFE) Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 1 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 107 of 421 In a motion filed Sept. 26, Sessions asked Leinenweber to narrow the ruling to apply only to Chicago, arguing it would unfairly punish smaller cities that depend on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. But Leinenweber wrote in his decision Friday that the “rule of law is undermined” if he allowed Sessions to continue what is likely unconstitutional conduct in other cities while the lawsuit here is pending. “An injunction more restricted in scope would leave the Attorney General free to continue enforcing the likely invalid conditions against all other Byrne JAG applicants,” wrote Leinenweber, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. A separate appeal of Leinenweber’s preliminary injunction is pending before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. President Donald Trump’s administration wants to require cities applying for the annual grants for public safety technology to give notice when immigrants in the country illegally are about to be released from custody and allow immigration agents access to local jails. The new regulations, announced by Sessions in July, also would require local authorities to give 48 hours’ notice “where practicable” before releasing from custody people whom federal immigration agents suspect of being in the country illegally. The Byrne grants have become a high-profile battlefield between local governments and the Trump administration over the president’s immigration policies. This week, the Justice Department announced it had sent letters contending that Chicago and Cook County violated federal immigration laws last year when they were awarded public safety grants. The letters to Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, along with a handful of other so-called sanctuary cities around the country, do not specify why the city and county are in violation, but it gives them until Oct. 27 to prove otherwise before the Justice Department reaches “its final determination” on the matter. In a statement Friday, Emanuel claimed victory but said the “battle is not over.” “This ruling is a victory for both Chicago and cities nationwide, because no city in America should be forced to abandon its values in order to get public safety funding from the federal government,” the mayor said.Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 2 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 108 of 421 jmeisner@chicagotribune.com Twitter @jmetr22b RELATED: Justice Department says Chicago violated immigration rules on earlier grant » Judge rules in city's favor on sanctuary cities, grants nationwide injunction » Copyright © 2017, Chicago Tribune This 'attr(data-c-typename)' is related to: Immigration, Jeff Sessions, U.S. Department of Justice Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 3 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 109 of 421 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-03894-MMB BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 24 ADDITIONAL CITIES, COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES, THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 26 Page 110 of 421 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6 A. Local Officials Must Be Allowed to Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Tailored to the Needs and Unique Characteristics of Their Communities. .............6 B. Policies Restricting Local Immigration Enforcement Promote Public Safety. ......................................................................................................................9 C. The Byrne JAG Conditions Have Created Uncertainty and Operational Challenges. .............................................................................................................12 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................17 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 26 Page 111 of 421 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of Chicago v. Sessions 2017 WL 4081821 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) ............................................................... 2, 4, 5, 13 Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) ........................................................................ 2, 3 Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017) ............................................................................ 3 Gonzales v. Oregon 546 U.S. 243 (2006) ................................................................................................................... 6 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr 518 U.S. 470 (1996) ................................................................................................................... 6 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012) ............................................................................................................... 6, 8 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman 451 U.S. 1 (1981) ..................................................................................................................... 16 S. Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987) ................................................................................................................... 8 United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ................................................................................................................... 6 United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ................................................................................................................... 6 STATUTES Federal 8 U.S.C. section 1373 ................................................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 15, 16 42 U.S.C. § 3751(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 7 State Cal. Gov’t Code § 7283.1(a) ......................................................................................................... 13 D.C. Code § 24-211.07(d)(1) ........................................................................................................ 13 Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 40B Section 24 .......................................................................... 1 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 3 of 26 Page 112 of 421 iii Local Cook County Code § 46-37(b) ...................................................................................................... 14 King County Code § 2.15.010-2.15.020 ......................................................................................... 9 Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, § 28-252 ...................................................... 14 N.Y.C. Administrative Code 9-131(h)(1) ..................................................................................... 16 OTHER AUTHORITIES Rob Arthur, Latinos In Three Cities Are Reporting Fewer Crimes Since Trump Took Office (May 18, 2017) ..................................................................................................... 10 Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations, Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate (May 24, 2017) ....................................................................................... 10 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2015 (2016) ............................................................. 12 Cato Institute, Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin, 1 & n.4, 2 (Mar. 15, 2017) ................................................................. 9 Darcy Costello, “New LMPD policy: No working with immigration officials to enforce federal laws,” The Courier-Journal (Sept. 22, 2017) .................................................. 11 County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54 ..................................................... 9, 14 Department of Justice Programs, Grants 101, Overview of OJP Grants and Funding, Types of Funding .................................................................................................. 7 Executive Order 13768 ............................................................................................................... 2, 3 H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 ................................................................................................................... 8 Houston Police Dep’t, Immigration Policy Questions and Answers .............................................. 9 Kate Howard, “Louisville Police Don’t Enforce Immigration – But Help the Feds Do It,” Ky. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting (Sept. 17, 2017) ............................................................... 11 Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Detainer Policies ..................................................................... 9 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement .............................................................. 7 Jasmine C. Lee, Ruby Omri, and Julia Preston, "What Are Sanctuary Citites," New York Times (Feb. 6, 2017) .................................................................................................. 2 Brooke A. Lewis, “HPD chief announces decrease in Hispanics reporting rape and violent crimes compared to last year,” Houston Chronicle (Apr. 6, 2017) ....................... 10 Major Cities Chiefs Ass'n, Immigration Policy (2013) .................................................................. 6 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 4 of 26 Page 113 of 421 iv Katie Mettler, “‘This is really unprecedented’: ICE detains woman seeking domestic abuse protection at Texas courthouse,” Wash. Post (Feb. 16, 2017) ....................................... 14 James Queally, “ICE agents make arrests at courthouses, sparking backlash from attorneys and state supreme court,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 16, 2017)................................. 14 James Queally, “Latinos are reporting fewer sexual assaults amid a climate of fear in immigrant communities, LAPD says,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 21, 2017) ....................... 10 Nik Theodore, Dep’t of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, 5-6 (2013) ........................................................................................................... 10 Tucson Policy Dep't Gen. Orders, Gen. Order 2300 ...................................................................... 9 Transcript of Donald Trump's Immigration Speech The New York Times (Sept. 1, 2016) .......................................................................................... 2 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Certifications of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 ................................................................................................................... 4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies (Aug. 16, 2017) ....................................................... 15 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, COPS Office: Immigration Cooperation Certification Process Background ............................................................................................. 4 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice Announces Priority Consideration Criteria for COPS Office Grants (Sept. 7, 2017) ............................................... 4 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Announces that Commitment to Reducing Violent Crime Stemming from Illegal Immigration will be Required for Participation in Public Safety Partnership Program (Aug. 3, 2017) ................... 4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance ................................................................... 15 Chuck Wexler, “Police chiefs across the country support sanctuary cities because they keep crime down,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 6, 2017) ....................................................... 9 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/1/2017, #6 (Feb. 1, 2017) ........................................................................................................ 3 Tom K. Wong, Center for American Progress, The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy, ¶ 12 (2017) .............................................................................. 9, 11 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 5 of 26 Page 114 of 421 1 I. INTRODUCTION Amici are 24 cities, counties, and municipal agencies,1 and four major associations of local governments and their officials: The United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and the International City/County Management Association.2 Local governments bear responsibility for protecting the safety and welfare of our communities. Our law enforcement officials patrol our streets, operate our jails, investigate and prosecute crimes, and secure justice for victims. To fulfill these responsibilities, amici cities and counties must build and maintain the trust of our residents, regardless of their immigration status, and we must be able to adopt policies which foster that trust and meet our communities’ unique needs. Since January, President Trump and his Administration have targeted local jurisdictions, like the amici cities and counties, that have determined the needs of their communities are best met, and public safety is best secured, by limiting local involvement with the enforcement of federal immigration law. In one of his first acts upon taking office, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“Order”) directing his Administration to deny federal funds to so-called 1 The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is the Regional Planning Agency serving the people who live and work in the 101 cities and towns of Metropolitan Boston. See Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 40B Section 24. The agency provides extensive technical assistance to cities and towns in the Greater Boston region, and supports the ability of cities and towns to adopt and implement best practices for maintaining a productive relationship with all residents of their communities, regardless of their immigration status. 2 The United States Conference of Mayors is the official non-partisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,408 such cities in the country today. Each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. The National League of Cities (“NLC”) is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. NLC is a resource and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans. The International Municipal Lawyers Association (“IMLA”) is owned by its more than 2,500 members and serves as an international clearinghouse for legal information and cooperation on municipal legal matters. IMLA’s mission is to advance the responsible development of municipal law through education and advocacy by providing the collective viewpoint of local governments around the country on legal issues before courts nationwide. The International City/County Management Association (“ICMA”) is a non-profit professional and educational organization with more than 11,000 members, the appointed chief executives and professionals who serve local governments throughout the world. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 6 of 26 Page 115 of 421 2 “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Executive Order 13768, §§ 2(c), 9(a). Three months later, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 9(a) of the Order. Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00574, City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 17- CV-00485, 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (hereinafter Santa Clara). Despite that injunction, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is attempting yet again to deny federal funds to jurisdictions that choose to limit their participation in enforcing federal immigration law. The DOJ’s new conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program violate federal law, usurp local control over public safety policy, erode the community trust on which local law enforcement depends, and create uncertainty for local governments like amici. A district court in Chicago has already recognized this and preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of two of these conditions on a nationwide basis. City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720, 2017 WL 4081821, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017). But the federal government continues to dispute the nationwide scope of this injunction, and a preliminary injunction is required from this Court to protect Philadelphia and prevent irreparable harm to its law enforcement efforts and its local residents. II. BACKGROUND Hundreds of local jurisdictions nationwide have concluded they can best promote the safety and well-being of their communities by limiting their involvement in immigration enforcement. See, e.g., Jasmine C. Lee, Rudy Omri, and Julia Preston, “What Are Sanctuary Cities,” New York Times (Feb. 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/02/us/ sanctuary-cities.html?mcubz=1. Although these jurisdictions are just as safe as – if not safer than, see infra at 9-11 – those that devote local resources to enforcing federal immigration law, President Trump has blamed them for “needless deaths” and promised to “end . . . [s]anctuary” jurisdictions by cutting off their federal funding. Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech, The New York Times (Sept. 1, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/ Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 7 of 26 Page 116 of 421 3 politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html. On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13768, which directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that “sanctuary jurisdictions” do not receive any “[f]ederal funds.” Executive Order 13768, §§ 2(c), 9(a). The White House made clear that the Order aimed to “end[] sanctuary cities” by stripping them of all federal funding. See, e.g., Press Release, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/1/2017, #6 (Feb. 1, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/01/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean- spicer-212017-6. Shortly thereafter, the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco filed related lawsuits challenging the Order and moved for a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement. At oral argument on the motions, DOJ attempted to walk back the Order’s sweeping language by arguing the Order was merely an “exercise of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’” to exert political pressure on local government entities, and only applied narrowly to three specific federal grants (including Byrne JAG). Santa Clara, 2017 WL 1459081, at *1. The district court rejected this interpretation, finding it irreconcilable with the plain language of the Order, and issued a preliminary injunction in April prohibiting enforcement of Section 9(a)’s broad funding ban.3 Id. at *9. The Executive Order remains preliminary enjoined, and Santa Clara and San Francisco have moved for a permanent injunction. Meanwhile, the Attorney General has shifted to a grant-by-grant approach. In April 2017, as it became increasingly likely that the Executive Order would be enjoined, DOJ took action to enforce a condition on Byrne JAG funding initially imposed in 2016. See Compl. ¶¶ 69-74 (Dkt. No.1). This condition (the “certification condition”) requires recipients of Byrne JAG program funds to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, which prohibits 3 DOJ relied on an Attorney General memorandum purporting to reinterpret the Executive Order to seek reconsideration of the preliminary injunction, but the district court rejected that attempt. See Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00574, City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00485, 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 8 of 26 Page 117 of 421 4 restrictions on the sharing of citizenship and immigration status information. On April 21, 2017, the DOJ sent letters to nine jurisdictions, including Philadelphia, suggesting they did not comply with section 1373 and requiring them to submit an “official legal opinion” and supporting documentation to demonstrate their compliance by June 30, 2017. Compl. ¶ 78. Then, on July 25, 2017, the Attorney General officially announced three conditions applicable to the Byrne JAG program, including the existing certification condition and two new conditions that require recipients to (1) “permit personnel of [DHS] to access any detention facility in order to meet with an alien and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United States” (“access condition”), and (2) “provide at least 48 hours advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody when DHS requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien” (“notice condition”). Compl. ¶ 5 & Exs. 1, 15. The DOJ has indicated that these conditions may be applied to other grants, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Certifications of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SampleCertifications-8USC1373.htm, and has made local immigration enforcement a selection criterion for other federal grant programs.4 Several jurisdictions filed suit to challenge the Byrne JAG conditions.5 After the City of 4 On August 3, 2017, the DOJ announced that to be selected for the Public Safety Partnership program, local jurisdictions must “show a commitment to reducing crime stemming from illegal immigration.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Announces that Commitment to Reducing Violent Crime Stemming from Illegal Immigration will be Required for Participation in Public Safety Partnership Program (Aug. 3, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-commitment-reducing-violent- crime-stemming-illegal-immigration. Applicants are now required to report whether they have access and notice policies that mirror the access and notice conditions of the JAG grants and whether they honor ICE detainers. Id. On September 7, 2017, the DOJ announced that applicants for competitive Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) grants will receive priority consideration if they certify that they provide DHS access to their detention facilities and advance notice to DHS of “an illegal alien’s release date and time.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, COPS Office: Immigration Cooperation Certification Process Background, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/995376/download (last accessed Oct. 12, 2017); see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice Announces Priority Consideration Criteria for COPS Office Grants (Sept. 7, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-priority-consideration-criteria- cops-office-grants. 5 See City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-05720 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 7, 2017); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-04642-WHO (N.D.Cal., filed Aug. 11, 2017); State of Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 9 of 26 Page 118 of 421 5 Chicago moved for a preliminary injunction in its case, the DOJ again changed course and represented that the conditions announced on July 25 – and subsequently included in the Fiscal Year 2017 Byrne JAG solicitations – were not “actual” conditions, but “only advised prospective applicants regarding the general tenor of the conditions.” Def.’s Opp. To Pl.’s Mot. to Expedite Briefing Schedule, at 3 n.2, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-05720 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2017), ECF No. 28 (emphasis added). DOJ then submitted a pair of award letters, dated August 23, 2017, that set forth what are purportedly the “actual” conditions. In these letters, the DOJ modified the condition requiring 48 hours’ notice to DHS before an inmate is released from local custody to require notice “as early as practicable.” Declaration of Alan R. Hanson (“Hanson Decl.”), Exs. A & B, ¶¶55-56, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2017), ECF No. 32. And DOJ modified the access condition to require a local policy or practice designed to ensure that federal agents “in fact” are given access to correctional facilities for the purpose of meeting with individuals believed to be aliens and inquiring into their right to remain in the country. Id. On September 15, 2017, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, of the Northern District of Illinois, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the notice and access conditions, but leaving in place the certification condition.6 Chicago, 2017 WL 4081821, at *14. Chicago has moved for reconsideration of the portion of the order allowing enforcement of the certification condition, and the DOJ has appealed.7 California v. Sessions No. 17-CV-4701-WHO (filed Aug. 14, 2017 N.D. Cal.); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-03894-MMB (E.D.Pa., filed Aug. 30, 2017); City of Los Angeles v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-07215-R-JC (C.D.Cal., filed Sept. 29, 2017). 6 The DOJ moved to stay the nationwide application of the preliminary injunction, but the district court denied its motion. See Mem. Op. & Order, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2017), ECF No. 98. The DOJ has also moved to stay the nationwide application of the preliminary injunction in the Seventh Circuit. 7 Chicago moved for reconsideration based on a letter from DOJ, discussed infra at pages 15-16, that found Chicago to be in violation of 1373 and contradicted representations DOJ made to the district court. Chicago has moved to hold DOJ’s appeal in abeyance pending resolution of this motion. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 10 of 26 Page 119 of 421 6 III. ARGUMENT A. Local Officials Must Be Allowed to Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Tailored to the Needs and Unique Characteristics of Their Communities. Our nation’s constitutional structure is premised on the notion that states and localities, as the governments closest to the people, bear responsibility for protecting the health and safety of their residents. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) (“health and safety . . . are primarily, and historically, matters of local concern”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Within the “structure and limitations of federalism,” state and local governments possess “great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.” Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). This local control ensures that matters which “concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” are determined “by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 536 (2012). The duty to protect local residents from crime lies at the heart of the police power vested in state and local jurisdictions. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000) (there is “no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims”). In carrying out this duty, cities and counties possess – and must be allowed to exercise – broad discretion to develop and implement law enforcement and public safety policies tailored to the needs of their communities. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995). This is a matter not only of constitutional law, but of sound law enforcement policy. Police chiefs and sheriffs nationwide have stated that “decisions related to how local law enforcement agencies allocate their resources, direct their workforce and define the duties of their employees to best serve and protect their communities must be left in the control of local governments.” Major Cities Chiefs Ass’n, Immigration Policy (2013), Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 11 of 26 Page 120 of 421 7 https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/2013_immigration_policy.pdf. Local control is no less critical when policy decisions concern enforcement of federal immigration law. See id. (“The decision to have local police officers perform the function and duties of immigration agents should be left to the local government[.]”). Amici share the judgment that local participation in federal immigration enforcement can be detrimental to community safety. But one need not agree with Philadelphia’s specific policy decisions – or those of the city and county amici – to agree these decisions should rest with the local entities tasked with keeping our communities safe. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”) has taken no position on whether local law enforcement agencies should engage in immigration enforcement. IACP, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement, 1, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/publications/ immigrationenforcementconf.pdf (hereinafter Enforcing Immigration Law). But the IACP is not neutral on who should decide whether local police do so. In its view, “local law enforcement’s participation in immigration enforcement is an inherently local decision that must be made by a police chief, working with their elected officials, community leaders and citizens.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). Attempts to coerce participation by withholding federal funds are “unacceptable.” Id. at 5. In creating the Byrne JAG program, Congress recognized the need for local control over law enforcement policy and structured the program to maximize local discretion. As Philadelphia has explained, the Byrne JAG program is a formula grant,8 available for use in eight broad areas, including law enforcement; prosecution and courts; prevention and education; corrections and community corrections; drug treatment and enforcement; planning, evaluation, and technology improvement; crime victim and witness programs; and mental health. See 42 U.S.C. § 3751(a)(1). Congress designed the program in this manner to “give State and local governments 8 A formula grant is a non-competitive grant in which funds are allocated based upon a statutory formula, without a competitive process. Department of Justice Programs, Grants 101, Overview of OJP Grants and Funding, Types of Funding, https://ojp.gov/grants101/typesoffunding.htm. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 12 of 26 Page 121 of 421 8 more flexibility to spend money for programs that work for them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-233, at 89 (2005). Empowering states and localities to make their own policy choices is thus a central purpose of the program. Local jurisdictions, including many of the amici, put these funds to diverse uses, reflecting both the varied law enforcement needs of different communities and Congress’s intent to preserve local discretion and flexibility in Byrne JAG-funded law enforcement programs. For example: Iowa City, Iowa (population 74,398) uses Byrne JAG funds to promote traffic safety, to establish a search and rescue program aimed at individuals at risk for wandering, to partially fund a drug task force, and to purchase equipment. Portland, Oregon (population 639,863) has used Byrne JAG funds to support its New Options for Women (NOW) program, which provides services to women who have experienced sexual exploitation while working in the commercial sex industry. Sacramento, California (population 493,025) uses Byrne JAG funds to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of its Police Department’s helicopter program. San Francisco, California (population 870,887) uses Byrne JAG funds to operate a Youth Adult Court aimed at reducing recidivism for youth ages 18-25 by providing case management and other services that account for young adults’ unique developmental needs. If the Byrne JAG conditions are allowed to stand, local governments will be forced to choose between losing critical funding for these diverse programs or giving up control over inherently local law enforcement policies. Such a result would not only undermine the ability of local entities to enact policies reflecting the needs and unique characteristics of their communities – thus subverting a central purpose of the funding – but also allow the executive branch to wield powers vested exclusively in Congress. Under the Spending Clause, only Congress – whose members are elected by and accountable to local communities – can place substantive conditions on federal funds. S. Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987) (“Incident to [its Article I spending] power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds[.]”) (emphasis added). And any conditions must be germane to the purpose of the funding. Sebelius, 567 U.S. at 632. In the case of Byrne JAG funding, Congress chose to preserve local discretion, and DOJ has no authority to upend that decision. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 13 of 26 Page 122 of 421 9 B. Policies Restricting Local Immigration Enforcement Promote Public Safety. In exercising its discretion over local law enforcement policy, Philadelphia has made the considered judgment that devoting local resources to immigration enforcement would be detrimental to community safety. Compl., ¶¶ 2-3, 27-30. Philadelphia is not alone in this judgment. More than 600 counties and numerous cities – including many of the amici – have opted to limit their engagement in federal immigration enforcement efforts. Tom K. Wong, Center for American Progress, The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy, ¶ 12 (2017) (hereinafter “Effects of Sanctuary Policies”) (identifying 608 counties coded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) as limiting involvement with immigration enforcement), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/01/26/297366/ the-effects-of-sanctuary-policies-on-crime-and-the-economy/; Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Detainer Policies, https://www.ilrc.org/detainer-policies (listing city and county policies to decline detainer requests). The policies of these counties and cities are themselves diverse, reflecting the varied needs and judgments of each jurisdiction.9 Policies that restrict local entanglement with ICE reflect the judgment of local governments and law enforcement agencies that community trust in local law enforcement is vital to the work of public safety. Local law enforcement agencies rely upon all community members – regardless of immigration status – to report crimes, serve as witnesses, and assist in investigations and prosecutions. See, e.g., Chuck Wexler, “Police chiefs across the country support sanctuary cities because they keep crime down,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 6, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wexler-sanctuary-cities-immigration-crime- 20170306-story.html. Immigrants – again, regardless of immigration status – are less likely to commit crimes than native U.S. citizens. See, e.g., Cato Institute, Criminal Immigrants: Their 9 See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54, https://www.sccgov.org/ sites/bos/Legislation/BOS-Policy-Manual/Documents/BOSPolicyCHAP3.pdf; Houston Police Dep’t, Immigration Policy Questions and Answers, http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/ immigration_facts.pdf; King County Code § 2.15.010-2.15.020, http://aqua.kingcounty.gov/ council/clerk/code/05_Title_2.pdf ; Tucson Police Dep’t Gen. Orders, Gen. Order 2300, https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/general-orders/2300IMMIGRATION.pdf. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 14 of 26 Page 123 of 421 10 Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin, 1 & n.4, 2 (Mar. 15, 2017), https://object. cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/immigration_brief-1.pdf. But “[t]he moment [immigrant] victims and witnesses begin to fear that their local police will deport them, cooperation with their police then ceases.” Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations, Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate (May 24, 2017) (statement of J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland). Indeed, in the experience of amici, even the perception that local law enforcement is assisting in immigration enforcement can erode trust, disrupt lines of communication, and make law enforcement’s job much more difficult. Recent data bear this out. Since President Trump took office and promised to ramp up deportations, Latinos have reported fewer crimes relative to reports by non-Latinos. Rob Arthur, Latinos In Three Cities Are Reporting Fewer Crimes Since Trump Took Office (May 18, 2017) (analyzing data from Dallas, Denver, and Philadelphia), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ latinos-report-fewer-crimes-in-three-cities-amid-fears-of-deportation/. Disturbingly, some jurisdictions have identified declines specifically in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence. Id. 10 Local police chiefs have attributed these declines to community members’ increased fear that interactions with law enforcement could lead to their deportation, or the deportation of a family member. Id.; see also supra at 10 n.10. Indeed, 50% of foreign-born individuals and 67% of undocumented individuals surveyed reported being less likely to offer information about crimes to law enforcement for fear that officers will inquire about their or others’ immigration status. Nik Theodore, Dep’t of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration 10 See also Brooke A. Lewis, “HPD chief announces decrease in Hispanics reporting rape and violent crimes compared to last year,” Houston Chronicle (Apr. 6, 2017), http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/HPD-chief-announces-decrease-in- Hispanics-11053829.php; James Queally, “Latinos are reporting fewer sexual assaults amid a climate of fear in immigrant communities, LAPD says,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 21, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrant-crime-reporting-drops-20170321- story.html. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 15 of 26 Page 124 of 421 11 Enforcement, 5-6 (2013), http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_ COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF. Local policies that limit entanglement with ICE help mitigate these fears, facilitate engagement with immigrant communities, and ultimately improve public safety by ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice. Contrary to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions’ unsupported rhetoric, research has shown that policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities are associated with lower crime rates – on average, 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people. Effects of Sanctuary Policies, ¶ 16. The association is even stronger in large metropolitan areas: counties with large, urban centers that limit local involvement with ICE experience 65.4 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than similar counties that do not limit such involvement. Id., ¶ 15. Indeed, Philadelphia has experienced these effects first-hand. See Compl. ¶¶ 28, 37 (describing decrease in crime in Philadelphia following adoption of policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts). Even localities that previously engaged in extensive cooperation with ICE enforcement efforts, such as the City of Louisville, Kentucky, have since determined that having local police assist with immigration enforcement undermines community trust to the detriment of local public safety, and have discontinued the practice except in limited circumstances. See Kate Howard, “Louisville Police Don’t Enforce Immigration – But Help the Feds Do It,” Ky. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting (Sept. 17, 2017), http://kycir.org/2017/09/07/louisville-police-dont- enforce-immigration-but-they-help-ice-do-it/?_ga=2.181999650.449997577.1505784164- 179920009.1505784164; Darcy Costello, “New LMPD policy: No working with immigration officials to enforce federal laws,” The Courier-Journal (Sept. 22, 2017). If the new Byrne JAG conditions are not enjoined, jurisdictions like Philadelphia and some of the amici will be compelled to make choices that undermine public safety: either abandon non-entanglement policies that increase community trust and lower crime rates, or lose funding for critical law enforcement programs. This is not a choice that cities and counties should have to make; it is not a choice that can be imposed consistent with the purpose of the Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 16 of 26 Page 125 of 421 12 Byrne JAG program; and, as Philadelphia has demonstrated, it is not a choice that DOJ has the legal authority to require. C. The Byrne JAG Conditions Have Created Uncertainty and Operational Challenges. Since President Trump’s Executive Order punishing sanctuary jurisdictions was issued, the DOJ’s position on immigration-related funding conditions has become a constantly moving target. See supra at 3-5. The new Byrne JAG conditions are surrounded by an untenable level of uncertainty and pose operational challenges for jurisdictions that rely on this funding. Notice Condition. As announced by the Attorney General and described in the FY 2017 solicitations, the new notice condition required Byrne JAG recipients to “provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody.” Compl., Ex. 1 (emphasis added). This created significant uncertainty and operational concerns for local jurisdictions, including some amici, that operate detention facilities whose populations are primarily – or exclusively – unsentenced individuals held in custody pending resolution of criminal charges or transfer to another facility. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2015, at 5 tbl. 4 (2016), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ ji15.pdf (63% of jail inmates nationwide are unsentenced). Unsentenced inmates typically do not have a “scheduled release date and time” that can be determined 48 hours in advance, and many are in custody for less than 48 hours before they post bail or are ordered released. For this reason, the Attorney General’s announcement and the FY 2017 solicitation created confusion and concern that the notice condition may have been intended to require local jurisdictions to continue to detain unsentenced inmates after they would otherwise be released in order to provide sufficient notice to DHS.11 DOJ now represents that this condition requires notice only “as early as practicable,” and does not require any locality to hold an inmate beyond the time he or she would otherwise be released. Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. 11 In its response to Philadelphia’s motion for preliminary injunction, the DOJ represents that the access condition applies to any immigrant detained in local custody for whom ICE requests notification, regardless of whether the immigrant is sentenced or unsentenced or has a scheduled release date. See Mem. in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (“Opp.”) at 31-32, ECF No. 28. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 17 of 26 Page 126 of 421 13 for Preliminary Injunction, 20, Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32; Hanson Decl., Exs. A & B, ¶¶55-56, Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32. Even assuming DOJ adheres to this latest articulation of the condition, it nonetheless presents operational concerns: for agencies that detain arrestees and unsentenced individuals, there are likely to be many instances in which giving any advance notice is impracticable. It also conflicts with the local laws or policies of some amici, which have limited their responses to ICE notification requests for the reasons discussed in Section II, supra. Moreover, given DOJ’s inconsistent position, amici remain concerned about how this condition will be enforced in practice. Access Condition. The award letters submitted by DOJ with its opposition to Chicago’s preliminary injunction motion require Byrne JAG recipients to have a policy or practice in place to ensure that federal agents “in fact are given access” to a local “correctional facility for the purpose of permitting such agents to meet with individuals who are (or are believed by such agents to be) aliens and to inquire as to such individuals’ right to be or remain in the United States.” Hanson Decl., Exs. A & B, ¶ 56(1)(A), Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32. The award letter does not explain what “access” “in fact” means, leaving jurisdictions to guess at what they must do to comply and, in some cases, whether compliance is consistent with state law. In California, state law requires local agencies to provide a consent form prior to any interview with ICE that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that the inmate may decline to be interviewed or choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present. Cal. Gov’t Code § 7283.1(a). Other jurisdictions require an inmate’s written consent prior to allowing any interview with ICE, see Compl. ¶¶ 50-51 (describing Philadelphia policy), or provide that inmates must be permitted to have an attorney present during ICE interviews, see D.C. Code § 24-211.07(d)(1). The DOJ has represented in this litigation that the access condition requires Byrne JAG recipients to permit ICE interviews even if the inmate does not consent to the interview or declines to answer questions. (Opp. at 32.) If DOJ in fact maintains that position, some jurisdictions may be forced Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 18 of 26 Page 127 of 421 14 to forego Byrne JAG funds to comply with state or local laws. For other jurisdictions, ambiguity surrounding how DOJ will ultimately enforce the condition continues to cause confusion and concern. Whether to allow ICE to operate inside city and county detention facilities is an inherently local decision that should be left to local governments and local law enforcement officials. See Enforcing Immigration Law at 1. Local agencies are responsible for maintaining order and security within jails and other detention facilities, and they must retain the discretion to decide how that responsibility is best fulfilled. Some jurisdictions have made the judgment that permitting ICE to operate in local detention facilities interferes with correctional operations – for example, by increasing fear among inmates and decreasing their trust of correctional staff – and is not in the best interests of staff, inmates, or the broader community. See, e.g., Cook County Code § 46-37(b); County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/Legislation/BOS-Policy-Manual/Documents/ BOSPolicyCHAP3.pdf; Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, § 28-252. Moreover, local officials have already expressed concern that ICE’s practice of arresting immigrants at courthouses – including crime victims – deters immigrants both from pursuing justice for crimes committed against them, and from appearing in court to answer any charges they may be facing, thereby endangering local prosecutions. See, e.g., Katie Mettler, “‘This is really unprecedented’: ICE detains woman seeking domestic abuse protection at Texas courthouse,” Wash. Post (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/ wp/2017/02/16/this-is-really-unprecedented-ice-detains-woman-seeking-domestic-abuse- protection-at-texas-courthouse/?utm_term=.b1c3c0902b1b; James Queally, “ICE agents make arrests at courthouses, sparking backlash from attorneys and state supreme court,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 16, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ice-courthouse-arrests- 20170315-story.html. Immigrant inmates who see ICE operating in local jails or detention facilities may assume that ICE is permitted in other government buildings, such as courthouses, and may be more likely to abscond, denying victims the opportunity for justice. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 19 of 26 Page 128 of 421 15 Certification Condition. Finally, the Trump Administration has created significant uncertainty and concern over how it intends to enforce requirements that federal grant recipients comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. On its face, section 1373 addresses only state and local restrictions on the sharing of information on citizenship or immigration status with ICE or other governmental entities; the statute does not mandate that state and local governments collect this information, nor does it impose any additional requirements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Nonetheless, the Administration has repeatedly suggested that a broad range of local policies – including policies limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests – violate section 1373. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies (Aug. 16, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers- remarks-sanctuary-policies (suggesting that Miami-Dade County is “now in full compliance” following its decision to begin honoring detainer requests); Compl., Ex. 1 (section 1373 “generally bars restrictions on communications” between local agencies and DHS). On October 12, 2017, the DOJ completed a preliminary review of the legal opinions and supporting documentation it demanded from nine jurisdictions, and sent letters to five jurisdictions – including Philadelphia and amici Chicago, Cook County, and New York City – stating that they “have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373.” See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ justice-department-provides-last-chance-cities-show-1373-compliance.12 These letters only add 12 See also Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to the Honorable Jim Kenney, Mayor of Philadelphia (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1003046/download (“Philadelphia Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Eddie T. Johnson, Chicago Superintendent of Police (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003016/download (“Chicago Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Toni Preckwinkle, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003026/download (“Cook County Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to the Honorable Mitchel Landieu, City of New Orleans Criminal Justice Coordination (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003036/download (“New Orleans Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 20 of 26 Page 129 of 421 16 to the uncertainty surrounding the certification condition and confirm that DOJ intends to enforce an insupportably broad interpretation of the statute. For example, several of the letters indicate that policies limiting sharing of information about custody status or release dates violate section 1373.13 See Philadelphia Letter at 1; Chicago Letter at 1; Cook County Letter at 1; New York Letter at 2-3. But DOJ provides no explanation of how such policies “prohibit, or in any way restrict” what section 1373 addresses: the sharing of information about immigration status.14 Some of the letters also state, without further explanation, that DOJ “is not relying on” policies limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests in its “preliminary assessment[s].” Philadelphia Letter at 1 n.1; New York Letter at 2 n.1. This cryptic language could suggest that DOJ is leaving open the possibility that such policies may violate section 1373 – leaving jurisdictions to wonder whether DOJ will “rely[] on” such policies in the future and, if so, what position it will take. DOJ’s failure to provide a clear and lawful interpretation of section 1373 has created uncertainty and forces jurisdictions to guess at how DOJ will view their policies – or what policy changes DOJ would view as sufficient – when it begins enforcing this condition. Local jurisdictions may not lawfully be placed in this position. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981) (even where Congress imposes conditions on receipt of Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Elizabeth Glazer, Director, New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003041/download (“New York Letter”). 13 New York City law permits Department of Correction personnel to provide federal immigration authorities with information related to a person’s citizenship or immigration status, but prohibits the sharing of information about incarceration status and release dates unless an enumerated exception applies. N.Y.C. Administrative Code 9-131(h)(1). The New York Letter states that to comply with section 1373, New York would need to certify that it interprets this ordinance to “not restrict New York officers from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers, including information regarding an alien’s incarceration status and release date and time.” New York Letter at 2-3 (emphasis added). 14 In a footnote in its opposition brief, the DOJ takes the position that section 1373 covers “information that assists the federal government in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under the [Immigration and Nationality Act.” Opp. at 39 n.11. This statement only increases confusion about the range of information DOJ believes local officials must be able to share with ICE in order to certify compliance and receive Byrne JAG funds. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 21 of 26 Page 130 of 421 17 federal funds, “it must do so unambiguously” and cannot leave a grant recipient “unable to ascertain what is expected of it”). IV. CONCLUSION By structuring the Byrne JAG program as a broad formula grant, Congress recognized the need for local discretion over law enforcement programs, and created a (non-competitive) source of funding on which local jurisdictions should be able to rely. The new conditions imposed by Attorney General Sessions upend congressional intent. Instead of preserving flexibility for local operations, the new conditions constrain local choices and require localities to adopt federally mandated policies that will make their communities less safe. Instead of preserving a reliable stream of funding, DOJ’s shifting positions force localities to guess at whether DOJ will deem them eligible for funding – and whether they will be able to comply with the conditions on that funding if they accept it. An injunction is needed to halt DOJ’s unlawful effort to impose these conditions and to protect the safety of local communities. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 22 of 26 Page 131 of 421 18 Dated: October 19, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County Counsel By: /s Laura S. Trice Laura S. Trice Lead Deputy County Counsel Laura S. Trice (pro hac vice) Kavita Narayan (pro hac vice) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110-1770 (408) 299-5900 By: /s John C. Grugan John C. Grugan Associate Counsel for the County of Santa Clara John C. Grugan (Attorney No. 83148) Jason A. Leckerman (Attorney No. 87915) Emilia McKee Vassallo (Attorney No. 318428) BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-8500 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae County of Santa Clara Full List of Amici Curiae and Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae Provided Below Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 23 of 26 Page 132 of 421 19 List of Amici Curiae The County of Santa Clara, California; the City of Austin, Texas; the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts; the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts; the City of Chicago, Illinois; Cook County, Illinois; the City and County of Denver, Colorado; the District of Columbia; the International City/County Management Association; the International Municipal Lawyers Association; the City of Iowa City, Iowa; King County, Washington; the City of Los Angeles, California; the City of Madison, Wisconsin; the Metropolitan Area Planning Council; the National League of Cities; the City of New York, New York; the City of Oakland, California; the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the City of Portland, Oregon; the City of Providence, Rhode Island; the City of Rochester, New York; the City of Sacramento, California; the City and County of San Francisco, California; the County of Santa Cruz, California; the City of Seattle, Washington; the City of Somerville, Massachusetts; The United States Conference of Mayors; and the City of West Hollywood, California. Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae Anne L. Morgan City Attorney, City of Austin P.O. Box 1546 Austin, TX 78767-1546 Attorney for the City of Austin, Texas Nancy E. Glowa City Solicitor, City of Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Attorney for the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts Cheryl Watson Fisher City Solicitor City of Chelsea Law Department 500 Broadway, Room 307 Chelsea, MA 02150 Attorney for the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts Edward N. Siskel Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60602 Attorney for the City of Chicago, Illinois Kimberly M. Foxx States Attorney for Cook County 69 W. Washington, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Attorney for Cook County Kristin M. Bronson City Attorney, City and County of Denver 1437 Bannock Street, Room 353 Denver, CO 80202 Attorney for the City and County of Denver, Colorado Karl A. Racine Attorney General, District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street NW, Suite 1100 South Washington, DC 20001 Attorney for the District of Columbia Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director, General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association 51 Monroe Street, Suite 404 Rockville, MD 20850 Attorney for the International Municipal Lawyers Association Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 24 of 26 Page 133 of 421 20 Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Attorney for the City of Iowa City, Iowa Dan Satterberg King County Prosecuting Attorney 516 Third Avenue, W400 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorney for King County, Washington Michael N. Feuer City Attorney, City of Los Angeles 200 N. Main Street, 800 CHE Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attorney for the City of Los Angeles, California Michael P. May City Attorney, City of Madison 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Room 401 Madison, WI 53703 Attorney for the City of Madison, Wisconsin Jennifer R. García General Counsel 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Attorney for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Zachary W. Carter Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Attorney for the City of New York, New York Barbara J. Parker City Attorney, City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Attorney for the City of Oakland, California Lourdes Sánchez Ridge City Solicitor & Chief Legal Officer, City of Pittsburgh 313 City-County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Tracy Reeve City Attorney, City of Portland 430 City Hall 1221 SW 4th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Attorney for the City of Portland, Oregon Jeffrey Dana City Solicitor, City of Providence 444 Westminster Street, Suite 220 Providence, RI 02903 Attorney for the City of Providence, Rhode Island Brian F. Curran Corporation Counsel, City of Rochester 30 Church St., Room 400A Rochester, NY 14614 Attorney for the City of Rochester, New York Matthew Ruyak Interim City Attorney, City of Sacramento 915 I Street, Fourth Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorney for the City of Sacramento, California Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 25 of 26 Page 134 of 421 21 Dennis J. Herrera City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco City Hall Room 234 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. San Francisco, CA 94102 Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, California Dana McRae County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street, Room 505 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Attorney for the County of Santa Cruz, California Peter S. Holmes City Attorney, City of Seattle 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Attorney for the City of Seattle, Washington Francis X. Wright, Jr. City Solicitor, City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Attorney for the City of Somerville, Massachusetts Michael Jenkins City Attorney, City of West Hollywood JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP Manhattan Towers 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attorney for the City of West Hollywood, California Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 26 of 26 Page 135 of 421 Page 136 of 421 Page 137 of 421 Page 138 of 421 Page 139 of 421 Page 140 of 421 Page 141 of 421 Page 142 of 421 Page 143 of 421 Page 144 of 421 Page 145 of 421 Page 146 of 421 Page 147 of 421 Page 148 of 421 Page 149 of 421 Page 150 of 421 Page 151 of 421 Page 152 of 421 Page 153 of 421 Page 154 of 421 Page 155 of 421 Page 156 of 421 Page 157 of 421 Page 158 of 421 Page 159 of 421 Page 160 of 421 Page 161 of 421 Page 162 of 421 Page 163 of 421 Page 164 of 421 Page 165 of 421 Page 166 of 421 Page 167 of 421 Page 168 of 421 Page 169 of 421 Page 170 of 421 Page 171 of 421 Page 172 of 421 Page 173 of 421 Page 174 of 421 Page 175 of 421 Page 176 of 421 Page 177 of 421 Page 178 of 421 Page 179 of 421 Page 180 of 421 Page 181 of 421 Page 182 of 421 Page 183 of 421 C AMENDMENT OF SOLICITA TlONIMODIFICA TlON OF CONTRACT r'CONTRACT 10 CODE IPAGE OF PAGES 1 I 32.AMENDMENTIMODIFICATION NO 3.EFFECTIVE DATE 4.REOUISmoNIPURCHASE REO.NO.r-PROJECT NO.(If applical:Je) POOO03 09/25/2014 192114FSFCOCOWR02.11 6.ISSUED BY CODE ICE/DM/DC-LAGUNA 7.ADMINISTERED BY (If OIher!1lan Item 6}CODE IICE/DM/DC-LAGUNA ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contract-LAG ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contract-LAG Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Acquisition Management Office of Acquisition />lanagement 24000 Avila Road,Room 3104 24000 Avila Road,Room 3104Attn:Natasha Nguyen (949}425-7030 Attn:Natasha Nguyen,(949)425-7030Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 8.NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No.•_t...-y.$I;W_ZlPC-)(x)eA.AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO I-- aNTRA COSTA COUNTY INC 651 PINE ST 7TH FLOOR 9B.DATEO(SEElrEM1f} RTINEZ CA 945531229 x lOA.MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTIORDER NO.IGA 11-09-0034 HSCEDM-14-F-IG125 lOB.DATED (SEE ITEM 13) CODE 0076692160000 FACILITY CODE 05/0112014 11• ... MA ._The &bOW number8d IICIJOIationis ameneed ~1811011h in 118m14.The I\Our and elale speCifMtdlOr receipt OfOIlers ::.:"extendecI.:.:is nol extended 011."must acknOWledge receipl Of II1is amendment pnor to IIIe hour one!elate specI1Ied in IIIe 8OIlcitetion Of aa amended, by ono Of !he toUDWingmethod&:(e)By completing ltams B and 15.and returning copies 01 the amendment Ibl By adcnOWled~receipt olll1J$amen<ImenI on eacn copy OfIIIe Offer submlnod;or (e)By seplItOle loner Of Iologtam vottiC'h indudes a ref8l9r1CO10 the soIicitallon and amendment numbers.FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNO'M..EDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR ANDOATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER Jfby wtuo 01 tnis amondment you descre 10 CI\ang8 an oIIor 0lr0ady SOIbmillGCl.SU<:I'IcIIango may bo rnacIa by telegram Of lenar.pfOVlde<l eacn lelegram Of leiter maltes reference to IhO 8OIicitalion and IIUSamendment.and is recei'tQd prior 10 IIIe opening I\cur and dale spoofl8Cl. 12.ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (Ilrequirec1)Net Increase:$26,400.00 ERODETN R02 BA 31-12-00-000 18-63-0500-00-00-00-00 GE-25-72-00 U.THIS IftM ONLY APPLJ£S TO MCOIflCAllON OF CONTRACTSIORDERS.IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACTIORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN IlEM 14. CHECK ONE B.THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACTIORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES(such as chang8S in psying ollfce.appropfialion Date. OIC.}SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b). A.~'~iR~~~ ~~Efo'1ISSUED PURSUANT TO:(Specify aul/lontyJ THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT C THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY v': x u, BILATERAL type Or """""""liOn If""IlUlnOrrlyJ - Mutual Agreement Eo IMPORTANT: COntnldor is not x is mquirod to sign this document and rotum 1 copies 10 !he iSSU1t19e!ftce 14.DESCRIPTION OF MlENDMENTIMODIFICATION (OllJsnizer1lly UCF 5eCIiOtt headings.illcludltlfl $OIic:ilrlfionloonlTact subjocl mane' •••hero feasible.) DUNS Number: 007669216 Alternate COR/Finance POC: Tom Weissmiller at 415-844-5604 or e-mail at thomas.j.weissmiller@ice.dhs.gov Program pac: Gwen Zander at 661-328-4575 or e-mail at gwen.zander@ice.dhs.gov This modification is issued to install Video Teleconferencing (VTC) system at Contra Costa County (West Detention facility) as a streamline to support with the Immigration Court proceeding for detainees who are currently in ICE/ERa custody in accordance with attached Visiting Center Plans for VTC. Continued ... ExcepI o.provided h"",;",aDterms and CCMiIicns Ofthe doc:umenI (e\8AltlCOd in 11011IeA Of lOA.osllere\Oforo c:nonged. rernolftS unchangad and in full fOrat ond elled. 15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or prlnl)lOA.NAME AND nns OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or plinf) Roberta J.Halls 16C.DATE SIGNED STANDARD FORM 30 «REV lG.83) Pf8$Cnl>ed by GSA FAR (48 CFR)53.243 Page 184 of 421 REFERENCE NO.OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED CONTINUAnONSHEET IGA 1l-09-0034/HSCEDM-14-F-IGI25/P00003 3 NAME Of OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INC ITEM NO. (Al SUPPLIESlSERIIICES (8) AMOUNT (F) Exempt Action: Y LIST OF CHANGES: Reason for Modification : Additional Work Total Amount for this Modification: $26,400.00 New Total Amount for this Award: $2,195,300.00 Obligated Amount for this !>lodification:$26,400.00 New Total Obligated Amount for this Award: $2,195,300.00 FOB: Destination Period of Performance: 07/01/2014 to 10/15/2014 Add Item 0002 as follows: 0002 TO INSTALL VTC SYSTEM FOR ICE USE AT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (WEST DETENTION FACILITY). County shall invoice only for work actually performed. The telecom not to exceed costs are as follows: $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 1 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 2 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 13 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to ICE Admin office in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $1,000 for phone line to room 3 in visitation. $1,000 for phone line to be used by fax machine in room 3. $10,000 to run fiber from the MPOE to wiring closet building 4. $3,000 for any unexpected costs. $1,400 to install electrical outlets in rooms 2 and 3. TOTAL ESTIMATE NOT TO EXCEED: $26,400.00 Continued ... QUANTITY UNIT (e)(0) 1 LO UNIT PRICE (E) 26,400.00 26,400.00 OPTIONAL F0IU0I336 I_I a_brCSA FAR I" c;FR)U."O Page 185 of 421 REFERENCE NO.OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED CONTINUAnON SHEET IGA 1l-09-0034/HSCEDM-14-f-IG125/P00003 3 NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INC SUPPl.IESlSERVlCES (B) AMOUNT (F) ITEM NO. (A) Task Order HSCEDM-14-F-IG125 is hereby issued against US Department of Justice, Marshals Inter-governmental Service Agreement (IGA) Number 11-09-0034 for the detention and care of aliens housed at Contra Costa County, CA. All other terms and conditions refernced within the IGA remain the same. OUANTITY ~IT (C) 0) UNIT PRICE (E) OPTIONAl.FOAMSM I_Is_,.....,GSA FAR (41 CFR) $lIIO Page 186 of 421 Page 187 of 421 Page 188 of 421 Page 189 of 421 Page 190 of 421 Page 191 of 421 Page 192 of 421 Page 193 of 421 Page 194 of 421 Page 195 of 421 Page 196 of 421 Page 197 of 421 Page 198 of 421 Page 199 of 421 Page 200 of 421 Page 201 of 421 Page 202 of 421 Page 203 of 421 Page 204 of 421 Page 205 of 421 Page 206 of 421 Page 207 of 421 Page 208 of 421 Page 209 of 421 Page 210 of 421 Page 211 of 421 Page 212 of 421 Page 213 of 421 Page 214 of 421 Page 215 of 421 Page 216 of 421 Page 217 of 421 Page 218 of 421 Page 219 of 421 Page 220 of 421 Page 221 of 421 Page 222 of 421 Page 223 of 421 Page 224 of 421 Page 225 of 421 Page 226 of 421 Page 227 of 421 Page 228 of 421 Page 229 of 421 Page 230 of 421 Page 231 of 421 Page 232 of 421 Page 233 of 421 Page 234 of 421 Page 235 of 421 Page 236 of 421 Page 237 of 421 Page 238 of 421 Page 239 of 421 Page 240 of 421 Page 241 of 421 Page 242 of 421 Page 243 of 421 Page 244 of 421 Page 245 of 421 Page 246 of 421 Page 247 of 421 Page 248 of 421 Page 249 of 421 Page 250 of 421 Page 251 of 421 Page 252 of 421 Page 253 of 421 Page 254 of 421 Page 255 of 421 Page 256 of 421 Page 257 of 421 Page 258 of 421 Page 259 of 421 Page 260 of 421 Page 261 of 421 Page 262 of 421 Page 263 of 421 Page 264 of 421 Page 265 of 421 Page 266 of 421 Page 267 of 421 Page 268 of 421 Page 269 of 421 Page 270 of 421 Page 271 of 421 Page 272 of 421 Page 273 of 421 Page 274 of 421 Page 275 of 421 Page 276 of 421 Page 277 of 421 Immigration 1 Contra Costa County Probation Department Policy Manual Immigration 428.1 DEFINITIONS 1. Individual – An “individual” is any person with whom the Probation Department interacts or otherwise encounters while in performance of the authorized functions of the Department, including, but not limited to, adults or juveniles under the Department’s supervision, juveniles in the custody of the Department, victims, witnesses, and those defendants in the criminal courts for whom the Department prepares reports. 2. ICE – “ICE” is the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 3. Probation ICE Liaison – The “Probation ICE Liaison” is the Probation Manager designated by the Chief Probation Officer as the person responsible for communicating with ICE on matters pertaining to immigration. The Chief Probation Officer will inform staff of who she/he has designated as the Probation ICE Liaison. 428.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines to Contra Costa County Probation staff concerning cooperation with ICE on matters involving the immigration status of individuals. 428.3 POLICY Contra Costa County is committed to treating everyone fairly, without regard to immigration status. The County also has an obligation to follow state and federal law including, but not limited to, 8 U.S.C. Section 1373. It is the policy of this Department not to inquire into or report the immigration status of any individual, absent a legal mandate to do so. The staff of the Probation Department are not to perform any of the functions of an immigration officer. The purpose of this policy is to clarify this Department’s legal responsibilities and delineate the role of Probation staff in responding to immigration matters. 428.4 VICTIMS AND WITNESSES To encourage crime reporting and cooperation in the investigation of criminal activity, all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, must feel secure that contacting or being addressed by members of the Probation Department will not lead to immigration inquiry and/or deportation. Staff shall treat all individuals equally and without regard to race, color, national origin or immigration status. 428.5 PROVIDING INFORMATION/ASSISTANCE TO ICE Probation staff shall refer all ICE inquiries to the Probation ICE Liaison, or in the absence of the Probation ICE Liaison, to the Assistant Chief Probation Officer or Chief Probation Officer. The primary role of the Probation ICE Liaison is to respond to ICE requests about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. The Probation Department shall not use Department resources or personnel to investigate, interrogate, Policy 428 Page 278 of 421 Immigration 2 detain, detect or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: A) Providing information regarding a person’s release date(s), except as set forth in section 428.7 below; B) Providing Probation appointment date(s) C) Providing personal information as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address, work address or telephone number unless the information is available to the public The Probation ICE liaison shall keep a written record of all communication with ICE that includes the following information: who requested information and the type of information requested, the ICE contact, the date and type of information that was disseminated and by whom, the identifying information about the individual who is the subject of the inquiry that includes Probation ID Number (PID), name and date of birth, current charges, and the name of the assigned Deputy Probation Officer. Sworn Probation Department staff who are in the field may choose to render mutual aid per Penal Code Section 830.5(a)(5)(A) to any law enforcement agents, including ICE agents, when there is a threat to public safety or the ICE agent’s safety. If such assistance is rendered, the staff shall complete an Incident Report. Such aid should not result in Probation staff arresting individuals for civil immigration violations. 428.6 CONFIDENTIAL JUVENILE MATTERS ICE detainers, notification requests and/or transfer requests for individuals involved in juvenile cases will not be honored at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall or the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. The individual who is the subject of the ICE detainer, notification request and/or transfer request, and his or her guardian, if applicable, shall be given a copy of the documentation received from ICE regarding his or her detainer, notification request or transfer request, along with written notice that the Probation Department will not be complying with that ICE request. (Gov. Code Section 7283.1.) Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 831, Probation staff shall not provide information regarding an individual involved in a juvenile case to any Federal Agency absent a court order, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827. 428.7 NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS IN PROBATION CUSTODY WHO ARE CHARGED AS ADULTS In all cases other than those set forth in section 428.6, above, when ICE has issued a hold, notification, or transfer request for an individual charged as an adult who is being housed at Juvenile Hall, that individual shall be given a copy of the documentation received from ICE regarding his or her hold, notification, or transfer request, along with written notice as to whether the Probation Department will or will not comply with that ICE request. If the Probation Department notifies ICE that an individual in its custody is being or will be released on a certain date, a copy of that notification shall be provided in writing to the individual and his/her attorney or to one additional person who the individual may designate (Gov. Code Section 7283.1). No individual who is otherwise ready to be released from custody will be detained solely for the purpose of making notification to immigration authorities, except in cases where the Probation Department is in possession of a valid arrest warrant. 428.8 ICE INTERVIEWS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN PROBATION CUSTODY AND WHO ARE CHARGED AS ADULTS In advance of any interview regarding civil immigration violations between ICE and an individual charged as an adult in the Probation Department’s custody, the Probation Department shall provide the individual with a written consent form that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that he/she may decline to be interviewed or may choose to be interviewed only with his/her attorney present. Page 279 of 421 Immigration 3 (Gov. Code Section 7283.1(a).) Upon request of an ICE interview and prior to obtaining the individual’s signature on a consent form, the Juvenile Hall Intake staff will notify the individual’s attorney of record. The attorney of record will be given the opportunity to provide advice regarding their client’s consent to the requested interview before the Probation Department proceeds. Any interview for an individual in the Probation Department’s custody shall be facilitated through the Probation ICE Liaison, after consultation with the Assistant Chief Probation Officer or the Chief Probation Officer. 428.9 IMMIGRATION STATUS IN REPORTS AND FILE DOCUMENTATION Probation staff shall not ask an individual about his or her immigration status or document an individual’s immigration status in a Court report. Staff may ask an individual about his or her language skills, place of birth, and related social history factors and may document that information in Court reports. 428.10 STAFF INQUIRIES WITH ICE – WHEREABOUTS If Probation staff suspects that an individual under the Probation Department’s supervision has been deported or is in the custody of ICE, and that individual’s matter is still active, staff shall contact the ICE Liaison. The ICE Liaison may obtain information on the individual’s whereabouts by utilizing the ICE Online Detainee Locator System (https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index), in addition to any other available means to check whereabouts which may include, contacting the individual’s attorney of record, and checking other available records/information sources. Probation staff shall discuss the matter with their supervisor to determine the appropriate course of action in order to retain jurisdiction and/or toll time in the event that individual returns to the United States. Appropriate actions may include submitting a petition to revoke with a warrant request for adult cases or file a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 777 notice of violation for juvenile cases. Revision Date – 12/11/2017 Page 280 of 421 Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff General Policy and Procedure CCCSO NUMBER: 1.02.28 RELATED ORDERS: AB 4 (Trust Act), AB 2792 (Truth Act), SB 54 (California Values Act), Gov’t. Code §§7282- 7284.6, SB 29 Civil Code §1670.9,8 CFR 287.7, 8 USC §1101(a)(43), 8 USC §1373, 8 USC §1644 ISSUE DATE: 12-3-2013 REVISION DATE: 12/20/2017 CLEARANCE: Office of the Sheriff CHAPTER: Law Enforcement Role and Authority SUBJECT: IMMIGRATION STATUS I. POLICY. A. No person shall be contacted, detained, or arrested solely on the basis of his or her immigration status. B. The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will equally enforce the laws and serve the public without regard to immigration status. Except as specifically set forth in this Policy, the immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, should have no bearing on the manner in which Deputies execute their duties. C. No Departmental funds nor personnel may be used to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Nevertheless, Office of the Sheriff personnel may send to, or receive from, immigration authorities (including ICE), information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (8 USC §1373) (see IV.C.). II. DEFINITIONS. A. IMMIGRATION DETAINER. An Immigration Detainer is a request by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) that law enforcement agencies advise ICE, prior to releasing an individual, in order for ICE to arrange to assume custody for the purpose of deportation. The ICE Detainer Request is presented on ICE Form I- 247A. These requests are processed in accordance with IV.E. below. III. GENERAL. A. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION. ICE has primary responsibility to investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. Office of the Sheriff personnel shall not assist ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration laws except as set forth below. Assistance to ICE personnel Page 281 of 421 in personal distress will be provided. Notwithstanding “A” above: 1. Sheriff’s Personnel may investigate, enforce, or detain upon reasonable suspicion of, or arrest for a violation of 8 USC 1326(a) [illegal reentry by a previously deported or removed alien] that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. 2. Sheriff’s Personnel may respond to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history. 3. Sheriff’s Personnel may conduct enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, but only if the specific provisions set forth in Gov. Code §7284.6 (b)(3)(A) and (B) and (C) are met. 4. Sheriff’s Personnel may grant immigration authorities access to interview an individual in our custody. All interview access shall comply with IV.H (“TRUTH Act Notifications”). 5. Sheriff’s Personnel may send to ICE, and receive from ICE information regarding the immigration status of any individual (see IV.C.). (Do not confuse information regarding immigration status with information regarding the anticipated release date of individuals with immigration status, which information may not be released except as set forth in this policy at IV.G. and IV.K.) B. LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS. Non-consensual contacts, detentions, and arrests shall be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. A Deputy shall not initiate any law enforcement action based on observations relating to immigration status (such as lack of documentation), but such issues may, as part of several factors, be relevant to the direction and analysis of an investigation. C. THE CALIFORNIA VALUES ACT. 1. California law enforcement agencies shall not: a. Use agency moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration law enforcement purposes, including any of the following: 1. Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status (but see III.B. above, and IV.C. below); 2. Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request; 3. Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a Notification Request from ICE that satisfies the conditions set forth in IV.G. and IV.K.; 4. Providing personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public; 5. Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants; Page 282 of 421 6. Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to 8 USC 1357(g) or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal; b. Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies for the purposes of immigration enforcement. c. Use Immigration Authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in custody. d. Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant. e. Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a law enforcement facility. 2. Deputies retain discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities if doing so does not violate any Federal, state, or local law or policy, and only where permitted by the California Values Act. The California Values Act permits communications between Office of the Sheriff personnel and immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status …of an individual” (see IV.C.). D. FEDERAL DETAINEES. Wherever this policy refers to, or relates to, persons in Sheriff’s Office custody, such policy provisions do not apply to individuals in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security who are detained in a county detention facility pursuant to a contract with the Federal government (Gov. Code §7310(b)). IV. PROCEDURES. A. IMMIGRATION VIOLATION COMPLAINTS. 1. If members of the public contact the Office of the Sheriff to report suspected immigration violations, such persons should be directed to ICE. B. IMMIGRATION STATUS. 1. A Deputy’s suspicion about any person’s immigration status shall not be used as a sole basis to initiate contact, detain, or arrest that person unless such status is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime, such as trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism. 2. Sweeps intended solely to locate and detain undocumented immigrants are not permitted. Deputies will not participate in ICE-organized sweeps to locate and detain undocumented aliens. Office of the Sheriff personnel shall not provide support services, such as traffic control, during an ICE operation. C. COMMICATIONS WITH ICE. Office of the Sheriff personnel may send to, or receive from, immigration authorities (including ICE), information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (8 USC §1373), including specifically any alien in the United States (8 USC §1644). Such information as is permitted to be sent or received pursuant to Page 283 of 421 this subsection may be maintained and may be exchanged with any other Federal, State, or local government entity (8 USC §1373). (Compliance with 8 USC §1373 and 8 USC §1644 is specifically permitted pursuant to Gov. Code 7284.6(e)). D. WITNESSES AND VICTIMS. 1. The immigration status of crime victims or witnesses should not be probed unless it is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime. 2. U-Visa Nonimmigrant Status. Federal law grants immigration benefits to victims of qualifying crimes who have been helpful to the investigation and/or prosecution of the case. A law enforcement certification is prepared and issued by specifically designated administrative personnel. E. ICE DETAINER REQUESTS. The Office of the Sheriff occasionally receives Immigration Detainer requests on ICE Form I-247A. A detainer serves to advise that ICE seeks both notification of the anticipated release of a removeable alien from custody and his or her continued detention in order for ICE to arrange to assume custody. The request to detain will not be honored (see IV.F.). The request to Notify will be honored only under the circumstances set forth in IV.G. and IV.K. below. F. IMMIGRATION DETAINERS. Inmates who are eligible for release from custody shall not be held, pursuant to an immigration hold, beyond the time he or she would otherwise be released. G. IMMIGRATION NOTIFICATION. The Office of the Sheriff will provide release information in response to individual-specific ICE requests for notification (ICE Form I-247A), but only in compliance with the conditions set forth in IV.L. Individuals meeting the conditions set forth in IV.L. will be released to ICE custody (but shall not be detained to do so), if immigration authorities are present at a detention facility’s Release Window at the time of an individual’s release. 1. Individuals meeting the conditions set forth in IV.K. and released to ICE custody at the time of their release, may not be converted into ICE Detainees. Immigration authorities desiring to house such persons as ICE Detainees at WCDF must escort such persons outside of our facility, and then return them, via Intake, to be newly booked as ICE Detainees for transport to WCDF. H. TRUTH ACT NOTIFICATION (Gov. Code 7283.1; AB-2792). Upon receiving any ICE notification request on Form I-247A, the named inmate shall be provided a copy of the respective form. If ICE is to be notified of the proposed release of an inmate, he or she shall be notified as well. Additionally, efforts will be made to notify the inmate’s attorney or an additional person of the inmate’s choosing. 1. Immigration authorities shall be granted access to interview inmates following compliance with the Truth Act notification provision: In advance of any interview between ICE and an inmate, the inmate shall be provided with a written consent form either consenting or declining to participate in the interview. Standardized copies of this form are available (under the heading AB 2792 Forms) at http://www.bscc.ca.gov/m_divisions.php Page 284 of 421 I. EQUALITY OF ACCESS. All persons arrested for a criminal offense and held in our custody will have equal access to custody programs if otherwise program- eligible. J. COURT ORDERS. Court Orders and warrants are entirely separate and should not be confused with Form I-247A requests. Duly issued warrants will be honored. K. CONDITIONS FOR ICE NOTIFICATION. ICE requests for notification of the anticipated release date of an inmate will be honored only with respect to inmates who are being held for certain charges or who have specific prior convictions. 1. These conditions include (but are not limited to) inmates who have been convicted of (i) of a serious felony [PC 1192.7(c)] or a violent felony, [PC 667.5(c)] (see listing below). a. As used in PC 1192.7(c), “serious felony” means any of the following: (1) murder or voluntary manslaughter (2) mayhem (3) rape (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm (9) attempted murder (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer (12) assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate (14) arson (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder (18) any burglary of the first degree (19) robbery or bank robbery (20) kidnapping (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life Page 285 of 421 (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine- related drug, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines (25) any violation of PC 289(a) where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (26) grand theft involving a firearm (27) carjacking (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation (30) throwing acid or flammable substances (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child (36) shooting from a vehicle (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses (38) criminal threats (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault (40) any violation of PC 12022.53 [Enhancements for use of a firearm in 18 specified felonies] (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418 (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision (43) And any offense committed in another state, which if committed in California, would be punishable as a listed serious felony b. As used in PC 667.5(c), “violent felony” means any of the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter (2) Mayhem (3) Rape (4) Sodomy (5) Oral copulation (6) Lewd or lascivious act Page 286 of 421 (7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life (8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved (9) Any robbery (10) Arson (11) Sexual penetration (12) Attempted murder (13) A violation of PC 18745, 18750, or 18755 (explosives) (14) Kidnapping (15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in violation of Section 220 (16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child (17) Carjacking (18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration (19) Extortion, which would constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (20) Threats to victims or witnesses, which would constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (21) Any burglary of the first degree, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (22) Any violation of PC 12022.53 [Enhancements for use of a firearm in 18 specified felonies] (23) A violation of PC 11418(b) or (c)(weapon of mass destruction) (24) And any offense committed in another state, which if committed in California, would be punishable as a listed violent felony 2. Notification requests will be honored for any conviction or prior conviction for a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. 3. Notification requests will be honored for any person who is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) as a sex offender pursuant to PC 290 or as an arson offender pursuant to PC 457.1 4. Notification requests will be honored for (i) any felony conviction within the last 15 years, or (ii) any misdemeanor conviction within the past five years, that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony (i.e.: “wobbler”) involving the following specified crimes: (A) Assault (B) Battery (C) Use of threats (D) Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or crimes endangering children (E) Child abuse or endangerment (F) Burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement Page 287 of 421 (G) Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but only for a felony conviction (H) Obstruction of justice (I) Bribery (J) Escape (K) Unlawful possession or use of a weapon, firearm, explosive device, or weapon of mass destruction (L) Possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, under the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 (PC 16000) (M) An offense involving the felony possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, or trafficking of controlled substances (N) Vandalism with prior convictions (O) Gang-related offenses (P) An attempt, or any conspiracy, to commit an offense specified in this section (Q) A crime resulting in death, or involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury (R) Possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense (S) An offense that would require the individual to register as a sex offender (T) False imprisonment, slavery, and human trafficking (U) Criminal profiteering and money laundering (V) Torture and mayhem (W) A crime threatening the public safety (X) Elder and dependent adult abuse (Y) A hate crime (Z) Stalking (AA) Soliciting the commission of a crime (AB) An offense committed while on bail or released on his or her own recognizance (AC) Rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration (AD) Kidnapping (AE) A violation of CVC 20001(c) 5. Notification requests should also be honored for any federal conviction of any crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 at Section 1101(a)(43)(A) to (P). The full listing of specified crimes follows: The term "aggravated felony" means – (A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor (B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (D) laundering of monetary instruments if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000 (E) an offense relating to explosive materials (F) a crime of violence, but not including a purely political offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year Page 288 of 421 (G) a theft offense or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year (H) the demand for or receipt of ransom (I) child pornography (J) racketeer influenced corrupt organizations or gambling offenses, for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed (K) owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business; peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons (L) gathering or transmitting national defense information relating to disclosure of classified information relating to sabotage, relating to treason, relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents or relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents (M) fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; tax evasion in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000 (N) alien smuggling (except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent) (O) an offense described in section 1325(a) or 1326 of this title committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph (P) falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport or instrument and for which the term of imprisonment is at least 12 months (except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual.) Page 289 of 421 Stand Together CoCo Project Update Page 290 of 421 Executive Summary January 30, 2018 Stand Together CoCo Catholic Charities of the East Bay –Lead Contractor The network will provide an integrated array of civil legal deportation- defense and immigrant-related community services starting March 1,2018. The program is on track to be fully staffed and functional by March 1, 2018. Page 291 of 421 Organization Chart Page 292 of 421 Interim Plan ACILEP fields all calls received from Contra Costa County ACILEP contacts interim coordinators Coordinators organize interim responders/observers Coordinate with Centro Legal de la Raza for legal representation, if necessary Page 293 of 421 Accomplishments 1/05/2018 –Centro Legal de la Raza taking case 1/26/2018 –Hotline platform purchase and set up completed 1/30/2018 –Contract fully executed 1/31/2018 –MOU’s signed by subcontractors Page 294 of 421 Next Steps 2/6/2018 –Volunteer recruitment starts 2/12/2018 –All hiring to be completed 3/01/2018 –Website will be launched 3/01/2018 –All deliverables begin Page 295 of 421 Page 296 of 421 Page 297 of 421 Page 298 of 421 Page 299 of 421 Page 300 of 421 Page 301 of 421 Page 302 of 421 Page 303 of 421 Page 304 of 421 Page 305 of 421 Page 306 of 421 Page 307 of 421 Page 308 of 421 Page 309 of 421 Page 310 of 421 Page 311 of 421 Page 312 of 421 Page 313 of 421 Page 314 of 421 Page 315 of 421 Page 316 of 421 Page 317 of 421 Page 318 of 421 Page 319 of 421 Page 320 of 421 Page 321 of 421 Page 322 of 421 Page 323 of 421 Page 324 of 421 Page 325 of 421 Page 326 of 421 Page 327 of 421 Page 328 of 421 Page 329 of 421 Page 330 of 421 Page 331 of 421 Page 332 of 421 Page 333 of 421 Page 334 of 421 Page 335 of 421 Page 336 of 421 Page 337 of 421 Page 338 of 421 Page 339 of 421 Page 340 of 421 Page 341 of 421 Page 342 of 421 Page 343 of 421 Page 344 of 421 Page 345 of 421 Page 346 of 421 Page 347 of 421 Page 348 of 421 Page 349 of 421 Page 350 of 421 Page 351 of 421 Page 352 of 421 Page 353 of 421 Page 354 of 421 Page 355 of 421 Page 356 of 421 Page 357 of 421 Page 358 of 421 Page 359 of 421 Page 360 of 421 Page 361 of 421 Page 362 of 421 Page 363 of 421 Page 364 of 421 Page 365 of 421 Page 366 of 421 Page 367 of 421 Page 368 of 421 Page 369 of 421 Page 370 of 421 Page 371 of 421 Page 372 of 421 Page 373 of 421 Page 374 of 421 Page 375 of 421 Page 376 of 421 Page 377 of 421 Page 378 of 421 Page 379 of 421 Page 380 of 421 Page 381 of 421 Page 382 of 421 Page 383 of 421 Page 384 of 421 Page 385 of 421 Page 386 of 421 Page 387 of 421 Page 388 of 421 Page 389 of 421 Page 390 of 421 Page 391 of 421 Page 392 of 421 Page 393 of 421 Page 394 of 421 Page 395 of 421 Page 396 of 421 Page 397 of 421 Page 398 of 421 Page 399 of 421 Page 400 of 421 Page 401 of 421 Page 402 of 421 Page 403 of 421 Page 404 of 421 Page 405 of 421 Page 406 of 421 Page 407 of 421 Page 408 of 421 Page 409 of 421 Page 410 of 421 Page 411 of 421 Page 412 of 421 Page 413 of 421 Page 414 of 421 Page 415 of 421 Page 416 of 421 Page 417 of 421 Page 418 of 421 Page 419 of 421 Page 420 of 421 Stand Together CoCo Partner Advisory January 30, 2018 Resources for Families or Individuals at Risk of Federal Deportation Actions Stand Together CoCo is launching an immigration legal services and rapid response network in Contra Costa County. This ensures that all Contra Costa County residents receive due process under the law, including qualified legal representation, if they are detained by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or face potential deportation. Still in the early days of organizing, a rapid response hotline dedicated to Contra Costa County residents will launch in March. We are also recruiting community responder teams to serve East, Central, and West County. FOR FAMILIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES RIGHT NOW (before March 2018): If you need non-emergency advice or counsel from a qualified immigration attorney, please call: 510-365-6812 You’ll reach Catholic Charities of the East Bay, which will help you directly or will connect you to the appropriate community partner. A non-emergency includes applying for residency or citizenship, DACA renewals, or setting up educational workshops about immigration and your Constitutional rights. In the event of an emergency, please call the ACILEP Hotline: 510-241-4011 Your call will be answered by the Alameda County Immigration Legal & Education Partnership (ACILEP), your information will be dispatched to the Contra Costa County team. An emergency is when: • An individual has already been detained or arrested by ICE • Federal immigration activity is in progress at your school, workplace, or in the community • An individual is facing deportation procedures or a hearing Stand Together CoCo is a coalition of community partners including the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, which was authorized by the Board of Supervisors to provide no-cost community education and outreach, rapid response, and legal services to help individuals and families drawn into or at risk of becoming involved with the federal deportation system. The partners include Catholic Charities of the East Bay, Centro Legal de La Raza, Oakland Community Organizations, Monument Impact, Jewish Family and Community Services – East Bay, International Institute of the Bay Area, and Bay Area Community Resources. The partners also work closely with the Diocese of Oakland, First 5 Contra Costa, and the Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity. Page 421 of 421