Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06252018 - PPC Agenda Pkt       ***SPECIAL MEETING*** PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE June 25, 2018 9:00 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 May 23, 2018 meeting. (Page 4)   4. CONSIDER accepting the Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023 and recommending its adoption by the Board of Supervisors. (Donte Blue, Office of Reentry & Justice) (Page 8)   5. CONSIDER accepting the "Racial Justice Task Force--Final Report and Recommendations," as prepared by Resource Development Associates and recommend its adoption by the Board of Supervisors. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry & Justice) (Page 77)   6. CONSIDER accepting a report on juvenile justice advisory bodies within the County and PROVIDE direction to staff. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 133)   7. CONSIDER accepting reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including compliance with state and federal law, status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 152)   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for August 6, 2018.   9.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 - SPECIAL MEETING 3. Meeting Date:06/25/2018   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - May 23, 2018 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - May 23, 2018  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 May 23, 2018 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the May 23, 2018 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - May 2018 Page 4 of 370 ***RECORD OF ACTION*** PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE May 23, 2018 1:30 P.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   Present: John Gioia, Chair      Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair    Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff                   1.Introductions    Convene - 1:37 PM   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).    No public comment   3.APPROVE Record of Action from the April 12, 2018 meeting.      Approved as presented    Vice Chair Federal D. Glover, Chair John Gioia    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  Passed  4.RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT the CCP-CAB recommendations to distribute $5,061,889 to fund the AB 109 community programs as follows:  Employment: $2,081,2701. Housing: $1,071,8502. Legal Services:$156,1003. Mentoring and Family Reunification: $208,1304. Reentry Success Center: $546,3305. East and Central County Reentry Network: $978,2006. Connection to Resources (Reentry Voice): $15,0007. 1.   Page 5 of 370 Community Advisory Board Support: $5,0098.    Approved as presented    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  Passed  5.1. RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors appointment of Patrice Guillory to the Community Based Organization seat on the Community Corrections Partnership with a term ending December 31, 2018; and 2. RECOMMEND a proposal that the Community Advisory Board make annual recommendations for appointment to the seat in future years.       Approved as presented    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  Passed  6.1. ACCEPT the FY 2016/17 AB 109 Annual Report; provide input to staff on any additional information to be included; and 2. RECOMMEND its acceptance by the Board of Supervisors.       Approved as presented    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  Passed  7.1. ACCEPT reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including compliance with state and federal law, 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.       Approved as presented with the following direction to staff specifically regarding the TRUTH Act community forum to be held pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1(d): 1. Continue to develop the format of the community forum; 2. Staff should accept feedback from the community; 3. Consider providing bilingual concurrent speech translation at the forum; 4. Formalize the public notice as soon as possible; 5. Consider having the participating department heads sit at the dais with the Board Page 6 of 370 of Supervisors; 6. Report back at the next PPC meeting.    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  Passed  8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:30 AM.   9.Adjourn    Adjourned - 3:09 PM     The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.  For Additional Information Contact:  Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us Page 7 of 370 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE - SPECIAL MEETING 4. Meeting Date:06/25/2018   Subject:Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023  Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023  Presenter: Donte Blue Contact: Donte Blue, 925-335-1977 Referral History: In 2017, the Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ), on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, undertook the development of a five-year Strategic Plan for the Contra Costa County reentry system. This plan is an update of the County’s first Reentry Strategic Plan, adopted in 2011.  Referral Update: Through a public procurement process, the County contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to facilitate a stakeholder-driven planning process and draft an updated reentry Strategic Plan. This Plan is meant to expand beyond AB 109 and address the expressed goals and needs of the County’s reentry system. With oversight and guidance from the Office of Reentry & Justice (ORJ), this planning process considered an array of factors including the reentry population to be served; the County’s jail and community supervision system; the reentry service provider network; and findings of previous evaluation efforts. To guide the overall development of the Strategic Plan, a Local Planning Group was convened. This diverse body included membership from state corrections, multiple County agencies, local service providers and community representatives. The Local Planning Group used a collaborative process to identify key reentry system needs related to jail-to-community transitions, post-release program access and linkage, economic security, housing access, behavioral health, and the use and coordination of data. To understand and appropriately address the local reentry system’s strengths and needs that emerge from its landscape of services, programs, and organizations, the strategic planning Page 8 of 370 process was organized into five phases: Project Launch & Discovery, Needs Assessment, Direction Setting, Strategy Development, and Plan Development. The first two phases laid the groundwork for the Strategic Plan by engaging reentry system stakeholders and assessing Contra Costa County’s realm of reentry populations, services, and outcomes. RDA analyzed the needs assessment data, including community input provided through public forums that were held in each of the County’s three regions, to identify strengths, challenges, and gaps within the current reentry system. RDA then convened and presented its findings to the Local Planning Group in the Direction Setting phase to ensure that the reentry planning effort was grounded in data. Informed by these key needs, the Local Planning Group set the following vision for the County’s reentry system: We envision a county where individuals involved with or impacted by the justice system are treated fairly; have the opportunity to make meaningful, positive contributions; and help build a safe and healthy community. To achieve this vision, the Local Planning Group set forth six specific goals that frame the Strategic Plan: Implement structures, tools, and procedures necessary to help returning residents achieve successful transition from jail to community. A. Ensure timely and appropriate connections to effective services and resources that support reentry. B. Increase the likelihood of post-release success by enhancing opportunities for returning residents to attain economic security. C. Improve housing accessibility matched to the needs of clients.D. Improve timely access to behavioral and health care services.E. Enhance the use and coordination of data to ensure quality of services and inform decision-making. F. The Local Planning Group has also identified key objectives and activities that will lead toward goal and vision realization. Furthermore, to steward the implementation of these strategies, the identification of a stakeholder body to oversee Strategic Plan implementation is recommended. These key recommendations, alongside the results of the strategic planning process, are presented in this document, which serves as the completed Strategic Plan (Attachment A). The Strategic Plan is meant to serve as a living document that provides high-level guidance on designing and implementing structural and programmatic improvements to the County’s reentry system over the next five years. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT the Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023 and RECOMMEND its adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): The development of the Reentry Strategic Plan was funded primarily through a Federal Smart Page 9 of 370 The development of the Reentry Strategic Plan was funded primarily through a Federal Smart Reentry grant and Community Recidivism Reduction funding at a cost of $80,495. Attachments Attachment A Page 10 of 370 February 21, 2014 | 1 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023 Attachment A Page 11 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | i Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan, 2018–2023 Principal Planners Amalia Egri Freedman Linda A. Hua, PhD Alison Hamburg, MPH, MPA Debbie Mayer, MPP This report was developed by Resource Development Associates under contract with the Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice and funded through a Bureau of Justice Smart Reentry grant. Resource Development Associates, 2018 About Resource Development Associates Resource Development Associates (RDA) is a consulting firm based in Oakland, California, that serves government and nonprofit organizations throughout California as well as other states. Our mission is to strengthen public and non-profit efforts to promote social and economic justice for vulnerable populations. RDA supports its clients through an integrated approach to planning, grant-writing, organizational development, and evaluation. Page 12 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | ii Acknowledgements The Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice wishes to thank the many returning residents, their loved ones, and the reentry providers and partners in Contra Costa County who gave their time and energy to this process. Your thoughtful feedback, stories, and recommendations helped to inform the creation of this plan. We also wish to acknowledge the Local Planning Group, whose members provided input and guidance on the development of this Reentry Strategic Plan. The Local Planning Group was comprised of representatives of government agencies, community-based organizations, and service providers, including:  California State Parole Board  Concord Police Department  Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Services  Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board to the Community Corrections Partnership  Contra Costa County Detention Health  Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office  Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services  Contra Costa County Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Contra Costa County Mental Health Services  Contra Costa County Office of Education, Adult Correctional Education  Contra Costa County Office of the Public Defender  Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff  Contra Costa County Probation Department  Contra Costa Reentry Network  Reentry Success Center  Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County Page 13 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | iii Executive Summary In 2017, the Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ), on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, undertook the development of a five-year Strategic Plan for the Contra Costa County reentry system. This plan is an update of the County’s first Reentry Strategic Plan, adopted in 2011. Through a public procurement process, the County contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to facilitate a stakeholder-driven planning process and draft an updated reentry Strategic Plan. This Plan is meant to expand beyond AB 109 and address the expressed goals and needs of the County’s reentry system. With oversight and guidance from the ORJ, this planning process considered an array of factors including the reentry population to be served; the County’s jail and community supervision system; the reentry service provider network; and findings of previous evaluation efforts. To guide the overall development of the Strategic Plan, a Local Planning Group was convened. This diverse body included membership from state corrections, multiple County agencies, local service providers and community representatives. The Local Planning Group used a collaborative process to identify key reentry system needs related to jail-to-community transitions, post-release program access and linkage, economic security, housing access, behavioral health, and the use and coordination of data. Informed by these key needs, the Local Planning Group set the following vision for the County’s reentry system: We envision a county where individuals involved with or impacted by the justice system are treated fairly; have the opportunity to make meaningful, positive contributions; and help build a safe and healthy community. To achieve this vision, the Local Planning Group set forth six specific goals that frame the Strategic Plan: A. Implement structures, tools, and procedures necessary to help returning residents achieve successful transition from jail to community. B. Ensure timely and appropriate connections to effective services and resources that support reentry. C. Increase the likelihood of post-release success by enhancing opportunities for returning residents to attain economic security. D. Improve housing accessibility matched to the needs of clients. E. Improve timely access to behavioral and health care services. F. Enhance the use and coordination of data to ensure quality of services and inform decision- making. The Local Planning Group has also identified key objectives and activities that will lead toward goal and vision realization. Furthermore, to steward the implementation of these strategies, the identification of a stakeholder body to oversee Strategic Plan implementation is recommended. These key recommendations, alongside the results of the strategic planning process, are presented in this document, which serves as the completed Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is meant to serve as a living Page 14 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | iv document that provides high-level guidance on designing and implementing structural and programmatic improvements to the County’s reentry system over the next five years. Page 15 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iii Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology/Stakeholder Engagement Process ......................................................................................... 2 Reentry Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Contra Costa County’s Reentry Population Profile ....................................................................................... 5 Reentry System Needs Assessment .............................................................................................................. 7 Prioritization of Needs ................................................................................................................................ 21 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A: Detailed Strategy .................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix B. Implementation Timeline ....................................................................................................... 52 Appendix C. List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix D. Local Planning Group Members ............................................................................................. 60 Page 16 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 1 Overview In 2009, Contra Costa County began the development of a Reentry Strategic Plan that recommended the establishment of a Reentry and Reintegration Collaborative to improve coordination and collaboration among reentry stakeholders and, ultimately, improve outcomes for formerly incarcerated County residents. This plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in 2011. Later in 2011, AB 109 took effect across the state, to which the County responded with an Operational Plan to develop a coordinated reentry infrastructure, emphasize the use of evidence-based practices in serving the AB 109 population, and respond to state mandates. With the onset of AB 109, the County established formal partnerships through the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). After conducting planning efforts to design reentry support systems in each region of the County, the Reentry Success Center in West County and the Central-East Reentry Network System of Services were created. The County is now updating its Reentry Strategic Plan to further improve upon the objectives of its AB 109 Operations Plan and to better align services for the broader reentry population. The Strategic Plan aims to develop a long-term reentry strategy with performance outcomes that can be measured on an annual basis, the goal of which is to increase public safety by reducing recidivism. To accomplish these objectives, the County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) engaged Resource Development Associates (RDA) to facilitate and support a strategic planning process for the local reentry system. This planning process considered an array of factors including the reentry population to be served, the structure of the County’s jail and probation systems and service provider network, findings of previous evaluation efforts, and input from various stakeholders. Key objectives that were considered include establishing greater continuity between in-custody and post-release supervision and services, continuing to build the County’s data infrastructure, increasing the County’s operational capacity for cross-departmental planning and implementation, and building provider competencies in developing and delivering services to justice-involved transitional age youth (TAY) in particular. This document contains the results of the strategic planning process. This Strategic Plan is meant to serve as a living document that provides high-level guidance on designing and implementing structural and programmatic changes over five years. Page 17 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 2 Methodology/Stakeholder Engagement Process To understand and appropriately address the local reentry system’s strengths and needs that emerge from its landscape of services, programs, and organizations, the strategic planning process was organized into five phases: Project Launch & Discovery, Needs Assessment, Direction Setting, Strategy Development, and Plan Development. The first two phases laid the groundwork for the Strategic Plan by engaging reentry system stakeholders and assessing Contra Costa County’s realm of reentry populations, services, and outcomes. Table 1 describes the key activities conducted during the Project Launch and Needs Assessment phases. Table 1. Timeline and Description of Project Launch and Needs Assessment Activities Activity Tasks Performed Results Date Project Kick-Off Meeting • Met with ORJ • Reviewed plan objectives and activities • Confirmed project vision, objectives, and work plan August 7, 2017 Stakeholder Launch • Introduced strategic planning effort to reentry stakeholders • Reviewed progress made since previous Strategic Plan development • Discussed how stakeholders can be involved in planning • Gathered preliminary priorities for reentry system strategy August 22, 2017 Needs Assessment • Conducted 3 community forums o Concord (16 attendees) o Richmond (18 attendees) o Antioch (15 attendees) • Conducted one supplemental focus group o Alpha Cohort at Reentry Success Center (9 participants) • Launched an online stakeholder survey (23 responses) • Reviewed relevant documentation o AB 109 Evaluation Reports o ORJ initiatives and grants o 2011 Strategic Plan • Analyzed data across all sources to identify reentry system needs October 2017- November 2017 RDA analyzed the needs assessment data, including community input provided through public forums that were held in each of the County’s three regions, to identify strengths, challenges, and gaps within the current reentry system. RDA then convened and presented its findings to the Local Planning Group in the Direction Setting phase to ensure that the reentry planning effort was grounded in data. The Local Planning Group was composed of representatives from justice and safety net agencies across the County (see list of members in Appendix D). The Local Planning Group convened four times during the Direction Setting and Strategy Development phases to establish a vision, mission, and guiding principles for the Page 18 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 3 reentry system and develop five-year reentry system goals, objectives, and activities. In addition to meetings of the full group, Local Planning Group members formed a subcommittee to develop the guiding principles that are included as part of this Strategic Plan (see Reentry Framework in the following section). Table 2 outlines the activities performed in each meeting of the Local Planning Group. Table 2. Timeline and Description of Strategic Planning Meetings Activity Tasks Performed Results Date Local Planning Group Meeting #1 • Reviewed previous reentry system Strategic Plan mission, vision, and guiding principles • Reviewed needs assessment results • Received feedback on mission, vision, and guiding principles • Prioritized needs to address in next five years January 11, 2018 Local Planning Group Meeting #2 • Discussed mission, vision, and guiding principles feedback • Reviewed prioritized needs • Drafted goals for each need • Established a values and guiding principles subcommittee • Confirmed the five priority areas of need to include in the Strategic Plan January 25, 2018 Local Planning Group Meeting #3 • Drafted measurable objectives for each goal area • Finalized mission and vision statements February 9, 2018 Local Planning Group Meeting #4 • Reviewed objectives, activities, and resources for each goal area • Finalized guiding principles • Refined measurable objectives and implementation activities March 1, 2018 The following sections provide a culmination of the Local Planning Group’s work, including an updated description of the County’s reentry framework, mission statement, vision statement, and guiding principles; a summary of the needs assessment; and the strategic goals and objectives that were developed. Page 19 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 4 Reentry Framework This Strategic Plan is grounded in a comprehensive and coordinated reentry framework, which begins at the point of arrest and continues through successful reintegration in the community. The following mission, vision, and guiding principles are the core tenets that underlie the recommended goals, objectives, and activities presented in the Strategic Plan. These statements are meant to be long lasting and should inform the work in reentry, wherein all reentry system actors share a mutual responsibility for achieving the system’s mission, vision, and goals. Mission Statement The Contra Costa County reentry system serves as a collaborative partnership that aids individuals, families, and their support system, in achieving successful community reintegration by facilitating access to a continuum of quality services and improving systemic practices. Vision Statement We envision a County where individuals involved with or impacted by the justice system are treated fairly; have the opportunity to make meaningful, positive contributions; and help build a safe and healthy community. Guiding Principles The Local Planning Group developed the following guiding principles based on the key values underlying the desired state of the reentry system. They are presented alphabetically below. Culturally Respectful and Responsive: Diverse perspectives that reflect the wide array of cultures, beliefs, and attitudes within our community should be reflected in the design and implementation of reentry system approaches. Evidence-Based: Better reentry outcomes require a commitment to employing evidence-based practices and continuous quality improvement, while also leaving room for innovative approaches that will produce promising results. Fairness and Equity: Procedural justice is important and must respect the dignity and experience of all justice-involved people, as well as demonstrate concern for communities experiencing criminal justice disparities that have been persistent and historical. Holistic: Community reintegration is most easily achieved by continuous, appropriate delivery of quality services that are tailored to the holistic needs of individuals and families most impacted by incarceration. Inclusive: Effective reentry strategies are best created through an inclusive approach that utilizes input from justice system professionals at all levels of government and in community and faith-based Page 20 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 5 organizations, those with histories of justice system involvement, and other interested stakeholders to develop appropriate interventions that encourage community reintegration and recidivism reduction. Justice Reinvestment: Reinvesting in the communities most impacted by the criminal justice system supports public safety by addressing the root causes of crime and empowering communities. Partnership: Collaboration, coordination, information and resource sharing, and communication are essential elements of productive partnerships and critical components of a high-functioning reentry system. Public Safety: Effective implementation of reentry solutions will reduce recidivism, ensure victims’ rights are protected, and ultimately result in an environment where all members of the community feel safe and secure. Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Healing: To create a safe and healthy community, rehabilitation, restoration, and healing must inform the decisions, policies, and practices of all stakeholders in a reentry system that is client-centered, trauma-informed, and culturally sensitive. Contra Costa County’s Reentry Population Profile To establish a snapshot of those being served in the reentry system, the population profile draws upon data from two point-in-time analyses: the known demographics of individuals under post-release community supervision and the known demographics of individuals in county jail. The demographic analysis of the post-release community supervision population from 2016 shows 2,262 individuals in reentry while the 2015 jail data shows 1,490 individuals in custody. Across these data, the gender distribution remains consistent while the racial/ethnic analysis shows Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, and White/Caucasian make up the majority of the population, with some variance from time to time. Page 21 of 370 Page 22 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 7 Reentry System Needs Assessment This section presents key findings from the assessment of Contra Costa County’s reentry system areas of strength and need. The sections below discuss findings in the following areas: 1) Arrest through Sentencing, 2) Incarceration and Reentry Planning, and 3) Reentry and Reintegration. A final section then discusses system-wide supports and coordination.1 Arrest through Sentencing: Strengths Contra Costa County serves a portion of the justice-involved population through programs and initiatives designed to divert individuals from jail and/or shorten pretrial stays after arrest and before sentencing. Though these programs do not serve everyone who could benefit from these services, County criminal justice partners have developed and implemented these programs using a collaborative approach with the goal of assessing defendants’ reentry needs and recidivism risk, and providing legal representation, as early as possible in the criminal justice process.  The Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program began in FY 12/13 as a joint project of the Public Defender and District Attorney, and provides attorneys at defendants’ initial court appearance to increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released from custody on their own recognizance (“OR”) for the duration of the adjudication process, and to also allow for the expedited resolution of cases when appropriate. ACER has resulted in thousands of defendants receiving representation at arraignment and has helped foster the speedy resolution of many cases.  The Public Defender’s Misdemeanor Early Representation Program (MERP) is designed to provide immediate representation for persons cited for misdemeanor offenses to reduce incarceration and other collateral consequences such as warrants, arrests, additional criminal charges stemming from failures to appear, and time spent in custody. The project assures that, at the time of citation, the officer making an arrest provides printed information (available in both English and Spanish) advising individuals of the availability of immediate legal consultations with the Public Defender’s Office, which provides pre-arraignment legal information, advice, and representation. MERP services are provided to individuals arrested on misdemeanors in the cities of Richmond, Antioch, and Concord.  The County operates a Pretrial Services program (PTS), which is a collaborative effort between the Office of the Public Defender, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department, and Superior Court. The program is designed as an evidence based strategy to reduce the County’s custodial population and screens prospective participants with the Virginia Pretrial Risk 1 These phases are presented here as linear in order to simplify the presentation of information, but we understand that some phases overlap (i.e., a person may be incarcerated prior to sentencing, in which case it is a best practice to begin pre-release planning as soon as possible during the person’s incarceration). Page 23 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 8 Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), a validated pretrial risk assessment tool that measures a person’s likelihood of missing court and being involved in new criminal activity while on pretrial release. As currently designed, the program is not able to screen every person detained in jail pretrial. For those who are enrolled into the program, the Probation Department monitors the defendants while they are on pretrial release, except for those with electronic monitoring conditions (e.g., GPS monitoring) as they remain in the purview of the Sheriff’s Office.  The Office of the Public Defender has hired a social worker who conducts pre-sentencing needs assessments and referrals for clients needing additional supports and prepares social history reports for consideration during legal proceedings.  The County Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (AODS) System of Care staffs a substance abuse counselor who provides substance use disorder (SUD) screening onsite at the Court in order to arrange same-day residential treatment placements, and staffs a treatment program pre- enrollment hotline that can be reached directly from phones located inside the jail’s housing units. By accessing this hotline, incarcerated individuals can be screened for the appropriate level of SUD treatment to expedite and coordinate program enrollment with their release from custody.  Through a state Proposition 47 grant, the County Health Services Department is in the early stages of implementing the CoCo LEAD+ program to provide pre-arrest, at-arrest, and post-arrest pre- booking diversion opportunities and coordinated services for people with behavioral health issues who have been repeatedly arrested by the Antioch Police Department for a low-level, non-violent misdemeanor and "wobbler" charges. CoCo LEAD+ includes cognitive-behavioral groups and restorative justice circles in community settings; dedicated transitional housing residences; and Section 8 1-3 bedroom vouchers for CoCo LEAD+ participants. Contra Costa County makes extensive use of AB 109 split sentencing with the goal of supporting a person’s reentry success. Contra Costa has one of the highest split sentencing rates in the state (92% of sentences) since public safety realignment legislation took effect in 2011. Sentencing individuals to serve a portion of their AB 109 sentence in custody and a portion under probation supervision is recognized as a best practice that gives counties the tools necessary to increase the likelihood that individuals participate in treatment programs and other supportive reentry services.2,3 Arrest through Sentencing: Needs Pretrial detention makes up a high proportion of the County’s jail population. As is the case in many counties, Contra Costa has a high pretrial detention population. A Sheriff’s Office point in time count in 2 Austin, J.; Allen, R.; & Ocker, R. (2014). Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections. JFA Institute. 3 Couzens, J. R. (2012). Realignment and evidence-based practice: A new era in sentencing California felonies. Fed. Sent'g Rep., 25, 217. Page 24 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 9 2015 found that three-quarters (74%) of the population were not yet convicted and sentenced for the crime for which they were being detained. Depending on the availability of resources, the County has the opportunity to facilitate further pretrial releases by scaling up its capacity to conduct pretrial assessments and monitor appropriate defendants in the community. Research demonstrates that individuals are more likely to recidivate the longer they are held in pretrial detention.4 Therefore, maximizing appropriate pretrial release has the potential to greatly reduce the County’s pretrial detention population and the demand for in-custody services, as well as potentially decrease recidivism rates. Additionally, stakeholders recommended that the County continue to expand diversion opportunities for youth and adults, including tailored approaches for at-risk youth and transitional age youth (TAY) ages 18- 25 as key interventions to better maintain residents’ integration in, and connections to, their communities and enhance opportunities for recidivism reduction. Many individuals in custody who have been convicted and sentenced are not aware of their AB 109 status and their corresponding eligibility for programs and services. While the County aims to use split sentences to increase the likelihood of successful reentry, nearly all individuals who participated in in- custody focus groups conducted in 2014-2015 stated that they did not receive information about what their sentence meant for them. While a person’s case works its way through the court process, the defense attorney should clearly communicate with individuals about the meaning of their sentence and its associated programs and services (e.g., 1170(h) sentences). If a person is incarcerated before sentencing, it is a best practice to begin pre-release planning and linkage to in-custody programs and services as soon as possible in their incarceration. Pre-release planning is discussed in detail in the following section. Incarceration and Reentry Planning: Strengths The assessment of incarceration and reentry planning should be taken in the context that the County has received approval for building the West Contra Costa County Reentry, Treatment, and Housing (WRTH) Facility, which will be a new building at the County’s West County Detention Center. WRTH is intended to provide additional space for treatment and reentry services, including a room for contact family visitation.5 This facility, and additional programming, is expected to begin operation by 2022. The Sheriff’s Office has continued to expand the types of in-custody programs offered. The Sheriff’s Office contracts with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) and two community-based 4 Lowenkamp, C.T.; VanNostrand, M.; & Holsinger, A. (2013). The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention. Laura and John Arnold Foundation. 5 Contra Costa County was awarded $70 million from Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to help finance WRTH; the County’s application to the BSCC can be viewed online: Page 25 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 10 organizations (Men and Women of Purpose and Reach Fellowship International) to provide in-custody education, job readiness, reentry preparation, and mentoring services. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office hosts other services, including chaplains, libraries, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and vocational programs. Many of the programs, particularly the peer mentoring services, are well received by clients in custody. The Sheriff’s Office is actively working to expand the types of pre-release programs offered to include more correspondence programs, a behavioral health support group, and an arts program. The Sheriff’s Office is also in the process of implementing a new Jail Management System (JMS), which should help improve the Sheriff’s ability to share information with contracted service providers— for instance, the times and dates of a person’s scheduled release from custody. Detention Health Services is working to improve processes to facilitate access to health and mental health services from intake through pre-release planning. Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services (DHS) provides medical and mental health care to all incarcerated individuals in the County. Intake nurses conduct health screenings and provide information about how to access in-custody health and mental health services. Detention Health provides multidisciplinary healthcare teams including nurses, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, and mental health clinicians. Before release, Detention Health aims to give a two-week supply of prescriptions, TB test results, Medi-Cal application assistance, medical records, and assistance scheduling outside appointments for inmates with chronic health conditions. Recognizing that the processes in place do not always function as intended, Detention Health and the Sheriff’s Office are currently undergoing a “value stream mapping project” to improve the delivery of in- custody health services. As part of this process they have undergone several rapid improvement events, with some recent ones being related to intake and mental health screening, and reentry and discharge planning. Stakeholders are optimistic about the pre-release planning pilot and seek to leverage lessons learned to improve and expand pre-release planning for returning residents. A best practice is to begin this process as early in a person’s period of incarceration as possible. Recognizing that pre-release planning is essential to successful reentry, Contra Costa County has begun a pre-release planning pilot project in its West County Detention Facility. The pilot takes steps to connect clients with an in-custody transition planner to develop a reentry plan and create linkages between the incarcerated person and various needed services and community programs their release from custody. In addition, in-custody clients can benefit from in-custody services. Examples of the services a person can benefit from while incarcerated, in addition to those mentioned above, include the ability to meet with an AODS representative to help coordinate the person’s enrollment into treatment options upon their release. As part of its AB 109 unit, the Probation Department has created a process for pre-release assessment of individuals serving a split http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Contra%20Costa%20FINAL%20App%20and%20Needs%20Assessment%20SB8 44%20%20REDACTED.pdf Page 26 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 11 sentence using the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) with subsequent referrals to community providers if the person chooses to receive services that are offered. Recently, case managers with the County’s Health, Housing, and Homeless Services have begun accessing the jails to assist with the coordinated entry of individuals into housing support services once they are released from custody. Incarceration and Reentry Planning: Needs In-custody educational, vocational, treatment, and enrichment programs are not adequately matched to client needs or to post-release opportunities. While the Sheriff’s Office has made progress made in increasing the types of programs offered in the County facilities, the assessment found the following gaps:  There is no utilization of a needs assessment tool to match clients to in-custody programs.  In-custody trade skills programs (e.g., woodworking, engraving) have few career opportunities.  Though there are some new education and vocational certificate programs, most in-custody programs are not designed to continue from custody into the community.  There is a need for more evidence-based programs that are aimed at reducing a person’s risk for recidivism. Some suggested implementing more cognitive behavioral interventions—an evidence- based approach that has been found to be effective in reducing recidivism, particularly among individuals with a high risk of recidivism.6 Clients expressed a desire for greater variety of in- custody programs (e.g., parenting support programs).  Individuals incarcerated in Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) continue to have limited access to group programs and in-person services. Barriers to program utilization include lack of awareness about in-custody programs, stigma around program participation, and limited provider access to jails due to space constraints. Individuals most commonly learn about available in-custody programs through word of mouth while in jail. There is a need to enhance the promotion of in-custody services, including efforts to motivate individuals to attend and to address the stigma that clients may face if they invest in self-improvement through in-custody programming. Due to space constraints in the facilities, community-based organization (CBO) providers continue to have limited access to jails to promote and provide in-custody services (this includes time of day and frequency limitations), which has hampered their ability to develop relationships with incarcerated individuals to educate them about available services and promote post-release engagement in services. The availability of health and behavioral health services and post-release transition to community health providers can be improved to better meet individual needs. RDA’s 2016 evaluation of the AB 109 6 Feucht, T. & Holt, T. (2016). Does Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Work in Criminal Justice? A New Analysis from CrimeSolutions.gov. NIJ Journal, 277, 10-17. Page 27 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 12 system of services found that many AB 109 individuals in custody reported that they have not received access to appropriate in-custody medical services. Many individuals expressed that they did not feel they were taken seriously when reporting medical issues to nursing staff and experienced long wait times for medical services. At that time, several clients reported that the Sheriff’s Office transfers identified consumers of mental health care to the most restrictive wing of the MDF. Because of this concern, individuals with mental health needs noted not wanting to seek appropriate mental health care. In the current strategic planning process, stakeholders suggested that while connections to behavioral health services in and out of custody appear to be strong, there remains a need to improve the medical transition from custody to the community (i.e., Medi-Cal enrollment, adequate supply of medication, connection to health conductors). The County’s detention facilities currently do not provide clinical substance use disorder treatment in custody. While the County of Office of Education’s DEUCE (Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation) program provides trauma-informed substance abuse education inside the West County Detention Facility, there is a need to begin clinical substance use disorder treatment services while an individual is in custody. Clear processes to study, refine, and expand the pre-release planning pilot program to serve more individuals across the County’s three detention facilities are needed. The County has taken an important step in approving and beginning the implementation of the pre-release planning pilot project. However, currently there is no direct funding allocated to the pilot. CCCOE leverages its Reentry Transition Specialist and limited support from other stakeholders to support the programs administration and operations. The County will need to continue to work toward providing pre-release planning and reentry service linkages to people incarcerated in each of its detention facilities, including those with shorter lengths of stay or who are have an immediate/unexpected release from custody. It is important to ensure that pre-release planning includes an assessment of a person’s post-release needs, linkage to housing resources in the community, and support with obtaining needed documents (such as California driver’s license/identification cards). Medi-Cal enrollment should begin while a person is still in custody, and application processes for all other public benefits for which a person may be eligible should be coordinated so that applications occurs as close to a person’s release date as is reasonable. Direct linkages from jail to community-based services rarely occur. Research shows that connection to services in the critical time immediately following a person’s release from custody is a key indicator of their future reentry success.7 One barrier to facilitating a direct linkage from custody to another service, in which a provider from the jail ensures that the person being released is immediately connected to and received by a program, housing, or treatment facility (often referred to as a “warm handoff”), is that treatment and service providers may not be apprised of an individual’s release date and time, especially 7 La Vigne, N.; Davies, E.; Palmer, T.; & Halberstadt, R. (2008). Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Guide for Corrections, Service Providers, and Community Groups. Urban Institute. Page 28 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 13 if release dates and times continually shift. In addition, few agencies are equipped to provide for a person’s immediate pick-up and transport to their program upon release. Reentry and Reintegration: Strengths AB 109 propelled the County to provide streamlined access to a continuum of services, particularly for AB 109 clients. All major service areas outlined in the County’s original AB 109 operational plan are available through County agencies and contracted CBOs: mental health and substance abuse treatment, shelter and housing assistance, mentoring programs, employment, financial benefits assistance, family reunification programs, job training, and transitional employment programs. In FY 15/16, the County expanded the eligibility for participation in AB 109-funded reentry programs in the community to include all formerly incarcerated individuals in a tiered approach that continued to prioritize individuals on one of Probation’s AB 109 caseloads. As reported in focus groups, many individuals under AB 109 supervision appreciated the County’s implementation of AB 109 as a whole for providing a second chance and services to help them get back on their feet. AB 109 clients regularly noted that their probation officers have been supportive in linking them to services to support the person’s reentry efforts. The County commissioned the creation of the West County Reentry Success Center and the Central & East County Reentry Network, implementing “no wrong door” and one-stop approaches to reentry services. The Central & East Reentry Network System of Services was started in FY 14/15 and the Reentry Success Center in West County was established in FY 15/16. Both act as initial points of contact for individuals and family members engaged in the reentry process and link individuals to organizations that provide services to support a person’s reintegration back into the community. The County provides returning residents access to shelters, transitional housing, and assistance with navigating the County’s housing resources. The County has allocated funding for 10 beds across its two homeless shelters for the AB 109 population. There is also dedicated housing through AODS for AB 109 clients who have recently graduated from residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs for up to 24 months of sober living where participating consumers can receive a variety of self-sufficiency services and recovery oriented supports. The County also contracts with a housing provider to assist clients in overcoming barriers to obtaining and maintaining adequate housing; provide up to 28 beds of transitional housing; assist a client with the transition to permanent housing options; and provide direct financial assistance to cover costs related to housing applications, security deposits, and emergency rental support. The County also has a contract for ten beds in a clean and sober transitional housing program in Antioch that provides other additional supportive reentry services, and another contract for short-term housing for up to 12 women and their young children in Richmond. Each of these housing options are paid for with AB 109 funding, and prioritized for clients that are under a form of supervision in the community. Page 29 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 14 The County is aware that housing resources remain scarce and the housing market is inaccessible, and is increasing dedicated housing funding for justice-involved individuals. The County boosted AB 109 funding for housing in FY 16/17, more than doubling the amount allocated in FY 15/16. The County shifted from a “master leasing” housing model to a recovery model, leveraging sober living environments and joint housing to provide housing support for individuals with histories of substance use disorders and/or a desire to live a sober lifestyle. In addition, the County is in the early stages of implementing a Smart Reentry project for transitional youth aged 18 – 24 (federal Department of Justice grant) and CoCo LEAD+ (State Proposition 47 grant) to divert individuals with behavioral health needs that are arrested for an eligible crime. Each of these projects dedicates resources for the provision of a variety of housing options for the identified justice-involved populations, and the latter project specifically includes the opportunities for permanent linkages to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. In addition, the Probation Department will begin providing revenue to the Housing Security Fund (described below) for its supervised population who are not on an AB 109 caseload, and the state’s Division of Adult Parole Operations has recently opened a day reporting center in West County where it provides parolees in the program with access to dedicated housing resources. The County is also in the process of developing and implementing a number of new housing programs and resources. Pomona St. Apartments, a 24-month independent living program, provides supportive housing for TAY experiencing homeless, with a maximum capacity of 10 youth. The Probation Department has contracted one of these beds for youth returning home from Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities. As a part of the County’s Continuum of Care, a Housing Security Fund has been established that would soon start disbursing funds to support individuals at risk of homelessness who are ineligible for other funding streams. The County’s Health, Housing, and Homeless Services awarded a contract in Mach 2018 to divert individuals from entering the homelessness system of care through case management and financial support. The County is also developing 50 micro-housing units for the highest utilizers of the healthcare system. The County provides returning residents access to job training, transitional employment, and resources for job searches. Community-based training, job search, and transitional employment programs that are contracted for using AB 109 funds—but available to any returning resident otherwise eligible to participate in the program—are well-received and well attended. In addition, through the County’s Workforce Development Board (WDB), America’s Job Centers of California (AJCC) act as employment and training one-stops where dedicated staff are available to help individuals address barriers to employment. The WDB has also established a local policy to prioritize the provision of services to the reentry population due to the number of barriers to employment these individuals are often forced to navigate. Consistent with this focus, the WDB has recently implemented a grant funded project under AB 2060 aimed at providing individuals on probation with marketable skills and credentials that are conducive to becoming employed in sectors that are in high demand locally. This project also led to the WDB holding a Fair Chance Employer’s Summit in each of the County’s three regions to encourage the local hiring of the reentry Page 30 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 15 population and the training of employers to help them overcome any trepidation they may harbor toward employing a returning resident. Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services has established linkages with the Probation Department to facilitate service provision for returning residents. The AODS program of the County’s Health Services Department provides access to clinical and group counseling, residential detoxification, and both outpatient and inpatient treatment services in the community for individuals with a substance use disorder. This program receives direct referrals from Probation and also serves individuals that access their services through the Behavioral Health Access Line. The Health Services Department’s Forensic Mental Health program collaborates with Probation to support successful community reintegration of individuals with serious mental health diagnoses that are on any form of community supervision, many of whom suffer from a condition that requires medication for proper management. The work of the Forensic team extends beyond the AB 109 population, and includes otherwise qualified individuals who may have a co-occurring substance use disorder. Forensic Mental Health clinicians assess clients to ensure that acuity of services match a client’s needs, and are an important part of the care team for individuals with a qualifying mental health diagnosis. Forensic clinicians not only lead treatment focused support groups, but also provide patients with community case management. Forensic Mental Health also assists patients in their care with the application processes for public benefits that include Medi-Cal, General Assistance, CalFresh, and Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (SSDI/SSI). In addition to housing and employment, the County contracts with community-based providers for a number of other supportive services. The County uses AB 109 funding to contract with community-based providers to provide a variety of reentry programs and services such as mentoring, legal assistance, family reunification, and reentry case management. The Office of the Public Defender also provides post-conviction Clean Slate services. The County’s Public Defender staffs a Clean Slate Unit that helps individuals who have previous justice system involvement with accessing a variety of legal remedies that are intended to offer relief from collateral consequences related to the person’s criminal history. This unit also helps coordinate local Clean Slate Days where on- the-spot consultations inform individuals of their actual or potential eligibility for various forms of relief from the Superior Court, including traffic tickets, and sometimes provides them same-day access to a special court session where the relief is granted. Criminal record remedies are an essential element of the reentry barrier removal process, and are often necessary for individuals to be able to move beyond a previous criminal conviction and reintegrate into the community. Page 31 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 16 Reentry and Reintegration: Needs While the County generally offers a comprehensive array of reentry services, there are a limited number of services for the following populations:  Families of returning residents may benefit from expanded support groups for family members, services for children of incarcerated parents  Transition Age Youth have little access to services designed for TAY in their development stage, including targeted services for foster youth and commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) who are also involved in the justice system  Women need additional gender-responsive services Transportation remains a barrier to successfully engaging with reentry programs as wel l as with potential employers. While probation officers and some programs can disseminate transit cards to clients, many returning residents do not have sufficient transportation to meet their level of need. For example, many individuals must travel to report to their probation officer, to medical and/or behavioral health treatment appointments, to job interviews, and to social service agencies. The high amount of travel to locations means that even if individuals have access to free or reduced cost transit, those who do not have access to a vehicle may spend multiple hours on public transit. Time spent in transit, in turn, poses challenges to individuals’ ability to get to appointments on time and can limit the amount of time they are able to spend working and earning income. Despite efforts to link returning residents to housing, many returning residents still do not have access to affordable, appropriate, and safe housing. For clients with felony convictions that have limited or poor rental/credit histories, the inability to secure stable housing and competitive employment that pays a living wage greatly reduces their ability to achieve long-term reentry success. Furthermore, the County does not have the necessary variety of reentry housing models to meet the needs of returning residents, who may benefit from different housing options depending on their level of need, functioning, or family situation (e.g., sober living for people in recovery, supportive housing for people with health or behavioral health needs, family housing for people with families). As a result, returning residents often end up living in places that are not conducive to their recovery, health, or successful reentry. The assessment identified the following barriers to housing access and attainment:  Many of the existing housing resources are prioritized for AB 109 clients;  Funded transitional housing usually has a maximum stay of six months (sometimes with an option to extend);  There is a lack of supportive housing options for the population that provides supportive services onsite; Page 32 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 17  Housing resources do not include housing for families; returning residents who cannot be housed with their families and/or children are unable to live with their support network;  There is a lack of TAY-specific housing options;  Homeless clients who complete a drug treatment program and/or leave jail sober have limited immediate housing options since the County’s homeless shelters are wet shelters; and  AB 109-funded housing programs only offer dedicated beds in sober living environments (SLEs) used interchangeably as a transitional housing option. Stigma remains a barrier to securing housing. While services to link clients to housing exist, the stigma associated with incarceration remains a barrier to obtaining housing, as landlords and/or property managers are wary of allowing people with prior convictions to live in their buildings. There are limited partnerships with Workforce Development Board, colleges, and employers. The Workforce Development Board, community colleges, and other employment service providers would like greater integration with the reentry system. The need for immediate income to cover basic needs and housing costs can make participation in job training workshops difficult and can lead to significant gaps of time between when a person is released from jail and when they are able to obtaining stable housing. Stakeholders also identified a need for improved coordination and support in helping returning residents attain safety net benefits that can be foundational to their economic security. Stigma remains a barrier to securing employment. While services to link clients to employment exist, the stigma associated with incarceration remains a barrier to obtaining employment, as employers often do not hire people with prior convictions, even if they are not allowed to ask about them in the first round of applications. While recent changes assist with linkage to residential substance use disorder treatment, clients still perceive a shortage of services. Through community forums and focus groups, stakeholders elevated several needs related to mental health and substance use disorder treatment services. In particular, several community members and criminal justice partner agencies perceived a shortage of residential substance use disorder treatment beds. However, conversations with AODS leadership elucidated that the department has made recent changes due to the Drug Medi-Cal Waiver that are intended to improve triage and referral to residential substance abuse treatment, thereby reducing time between referral and connection to SUD treatment. In addition, clients who are not entering services directly from jail, or who have completed community supervision, reported lag times in being linked to desired mental health services. Some clients described calling the Mental Health Access Line and being placed on hold, and/or being told they must wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, during which time they may lose the patience or motivation to continue pursuing treatment. As the Behavioral Health Services department Page 33 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 18 continues to make changes to their processes, Contra Costa County should continue to understand and address clients’ perceived barriers to treatment. Clients who are not on formal supervision report challenges in accessing mental health services. Clients who are not entering services directly from jail, or who have completed community supervision, reported lag times in being linked to desired mental health services. Some clients described calling the Mental Health Access Line and being placed on hold, and/or being told they must wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, during which time they may lose the patience or motivation to continue pursuing treatment. System Supports and Coordination: Strengths Representatives of public agencies and community-based reentry partners were unanimous that collaboration among partners has improved as a result of planning and implementing the County’s AB 109 supervision and service delivery system. CCP members as well as other County partners observed that since the creation of the CCP in 2011, County criminal justice partners have greatly improved their level of communication and collaboration. CCP members observed that the CCP has created a process for making and communicating decisions about AB 109 funding amounts. The CCP has allocated funding for several collaborative efforts, including the ACER program described earlier, as well as the Reentry Success Center and the Network, which represent evidence-based models for coordinated service delivery. The CCP also designated the creation of the Community Advisory Board (CAB) with the goal of fostering community input in decision-making. Following a recommendation by the CAB, the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) created the ORJ, which demonstrates that the County has prioritized resources to build an effective reentry system. Reentry partners hold monthly case conferencing meetings for select AB 109 cases that include Probation, Behavioral Health Services, and CBO partners. The County has made efforts to coordinate and integrate Probation and County Mental Health services by creating a Mental Health Forensic Team with clinicians that have regular office hours in the Probation Department offices across the County. For cases supervised by Probation’s AB 109 unit, Probation officers, members of the Forensic Team, and representatives from the contracted AB 109 service providers participate in case conferences to collectively solve problems and better support challenging clients. Agencies that participate in these case coordination meetings noted that they found them valuable for the effective facilitation and coordination of clients’ case plans. Data collection and sharing have improved since AB 109 came into effect. Data capacity accomplishments include: Page 34 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 19  The County has invested in a Salesforce database (“SAFE”), which has greatly improved client information sharing for contracted providers, and hopes to further improve the ability of contractors to use data to understand the value of their programs;  ORJ leveraged AB 109 funding to create data dashboards with key indicators about the number, type, and demographic trends of the AB 109 population;  AB 109-funded partners implemented universal Release of Information (ROI) to facilitate information sharing and case conferencing;  ORJ has received funding to hire a Research and Evaluation Manager, with a prospective start date of July 2018;  Probation has set aside funding to hire a data analyst in fiscal year 2018-19;  Both Probation and the Sheriff’s Office are implementing new data management systems to enable collection of accurate and timely data to support real-time decision-making; and  The County is actively looking into ways to integrate and evaluate criminal justice and service provision data that has historically been stored in unconnected databases. System Supports and Coordination: Needs While coordination of services has undoubtedly improved, some gaps remain.  Non-AB 109 individuals and individuals not on supervision do not receive the same level of service linkage as do AB 109 individuals on community supervision;  Communication and coordination between County agencies and DAPO (state parole) is limited;  There is limited ability for non-contracted CBOs to coordinate with the County reentry system; and  Mechanisms for systematic and streamlined communication among CBOs and between CBOs and Probation are still evolving. There is a need to increase awareness of reentry services among returning residents and providers. Many individuals on AB 109 probation supervision who participated in focus groups did not have a sense of the range of services available in the County. Many reported learning about available services through other individuals under supervision rather than their probation officers. Furthermore, probation officers and service providers may not all be aware of the available services. These findings speak to a need for consistent messaging about available services among returning residents, family members, probation officers, and service providers. Areas for continued improvement include maximizing the use of SAFE, identifying and addressing data sharing needs, and increasing capacity for ongoing evaluation. There is still work needed to maximize the utility of SAFE, and programs may need technical assistance to improve their capacity to collect and Page 35 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 20 report accurate data on their referrals, clients, and/or service delivery. There is a need to identify and address needs for data sharing among CBOs and between County and CBOs. Confidentiality concerns inhibit data sharing, which impedes service coordination. The County also needs to continue to increase its capacity for ongoing program evaluation and continuous quality improvement. With adequate capacity for quality assurance, the County will be better situated to support a wider utilization of evidence-based practices with confidence that the interventions are being implemented with a high level of fidelity. Page 36 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 21 Prioritization of Needs Based on the Local Planning Group’s prioritization process, the following six areas were selected for inclusion in the Strategic Plan. A. Jail to Community Transition Research on effective reentry practices show that timely and well-coordinated services that target specific criminogenic risks maximize recidivism reduction. Such a coordinated practice starts prior to release, continues once a person reenters the community, and is responsive to a person’s individual needs. While many of these practices and approaches are operative in Contra Costa County, the Local Planning Group prioritized the need to bolster and expand upon what currently exists, increase consistency, improve the system’s effectiveness, and positively impact a larger proportion of the County’s reentry population. B. Post-Release Program Access and Linkage For successful reentry to occur, it is not only important to fund a continuum of services; it is essential to facilitate access and multiple linkages to these services. The Local Planning Group prioritized this goal area to encompass strategies for reducing barriers to access and supporting streamlined connections to services for returning residents and their loved ones. C. Economic Security Through stable employment and/or public benefits, a secure economic foundation acts as a prerequisite to establishing and maintaining self-sufficiency and pro-social behavior. The Local Planning Group prioritized this goal area acknowledging a need to build on existing supports the County has in place, including strengthening pre- release connections to applications for public benefits and enhancing partnerships with workforce development agencies and community colleges. D. Housing Access and Attainment As with employment, the stability of a safe and affordable place to live is necessary for returning residents to be successful in their attempts to benefit from treatment or services that support their successful reintegration back into the community. The cost and inventory of local housing options makes accessing these resources a substantial challenge for returning residents in Contra Costa County. Because of this, the Local Planning Group prioritized this goal area to explore creative solutions. E. Behavioral Health Access Contra Costa County offers mental health and substance use disorder treatment services for returning residents and has processes for promoting continuity of care from custody to the community. At the same time, some gaps remain in providing substance abuse treatment in custody and in providing access to services for individuals who are not on formal supervision. The Local Planning Group prioritized Behavioral Health Access to improve timely access to needed behavioral health services. F. Use and Coordination of Data Data collection, sharing, and review are at the foundation of a data-informed reentry system. Data allow providers and system leaders to make decisions about improving programs and processes to best promote the reduction of recidivism. While the County has made important progress in instituting data collection and sharing tools, there is still work to be done. The Local Planning Group prioritized this area to continue to work toward effective use of data for planning and evaluation. Page 37 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 22 Goals and Objectives The Local Planning Group developed objectives to operationalize each goal into specific and measurable outcomes. Each goal is described below along with its associated objectives. A more detailed work plan with recommended activities, estimated resource requirements, anticipated Agencies involved, and specific measures of success are included in Appendix A. An implementation timeline outlining the recommended activities by year is in Appendix B.8 8 Icons created by ProSymbols, Vectors Market, and Gabriel Valdivia from Noun Project A. Jail to Community Transition Goal: Implement structures, tools, and procedures necessary to help returning residents achieve successful transitions from jail to community. Objectives 1. Refine the pre-release planning pilot and expand its access to all individuals throughout the County’s three jail facilities. 2. Expand the types of in-custody programs and services offered based on jail population needs and best practices. 3. Use in-custody risk/needs assessments to match individuals to appropriate in-custody programs. 4. Increase and expand methods for sharing information about available programs with individuals in custody, their family members, and service providers. 5. Develop policies and procedures to facilitate warm handoffs directly from custody to a place of residence, a treatment program, or another community program. B. Post-Release Program Access and Linkage Goal: Facilitate timely and appropriate connections to services and resources that effectively support the reentry of returning residents. Objectives 1. Implement resource meetings for people on probation (similar to the Parole and Community Team orientation for County parolees) to learn about available programs and services. 2. Identify and develop reentry resources for services targeting specific populations, including women, transition age youth (TAY), families, and people unable to work due to disability. 3. Understand and meet the needs of returning residents who are not on formal supervision, including their families’ needs. 4. Develop and implement a reentry system communication plan to disseminate information regarding available resources, success stories, reducing stigma, and other messaging. 5. Increase the participation of the local parole office in County reentry planning and services. Page 38 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 23 C. Economic Security Goal: Increase the likelihood of post-release success by enhancing opportunities for returning residents to attain economic security. Objectives 1. Improve community college, Workforce Development Board (WDB)/America’s Job Center of California (AJCC), and local employer engagement in reentry planning and service coordination. 2. Support returning residents in securing stable employment. 3. Support returning residents in advancing their education to improve career development. 4. Increase the number of returning residents who are linked to public benefits. D. Housing Access and Attainment Goal: Improve access to housing matched to the needs of clients. Objectives 1. Develop a data-informed understanding of housing needs for justice-involved individuals. 2. Identify resources to increase housing options—based on the housing needs survey—for populations with the most unmet needs (e.g., families, TAY, individuals with substance use disorders). 3. Implement an integrated plan for conducting and deploying the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) during pre-release planning and post-release service delivery. 4. Educate community members and landlords about fair housing practices. E. Behavioral Health Access Goal: Improve timely access to appropriate behavioral health care services. Objectives 1. Reduce the use of the criminal justice system for individuals whose primary need is behavioral health treatment. 2. Identify resources to begin substance abuse treatment in jail with a warm handoff to community based treatment options upon release. 3. Increase the number of detoxification beds available to returning residents. 4. Improve linkage to behavioral health services for justice-involved individuals who are not on any form of supervision. Page 39 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 24 Implementation Strategy What. The above goals and objectives build upon existing structures and processes in Contra Costa’s reentry system, but call for additional collaboration and resources be marshaled to ensure an ability to support strategy implementation. As current structures and resources do not exist to guide strategy implementation, facilitate partnerships, measure progress, and make timely and necessary course corrections, the County should develop a Reentry Council or reform existing bodies, such as the CCP to oversee this work. Such an entity might leverage existing venues and resources to oversee the implementation of the Strategic Plan so that it builds upon existing work; aligns with similar, concurrent efforts; and serves as a venue for making continued improvements to the coordination and delivery of reentry services. For ease of reviewing this plan, this entity will be referred to as the “Reentry Council.” Why. As it relates to the implementation of the Reentry Strategic Plan, the purpose of the Council would be to develop an annual workplan for strategy implementation, mobilize necessary stakeholders to carry out key activities outlined in this plan, support troubleshooting, and monitor progress made in strategy implementation. Such a council would not only provide coordination, guidance, and progress monitoring of the Reentry Strategic Plan, but would serve as a venue for establishing systems-level approaches to reentry issues, reducing duplication of meetings and work. Currently, there are several similar initiatives and convenings underway that discuss reentry practices and bring together many of the same stakeholder groups and leadership, though dissemination of decisions and information is not always well coordinated between these efforts. A Reentry Council would streamline these similar efforts and build efficiency in arranging and implementing shared initiatives. F. Use and Coordination of Data Goal: Enhance the use and coordination of data to ensure quality of services and inform decision-making. Objectives: 1. Establish a data committee that leads data use, systemic needs, and policy discussions specific to the adult reentry system. 2. Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation plan that identifies the specific measures that ORJ will use to assess program and system effectiveness. 3. Increase County agencies’ and contracted service providers’ access to data needed for decision-making and evaluation within a framework that protects the privacy of personal data. 4. Provide training and technical assistance so that ORJ, County agencies, and contracted providers have sufficient skills for data collection, reporting, and use of data for decision- making. Page 40 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 25 Who. The Council should be representative of the agencies involved in creating this strategic plan. The Council may be led by the ORJ with representation or partnership from CCP, the CAB, Reentry Success Center, Reentry Network, Health Services, returning residents and/or their loved ones, local judicial offices, and local law enforcement agencies. Because the CCP already gathers the same stakeholders to review and implement AB 109-specific work, it may be prudent for the County to revise the CCP workplan so that its purview extends beyond AB 109 and can provide oversight of the Reentry Strategic Plan implementation. How. To initiate work, the Council should solidify its role and responsibilities, develop a workplan to implement Year 1 activities, including the identification of activity leads and methods for measuring progress. The Council should also establish expectations for communication between itself, those implementing activities (agencies are identified for each activity in Appendix A), and other bodies that may share objectives (e.g., the Racial Justice Task Force). When. The Council will likely meet frequently to start up and establish its governance structure, reducing to a cadence determined appropriate by the group. At minimum, the Council should lead an annual review of the Strategic Plan to report progress and challenges, solicit recommendations, and make adjustments to the Plan. To facilitate this, monitor implementing progress, and escalate challenges in a timely manner, the Council may require workgroups to submit progress data/reports on a quarterly basis. Page 41 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 26 Appendix A: Detailed Strategy A. Jail to Community Transition Goal: Implement structures, tools, and procedures necessary to help returning residents achieve successful transitions from jail to community.  In-custody programs are not adequately matched to client needs or post -release opportunities o There is currently no recidivism risk assessment instrument used to match clients to in-custody programs o In-custody trade skills programs (e.g., woodworking, engraving) have few realistic career opportunities available in the community o Most in-custody programs are not designed to continue for participants if they return to the community prior to completing the program o There is a need for more variety and more evidence-based programs, including cognitive based therapy, in the jails. Clients also expressed a desire for greater variety of in-custody programs (e.g., parenting support and substance use treatment programs) o MDF continues to have limited access to group programs  Clients in custody can face stigma for attending in-custody programs  CBOs have limited access to clients incarcerated in the jails, and as a result find it difficult to promote post-release programs, develop meaningful relationships with clients prior to their release, and provide effective services to clients while they are incarcerated  Pre-release planning does not reach all individuals incarcerated in the local jails o Currently, there are no funds allocated to this pilot and it is largely supported by the in-kind services of the Reentry Transition Specialists (RTS)  Warm handoff from jail to services rarely occurs o There is inconsistent information-sharing about an individual’s release date and time, even when this information is known o Few programs equipped to provide immediate transportation for individuals upon their release  Responsibilities such as making service referrals may be duplicated across providers (CCCOE, mentoring CBOs, pre-release PO)  A pre-release planning pilot has been developed and is in its initial implementation phase; the pilot will run through June 2019  The CCCOE Transition Specialist develops transition plans for some individuals before they are released from custody  An AOD Coordinator is able to meet with clients in custody to link them to treatment program the person can access upon their release  For individuals serving an AB109 sentence, there is a designated pre-release probation officer available to conduct risk and needs assessments that inform referrals to community based programs the person can access once they are released  Mentoring CBOs are well-received by clients  The Sheriff’s Office will implement a new JMS  The African American Health Conductor Program understands health issues prevalent in the African American community and provides outreach to reentry population by assisting with health coverage benefits and SSI/SSA benefits. Page 42 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 27 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved9 Measures of Success a. Research feasibility and implement in- custody linkage(s) to resources for individuals with different lengths of stay (e.g., less than 72 hours, less than 2 weeks, more than 2 weeks) and types of release from custody.  Staff time  Production of new materials that can be provided to incarcerated individuals or their families to inform them of resources that may be available to the person  Staff/Consultants with relevant research expertise  CAB  CCCOE  Probation  Sheriff’s Office  Research plan is developed  Research is conducted  Implementation plan is developed  New practices are implemented  Individuals in custody report awareness about community- based programs and how to access them post-release b. Improve the process of connecting people to public benefits10 See Economic Security goal area c. Determine modifications needed to scale the pre-release planning pilot to entire jail system, including clearly defining the role and responsibilities of Reentry Transition Specialist (RTS) as compared to in-custody program providers  Staff time  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager  Pre-Release Pilot Steering Committee (to convene a body for this purpose)  Regular occurrence of meetings of the Pre-Release Operations Workgroup  Job descriptions are written or modified  Development of monitoring plan  Number of members in attendance at Pre-Release Operations Workgroup meetings d. Develop staffing plan for expanded pre- release planning program at WCDF  Collaboration with the Sheriff’s Office Human Resources  Resources with relevant planning expertise  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  New staff hired or time allocated to existing staff 9 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the Reentry Council and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. 10 Increase the number of returning residents who are linked to public benefits is included as an objective in the Economic Security Goal Area. Page 43 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 28 e. Develop and execute pre-release planning implementation plan for MDF and MCDF  Staff time  Facility space to conduct meetings  Production of new resources materials  Resources with relevant planning expertise  CCCOE  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager  Probation  Sheriff’s Office  Research plan is developed  Research is conducted  Implementation plan is developed and executed  New practices are implemented  Returning residents report awareness about community- based programs Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Align in-custody job training and education services to meaningful career opportunities11 See Economic Security goal area b. Examine how in-custody programming is differentiated based on length of stay in order to provide programming for different lengths of stay  Staff time  CCCOE  Pre-Release Operations Workgroup  Sheriff’s Office  Program curricula reflect lengths of stay  There are in-custody programs for a variety of lengths of stay c. Incorporate additional in-custody programs based on an assessment of need, research on reducing recidivism, and best practices (e.g., arts program pilot, behavioral health support groups, cognitive behavioral interventions)  Staff time  Staff training in new program approaches  Community input  Behavioral Health/AODS  CAB  CCCOE  New or existing program providers  Sheriff’s Office  Strategic Plan needs assessment  Plan for new in-custody programs is developed  New in-custody programs are implemented  Existing programs modified to increase evidence-based practices d. Engage with contracted providers to identify ways to increase access given the existing time and space challenges  Staff time  Contracted service providers  Sheriff’s Office  Number of meetings held  Meeting minutes 11 Provide in-custody education and training to support returning residents in securing stable employment is included as an objective in the Economic Security Goal Area. Page 44 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 29 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Determine appropriate screening and assessment tools needed to match individuals to in-custody programs  Staff time  Research on tools  CCCOE  Sheriff/Probation  Appropriate risk/needs assessment is identified b. Identify the appropriate time point and staff assigned to conduct risk/needs assessments and implement  Staff time  Staff training to conduct assessment  CCCOE  Sheriff/Probation  Staff identified and time allocated to conduct risk/needs assessments  A referral process is in place for staff to refer individuals to in-custody programs and services  Process is developed for a time and place where risk/needs assessments will be conducted  Staff use the assessment Page 45 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 30 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Based on best practices and input from individuals in custody, determine strategies for publicizing information about available in-custody programs at all facilities (e.g., orientation video, closed circuit television, use of peer outreach, expanded and more accessible information for families on Sheriff’s Office website)  Staff time  Development of new resource materials  Funding allocation  CAB  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Outreach strategies are designed and implemented  Increase in attendance for in- custody programs b. Explore barriers to utilization of existing programs and develop strategies to address these barriers  Staff time  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Barriers and strategies are documented  Changes are implemented  Increased participation in in- custody programs and services c. Educate Sheriff’s staff on program opportunities in custody and in the community to become an information source for individuals in custody  Staff time  Staff training on programs and motivational interviewing  Sheriff’s Office  In-Custody Service Providers  Reentry Network and Reentry Success Center  Staff report knowledge of programs  Staff report they provide information about programs to individuals in custody Page 46 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 31 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Provide partner agencies with incarceration release dates to assist with reentry pre-release planning, service coordination and service delivery  Staff time  Information-sharing protocol  Sheriff’s Office  Community providers report having access to release dates and time b. Explore how other counties have used in-custody peer recovery coaches to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs  Staff time  CAB  Sheriff’s Office  Development of plan to provide transportation upon release c. Implement solutions to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs  Staff time (new or existing hires)  Funding for transportation and/or vehicles  AODS  CCCOE  CCP  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Sheriff’s Office  Number and percent of returning residents with a transportation need who receive direct transportation Page 47 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 32 B. Post-Release Program Access and Linkage Goal: Facilitate timely and appropriate connections to services and resources that effectively support the reentry of returning residents.  There are a limited number of services for women (gender-responsive programs), families of returning residents (e.g., support groups for family members, services for children of incarcerated parents), and transition age youth (e.g., services designed for TAY in their stage of development, targeted services for foster and CSEC TAY).  There are gaps in coordination of services for non-AB 109 individuals and individuals not on formal supervision.  There are gaps in coordination and communication between the County and Parole.  There are non-contracted CBOs that wish to coordinate with the County reentry system.  Transportation challenges prevent access to programs and services.  There is a need for consistent messaging about available services for CBOs, probation officers, and clients.  The West County Reentry Success Center and the East and Central County Reentry Network have been impactful in developing “no wrong door” and one-stop approaches to reentry  Monthly case conferencing among reentry partners promotes coordination  AB 109 probation officers have been especially supportive in linking clients to services  Smart Reentry grant offers services to reduce recidivism for young adults age 18-24  The County funds some family reunification services  The County funds women’s housing and pre/post release case management for reentry women Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved12 Measures of Success a. Identify a regular time, place(s) and frequency for the resource meetings and hold meetings.  Meeting space  CBOs  County agencies  Probation  Meeting schedule  Number of resource meetings b. Invite local providers (CBOs and County agencies) to the resource meetings through emails and/or other communication mechanisms (e.g., website).  Communication plan  Staff time  List of local providers  Probation  Number of emails to providers  Number of providers that attend resource meetings 12 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the County and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. Page 48 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 33 c. Develop and implement a system to notify individuals on probation about upcoming resource meetings, post- assignment to probation.  Communication plan  List of individuals recently placed on Probation  Texting system  Probation  Attendance at resource meetings Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Engage relevant County and community- based agencies and specific populations listed above to define the needs for population-specific services.  Staff time  CBOs  County agencies  EHSD (foster care, ILP)  Reentry Council  Number of meetings  Written brief or presentation identifying population-specific needs b. Explore options for financial sustainability of any effective services for TAY provided as part of the Smart Reentry- grant.  Staff time  Smart Reentry grant  Reentry Council  Additional funding source(s) allocated to TAY services c. Explore allocation of AB 109 community program funding for population-specific services.  Staff time  AB 109 funding  CAB  CCP  Documentation of population served by AB 109 funding Page 49 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 34 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Review in-custody needs assessments for individuals that will not be released on supervision and their families.  In-custody needs assessments  Assigned staff/consultant to conduct analysis  Sheriff’s Office  Number of needs assessments reviewed  List of most common needs b. Gather input from individuals who have been incarcerated but are not currently on supervision about their needs. Also gather informatio n from family members and loved ones of this population about their needs.  Assigned staff/consultant to conduct analysis  Access to individuals no longer on Probation  CBOs  County Agencies  ORJ  Probation  Number of individuals who share needs  List of most common needs c. Present information about the scope of needs of individuals not on probation, and their families, to the County’s reentry stakeholder body (e.g., Reentry Council that may be established) and/or CCP and use that data to inform reentry funding allocations and reentry program designs.  Reentry Council (or other reentry Stakeholder Body)  List of common needs for individuals not on supervision  ORJ  Probation  Sheriff’s Office  Presentation to reentry body  Reallocation of reentry funding  Programs designed to address common needs Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Create/update an inventory of reentry programs and services, with eligibility criteria (which will help clarify which services are prioritized for AB 109), enrollment process, and contact information.  Staff time  ORJ  Development of program inventory  Number of programs in inventory Page 50 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 35 b. Determine and implement method(s) for sharing inventory with agencies that serve the reentry population and with returning residents and their families (e.g., website, Voice newsletter, exit packet upon release, at family visiting hours)  Funding  Technology  Staff time  Translation services  CBOs  County Agencies  ORJ  Probation  County Public Information Officer  Sheriff’s Office  Communication plan  Number of agencies that receive the inventory  Number of returning residents and their family members that receive the inventory c. Develop and execute a process to update the inventory and regularly disseminate updates.  Staff time  ORJ  County Public Information Officer  Number of updates to the inventory d. Explore the use of text message alerts to inform returning residents and their family members of community resources  Staff time  Subscription to text messaging service  ORJ  Reentry Network and Reentry Success Center  Sheriff’s Office  Text alerts programmed  Text alerts rolled out  Community programs report increased inquiries about their services e. Create and implement mechanisms for external communication to share reentry success stories and other messaging, such as an anti-bias campaign.  Staff time  Funding  Translation services  CBOs  County Agencies  ORJ  Probation  Public Information Officer  Sheriff’s Office  Communication plan  Number of success stories shared Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Include Parole representative on the County’s reentry stakeholder body (e.g., Reentry Council that may be established)  Reentry stakeholder body  Reentry Council  Parole  Parole representative named to reentry stakeholder body  Regular attendance of parole representative at meetings b. Include Parole in quarterly AB 109 administrative meetings.  Staff time  Parole  Agencies attending AB 109 administrative meetings  Parole representative invited to AB 109 quarterly meetings  Regular attendance of parole representative at meetings Page 51 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 36 C. Economic Security Goal: Increase the likelihood of post-release success by enhancing opportunities for returning residents to attain economic security.  There are limited partnerships with Workforce Development Boards, colleges, and employers o Workforce development boards and community colleges would like stronger partnerships with the reentry system  In-custody trade skills programs have few realistic career opportunities upon reentry  While services to link clients to housing and employment exist, the stigma associated with incarceration remains a barrier to obtaining employment o Employers often do not hire people with prior convictions o One provider suggested having a reentry temp service agency  Some job training programs seem to have a fee, which most clients cannot afford  Better coordination/support in helping returning residents attain safety net benefits can be foundational to their economic security  Contracted post-release job training and placement programs (e.g., Goodwill, Rubicon, Fast Eddy’s) are well-received and well attended  Post-release AJCC/Career Centers provide employment and training opportunities  The recently completed Fair Chance Employers Summits were well attended, hosted a panel of champion employers, and included employer trainings by Root and Rebound  Adult Ed Schools and Reentry Transitional Specialist (CCCOE) are entry points to community colleges’ Career and Technical Education (CTEs) programs that offer career pathways to growth industries Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved13 Measures of Success a. Identify point people from WDB/AJCC and each local community  Staff time  Reentry planning bodies  AJCC  CCCCD  List of WDB/AJCC and community college point people 13 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the County and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. Page 52 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 37 college to serve as members of or liaisons to the Reentry Council.  CCCOE  Reentry Council  WDB  Attendance at Reentry Council meetings b. Establish regular communication among WDB, AJCC, and community colleges via the AB 109 Administration Meetings.  Staff time  AJCC  CCCCD  CCCOE  WDB  Number of meetings, calls, and emails  Number of community colleges with whom a relationship is developed c. Expand relationships with local employers willing to employ reentry population.  Collaboration to identify and share employer connections  Staff to connect with businesses  AB 109 Employment Contractors  AJCC  CCCOE  WDB  Reentry Success Center  The Reentry Network  Number of meetings with employers  Number of employers with whom a relationship is developed  Employers added to SAFE as resources d. Collaborate with local workforce providers to identify job and career opportunities aligned to skills/experience of returning residents.  Staff time  AJCC  CCCOE  Department of Rehabilitation  Eastbay Works  Local employers  WDB  Reentry Success Center  The Reentry Network  Meetings with local workforce providers  Number of job and career opportunities identified  Number of jobs and careers obtained by returning residents Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Continue to conduct Job and Resource Fairs at both WCDF and MCDF on at least an annual basis.  Reentry Transition Specialist  Space for fairs  CBOs  CCCOE  County agencies  Employers  Sheriff’s Office  Number of fairs at each location  Attendance at fairs Page 53 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 38 b. Inventory and assess alignment of in-custody job training and education programs with existing job or career opportunities and regional workforce needs.  Expert to do assessment  AJCC  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  WDB  Inventory of in-custody job training and education  List of regional workforce needs c. Offer introductory classes or training programs while in custody, i.e. food handlers certification, food service, business office professionals, math for the trades, construction, etc.  Collaboration with Adult Education Consortium work in progress  Staff time  Funding (may come from CCCCD)  AJCC  CCCOE  Community Colleges   Number of individuals enrolled in pre-employment programs  Percent of individuals who complete programs  Percent of individuals who obtain related employment d. Enroll inmates with an established employment goal in the jail’s Workforce Readiness class prior to release.  List of individuals in jail with employment goals  Workforce Readiness Class  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Number of individuals who complete Workforce Readiness Class prior to release  Percent of individuals with employment goals who complete Workforce Readiness class e. Explore the possibility of providing computers with a closed internet connection to facilitate in-custody job searches.  Funding  Research  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Documented decision about offering closed internet connection and the rationale for that decision f. Explore the establishment of a Jail- Based Job Development Center (JBJDC) where inmates can address barriers prior to release; conduct job search and employment preparation; and access case management to support follow-up/“warm handoffs” post release.  Funding  Space for JBJDC  JBJDC Staff  Collaboration with community agencies  Secured Internet access for inmates to use Career Coach  CBOs  CCCOE  County agencies  Sheriff’s Office  Number of meetings to discuss JBJDC development  Plan for JBJDC development Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success Page 54 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 39 a. Work with community colleges’ transition specialists to provide in- custody enrollment services and post-custody course continuation.  Faculty  Training  Funding (may come from CCCCD)  CCCCD  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Number of individuals receiving in-custody enrollment services  Number of individuals enrolled in classes b. Solicit correspondence programs to supplement on-site educational programs in jail  Staff time  CCCOE  Sheriff’s Office  Number of correspondence programs utilized by individuals in jail c. Increase the number of articulation agreements with the community colleges  Collaboration with Adult Education Consortium work in progress  Staff time  Funding (may come from CCCD)  CCCOE  Community Colleges  Number of articulated classes and individuals earning college credit while in custody Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Define roles of EHSD staff, CBOs, and other in-custody staff to assist with applications for benefits prior to and post release.  Training  Behavioral Health  CBOs  CCCOE  EHSD  Sheriff’s Office  Documented roles/responsibilities for each agency in assisting individuals in jail with benefits enrollment  Number of individuals in custody who apply for benefits  Number of individuals in custody whose application is approved to receive benefits b. Include application for safety net benefits as part of pre-release planning and provide information regarding benefits eligibility and application processes and support at release.  Safety net benefits applications  Behavioral Health  CBOs  CCCOE  EHSD  Sheriff’s Office  Number of individuals in custody who apply for benefits  Number of individuals in custody whose application is approved to receive benefits  Number of individuals who receive information about public benefits at release Page 55 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 40 D. Housing Access and Attainment Goal: Improve access to housing matched to the needs of clients.  There is not enough affordable, stable housing in safe and supportive environments nor is there an array of housing options or models to meet the varying needs of the reentry population o Many of the existing housing resources are prioritized for AB 109 clients o Contracted transitional housing has a maximum six month stay (with some options to extend) o Some stakeholders voiced a need for supportive housing that provides supportive services onsite o AB 109 funded housing only offer sober living environments (SLEs) used interchangeably as a transitional housing option  Housing resources do not include housing for families o Returning residents who cannot be housed with their families and/or children are unable to live with their support network  There is a lack of TAY-specific housing  While services to link clients to housing exist, the stigma associated with incarceration remains a barrier to obtaining housing. o Landlords and/or property managers are wary of allowing people with prior convictions to live in their buildings  Housing linkage does not consistently begin prior to release  CoCo LEAD+ (Prop 47 grant) uses a housing first model with a graduated approach from transitional housing to permanent Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers  Linkage to housing is facilitated by the Reentry Success Center and the Network  AB 109-funded housing is prioritized for AB 109 individuals and only offer SLEs  Community Out-Reach and Engagement (CORE) team recently gained access to the jails to meet with clients pre- release to help navigate the County’s homeless services continuum of care  It is reported that GEO Group has opened a day reporting center for parole, and provide parolees enrolled into the program with access to housing  New resources in the process of development and implementation include: o Supportive housing beds for TAY, including one bed dedicated to a youth returning home from DJJ facilities o The Housing Security Fund to support individuals at risk of homelessness who are ineligible for other funding streams o Case management and financial support services to divert individuals from entering the homelessness system of care o 50 micro-housing units for high utilizers of the healthcare system (Spring 2019) Page 56 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 41 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved14 Measures of Success a. Conduct a housing needs survey of the reentry population to identify types of housing (e.g., independent, emergency, sober living, supportive housing) needed.  Survey design, implementation, and analysis plan  Funding o Health Services’ Division of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services (H3) has funding from No Place Like Home for a housing needs assessment survey– they will add additional funds to assess the housing needs of justice-involved individuals  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Survey to identify the needs of justice-involved individuals  Number of justice-involved individuals who complete the survey  Vetted list of needs b. Based on the needs identified in the survey, inventory the number and location of beds available (including shelter, residential treatment, transitional housing, supportive housing, and rental market housing) to identify gaps and prioritize resources  Housing needs survey results  Staff time  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Inventory of number and location of housing/beds available that meet the needs of justice-involved individuals Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Create a plan for the allocation/ prioritization of reentry housing funds for housing services for  Reentry funding  Housing needs survey results  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Plan for the allocation/prioritization of reentry housing funds 14 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the County and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. Page 57 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 42 populations with unmet needs (e.g., families, TAY).  Funding allocated/prioritized b. Explore the creation of new housing facilities/programs, based on the housing needs survey (e.g., recovery residences, family housing, TAY housing)  Staff time  Housing needs survey results  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Plan for creating of new facilities and programs  Number of new facilities and housing programs c. Identify and leverage other funding (e.g., MHSA, other state and federal funds) toward reentry-focused housing services for populations with the most needs, based on the housing needs survey (e.g., TAY)  Funding sources  Housing needs survey results  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Funding leveraged d. Continue to collaborate with the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa to explore ways to increase access to housing for returning residents and their families  Staff time  Housing Authority  Office of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services  Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Expand VI-SPDAT administration to all individuals pre-release, with follow-up post-release assessments while on community supervision, as appropriate.  Staff time  VI-SPDAT and training on its use  Coordinated outreach teams  Probation  Providers that currently administer VI-SPDAT  Reentry Network and Reentry Success Center  AB 109 case manager meeting  Number of individuals who receive an in-custody VI-SPDAT  Number of individuals on community supervision who receive a VI-SPDAT  Data input into Clarity b. Use VI-SPDAT results to connect individuals to appropriate housing.  Staff time  Agencies and providers that administers VI- SPDAT  Number of individuals provided a VI-SPDAT that are connected to housing Page 58 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 43  Number of individuals who maintain housing Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Develop new or modify existing informational materials that outline/define fair housing practices for justice-involved individuals.  HUD Block Grant Funding  Existing informational materials about fair housing practices  Agencies that receive HUD Block Grant Funding (e.g., Bay Area Legal Aid, Pacific Community Services)  Number of pamphlets, posters, and other informational materials b. Disseminate materials and trainings targeting justice-involved individuals about housing rights.  HUD Block Grant Funding  Agencies that receive HUD Block Grant Funding (e.g., Bay Area Legal Aid, Pacific Community Services)  Number of trainings with justice-involved individuals and family members  Number of justice-involved individuals and family members who attend community trainings  Number of pamphlets, posters, and other materials distributed to justice-involved individuals and family members c. Disseminate informational materials around fair housing practices for justice-involved individuals to landlords and hold trainings.  HUD Block Grant Funding  Agencies that receive HUD Block Grant Funding (e.g., Bay Area Legal Aid, Pacific Community Services)  Number of trainings with landlords  Number of landlords who attend trainings  Number of pamphlets, posters, and other materials distributed to landlords Page 59 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 44 E. Behavioral Health Access Goal: Improve timely access to appropriate behavioral health care services.  County leadership reported a need for more detoxification beds  Clients have little choice in where they receive residential treatment  For individuals who are not on probation or parole, screening and wait times to access behavioral health services can impede linkage to services (i.e., once clients do not have a direct linkage from custody or through a probation officer)  There is a need for transportation for clients directly from jail to residential treatment as soon as they are released  There is a need to begin substance abuse treatment in jail; DEUCE provides education, but treatment should be provided as well  Clients who complete treatment and/or leave jail and are homeless have limited housing options as the only homeless shelters are wet shelters  There is a need to begin substance abuse treatment in jail  There is a need for seamless medical transition (i.e., Medi-Cal enrollment, adequate supply of medication, connection to health conductors, Transitions Medical Clinics)  The DEUCE program for substance abuse in custody is well-received  Behavioral health service connections between custody and the community for AB 109 clients has been strong o Clients can meet with an AODS Coordinator in custody to be linked to treatment upon release  The Behavioral Health Access line has a counselor assigned to the jail, and the phones at the jail can reach the access line for free  A Behavioral Health substance abuse counselor conducts in -court screenings to make same-day placements  AODS will be co-locating substance abuse counselors in mental health clinics  The county has several health care providers that link returning residents to care, including African American health conductors, promotoras, and the Transitions Clinic Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved15 Measures of Success a. Establish a taskforce on behavioral health issues within the justice system.  Communication plan  Collaboration tools  Staff time  Administrative support  DA  Public Defender  LEAs  CCHS  Reentry Council  Task force leader(s) established and invitation sent to potential members  Number of task force meetings  Task force attendance 15 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the County and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. Page 60 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 45 b. Research best practice models statewide and nationally that address behavioral health issues within the justice system (e.g., integrated court system with criminal and civil matters, treatment court models) to identify proper interventions to implement locally.  National Reentry Resource Center  SAMHSA  Staff time  Resources with relevant research expertise  CAB  DA  CCHS  Reentry Council  Research plan developed  Implementation plan developed for new efforts c. Continue participation in the Stepping Up Initiative, and use sequential intercept mapping to identify opportunities to divert individuals at various points in the criminal justice system.  Financial commitment in 2018  ORJ  Document a sequential intercept map for the County  Implementation plan or proposal for diversion opportunities d. Leverage the CoCo LEAD+ initiative and monitor and improve the use of Behavioral Health staff in the field.  Evaluation data from CoCo LEAD+  ORJ  Evaluation findings produced  Improvement plan developed Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Identify or generate funds to employ an AOD counselor assigned to the jail to work collaboratively with DEUCE teachers to provide individual or group treatment, identify appropriate post-release treatment options, and provide transportation upon release.  Grantwriter or local revenue source  Funding beyond Medi-Cal  AODS  CCCOE  Detention Health  Sheriff’s Office  Grant(s) submitted  Funding awarded  In-custody AOD counselor hired  Number and percent of individuals with substance abuse disorders who receive substance abuse treatment in custody b. Develop a process to coordinate pre-release AOD treatment and planning with mental health treatment and planning for individuals with a dual diagnosis.  Collaboration between Detention Health and AODS  AODS  Detention Health  Sheriff  Written procedure for in- custody dual diagnosis treatment  Number of meetings between in-custody MH and AOD counselors Page 61 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 46 c. Explore available models to implement a solution that use in- custody peer recovery coaches to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs.  Staff time  Funding for transportation and/or vehicles  CAB  Reentry Council  Sheriff’s Office  CCHS (AODS and H3 Divisions)  Plan is defined to provide transportation to programs in the community upon release from custody  Number and percent of returning residents with a transportation need who receive direct transportation services d. Provide in-custody Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for individuals with opioid disorders, then establish linkages with MAT resources in the community prior to release to promote continuity of care.  Staff time  Staff training  AODS  Detention Health  Sheriff  Number and percent of individuals with opioid disorders who receive MAT  Number and percent of individuals receiving MAT who receive linkage to post-release substance abuse treatment  Number and percent of individuals receiving MAT in- custody who continue with treatment after being released from custody. Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Leverage AODS’ ongoing efforts to expand detox availability so that returning residents have sufficient access to detox beds.  Staff time  AODS  Detention Health  Documentation of AODS efforts b. Establish and share criteria/scale for detox bed qualification across all consumer populations, including returning residents.  Staff time  AODS  Criteria/scale developed and vetted with stakeholders c. Include recent criminal justice system involvement in the  Staff time  AODS  Reentry Council  Bed priority uses criteria that includes criminal justice system involvement Page 62 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 47 assessment for detox and treatment bed priority. Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Review the current level of access to Behavioral Healthcare Services.  Staff Time  BHS  Reentry Council  Number of meetings held  Documentation of access needs b. Review best practices in access to care for individuals who were formerly incarcerated.  Staff time  BHS  Reentry Council  Documentation of best practice review c. Assess the need for and accessibility of behavioral health services for returning residents who are not under supervision.  Staff time  BHS  Reentry Council  Needs and recommendations are identified for improving returning residents’ access to behavioral health services d. Conduct improvement projects that address access to care for individuals who were formerly incarcerated.  Staff time  BHS  Reentry Council  Implementation plan for modifications to client access protocols Page 63 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 48 F. Use and Coordination of Data Goal: Enhance the use and coordination of data to ensure quality of services and inform decision-making.  The Salesforce (SAFE) database is still undergoing upgrades to maximize its potential usefulness among contracted community based organizations  There is a need to identify and address needs for data sharing among CBOs and between County agencies and CBOs  Confidentiality concerns inhibit data sharing, which impedes service coordination  The Probation department and Sheriff’s Office have antiquated data systems that are difficult to get information from  Data dashboards were created using AB 109 funding  The Salesforce (SAFE) database has greatly improved information sharing for contracted providers  AB 109-funded partners implemented a universal Release of Information (ROI) to facilitate information sharing  ORJ will be hiring a Research and Evaluation Manager and Probation will be hiring a research analyst  The Probation Department is developing a new Management Information System (MIS)  Sheriff’s Office will implement a new Jail Management System (JMS)  There is a study underway regarding needs for the integration of reentry partner data for better outcome analyses Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved16 Measures of Success a. Determine committee membership (e.g., Probation, Parole, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney, Court, CBOs), roles and responsibilities, and purview.  Staff time  Reentry Council  Membership decision is made and invitation is sent b. Determine lead agency responsible for scheduling and facilitating regular committee meetings.  None  Reentry Council  Lead agency is designated c. Hold regular committee meetings to review data.  Staff time  Training in use and interpretation of data for decision-making  Data committee of Reentry Council  Number of meetings held  Percent of invited agencies in attendance 16 Agencies involved are listed alphabetically. When planning for implementation, the County and partners should determine roles and responsibilities for each agency, including which agency will be the lead. Page 64 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 49 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Determine outcomes and measures that ORJ will regularly collect to monitor and evaluate the reentry system’s capacity and effectiveness.  Staff time  Resources with relevant data expertise  Data Sub-Committee  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager  Evaluation plan with identified metrics is developed b. Identify existing data as well as data that is not currently being collected, and work with county agencies and providers to develop plans to collect/track necessary data for evaluation and monitoring.  Staff time  Resources with relevant data expertise  IT infrastructure  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager Data Sub-Committee  Documentation of required data sources is complete  Plan is developed and responsible parties are assigned to track additional data c. Implement technical solutions for identified agencies to submit defined data on a consistent schedule to a secure ORJ data warehouse and define a plan for ORJ quality assurance.  Staff time  Staff training in data entry procedures  IT infrastructure  Contracted CBOs  Courts  DA  ORJ  Probation  Sheriff  Percent of reentry system agencies that submit requested data on time  Protocol in place for ORJ periodic review of data for quality d. Determine capacity needed and roles and responsibilities to conduct regular monitoring and evaluation, including regular recidivism measurement.  Staff time  Staff training in statistical methods  ORJ  Evaluation plan and timeline are developed Page 65 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 50 Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success a. Collaborate with County agencies and service providers to identify current and desired data needs  Staff time  Data Committee  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager  Data needs are documented b. Employ committee, legal research, and discussions with County Counsel to address personal data, privacy, data security, data breach protocols, and information sharing concerns.  Staff time  Legal research  County Counsel  Data Committee  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager  Agreement is reached on data sharing permissions c. Develop protocols for information sharing to inform decision making (e.g., budget allocation process).  Staff time  Data Committee Members  Data and reporting dissemination plan is created  Data review becomes a consistent part of decision making framework d. Sign data sharing agreements among identified agencies.  Staff time  Resources with relevant data and legal expertise  County and contracted agencies  County Counsel  Data Committee  Number of new data sharing agreements signed e. Assess data systems capacity and research the ability to link data sources where possible (e.g., connect Pretrial Program risk assessment to the new JMS, once implemented).  County or external IT/data experts  IT staff in each agency  Data Committee  ORJ Research and Evaluation Manager Probation  Sheriff’s Office  Data systems capacity recommendations made  Plan for linkage of data sources is developed  New data are integrated into existing data sources Activities Resources Needed to Implement Agencies Involved Measures of Success Page 66 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 51 a. Identify current and needed data leads in appropriate agencies.  Staff time  Contracted provider data leads  County agency data leads  Data Committee  Data leads are documented b. Study how partners track and use data to inform decision-making and identify needs for process improvements and/or training needs.  Staff time  Research plan  Contracted providers  County agencies  Data Committee  ORJ  Findings from study are documented  A data use improvement plan is developed  County agencies and providers implement changes to their data use practices c. Provide training and technical assistance on data sharing and data- driven decision-making, including training and technical assistance on the use of SAFE to maximize its utility, and the use of any new or updated data systems.  Staff time  Resources with relevant data and training expertise  Training plan  Contracted service providers  County agencies  Data Committee  ORJ  Number of county agencies/providers trained  Number of technical assistance meetings held  County agencies and providers reported improved knowledge and skills in data collection and use Page 67 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 52 Appendix B. Implementation Timeline A. Jail to Community Transition Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Refine the pre-release planning pilot and expand its access to all individuals throughout the County’s three jail facilities . a. Research feasibility and implement in-custody linkage(s) to resources for individuals with different lengths of stay and types of release. b. Improve the process of connecting people to public benefits. see Economic Security c. Determine modifications needed to scale the pre-release planning pilot to entire jail system, including clearly defining the role and responsibilities of Reentry Transition Specialist (RTS) as compared to in-custody program providers d. Develop staffing plan for expanded pre-release planning program at WCDF. e. Develop and execute pre-release planning implementation plan for MDF and MCDF. Objective 2: Expand types of in-custody programs and services offered based on jail population needs and best practices. a. Align in-custody job training and education services to meaningful career opportunities. see Economic Security b. Examine how in-custody programming is differentiated based on length of stay in order to provide programming for different lengths of stay. c. Incorporate additional in-custody programs based on an assessment of need, research on reducing recidivism, and best practices. d. Engage with contracted providers to identify ways to increase access given the existing time and space challenges Objective 3: Use in-custody risk/needs assessments to match individuals to appropriate in-custody programs. a. Determine appropriate screening and assessment tools needed to match indi viduals to in-custody programs. b. Identify the appropriate time point and staff assigned to conduct risk/n eeds assessments and implement. Objective 4: Increase and expand methods for sharing information about available programs with individuals in custody, their family members, and service providers. a. Based on best practices and input from individuals in custody, determine strategies for publicizing information about avai lable in-custody classes at all facilities. b. Explore barriers to utilization of existing programs and develop strategies to address these barriers. c. Educate Sheriff’s staff on program opportunities in custody and in the community to become information source for individu als in custody. Page 68 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 53 Objective 5: Develop policies and procedures to facilitate warm handoff directly from custody to a place of residence, a treatment program, or ano ther community program a. Provide partner agencies with incarceration release dates to assist with reentry pre -release planning, service coordination, and service delivery. b. Explore how other counties have used in-custody peer recovery coaches to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs. c. Implement solutions to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs. B. Post-Release Program Access and Linkage Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Implement resource meetings for people on probation to learn about available programs and services. a. Identify a regular time, place(s), and frequency for the resource meetings and then hold meetings. b. Invite local providers (CBOs and County agencies) to the resource meetings through emails and/or other communication mechanisms. c. Develop and implement a system to notify individuals on probation about upcoming resource meetings) post -assignment to probation. Objective 2: Identify and develop reentry resources for services targeting specific populations, including w omen, transition age youth, families, and people unable to work due to disability. a. Engage relevant County and community-based agencies and specific populations to define the needs for population-specific services. b. Explore options for financial sustainability of any effective services for TAY provided as part of the Smart Reentry-grant. c. Explore allocation of AB 109 community program funding for population -specific services. Objective 3: Understand and meet the needs of returning residents and their families who are not on formal supervision, including their families’ needs. a. Review in-custody needs assessments for individuals that will not be released on probation and their families. b. Gather input from individuals who have been incarcerated but are not currently on supervision about their needs. Also gather information from family members and loved ones of this population about their needs. c. Present information about the scope of needs of individuals not on probation and their families to the County’s reentry stakeholder body and/or CCP and use that data to inform reentry funding allocations and reentry program designs. Objective 4: Develop and implement a reentry system communication plan to disseminate current information regarding available resources, success stories, reducing stigma, and other messaging. a. Create/update an inventory of available reentry programs and services, with eligibility criteria, enrollment process, and contact information. Page 69 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 54 b. Determine and implement method(s) for sharing inventory with agencies that serve the reentry population and with returning re sidents and their families. c. Develop and execute a process to update the inventory and regularly disseminate updates. d. Explore the use of text message alerts to inform returning residents and their family members of community resources. e. Create and implement mechanisms for external communication to share reentry success stories and other messaging, such as an anti-bias campaign. Objective 5: Increase the participation of the local parole office in County reentry planning. a. Include Parole representative on the County’s reentry stakeholder body. b. Include Parole in quarterly AB 109 administrative meetings. C. Economic Security Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Improve community college, Workforce Development Board (WDB)/America’s Job Center of California (AJCC), and local employer engagement in reentry planning and service coordination. a. Identify point people from WDB/AJCC and each local community college to serve as members of or liaisons to the Reentry Council. b. Establish regular communication among WDB, AJCC, and community colleges via the AB 109 Administration Meetings. c. Establish relationships with local employers willing to employ reentry population. d. Collaborate with local workforce providers to identify job and career opportunities aligned to skills/experience of returning residents. Objective 2: Support returning residents in securing stable employment. a. Continue to conduct Job and Resource Fairs at both WCDF and MCDF on a t least an annual basis. b. Inventory and assess alignment of in-custody job training and education with existing job or career opportunities and regional workforce needs. c. Offer introductory classes or training programs while in custody, i.e. food handlers certification, food service, business office professionals, math for the trades, construction, etc. d. Enroll inmates with an established employment goal in the jail’s Workforce Readiness class prior to release. e. Explore the possibility of providing computers with a closed internet connection to facilitate in-custody job searches. f. Explore the establishment of a Jail-Based Job Development Center (JBJDC) where inmates can address barriers prior to release; conduct job search and employment preparation; and access case management to support follow-up/“warm handoffs” post release. Page 70 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 55 Objective 3: Support returning residents in advancing their education to improve career development. a. Work with community colleges’ transition specialists to provide in-custody enrollment services and post-custody course continuation. b. Solicit correspondence programs to supplement on -site educational programs in jail. d. Increase the number of articulation agreements with the community colleges. Objective 4: Increase the number of returning residents who are linked to public benefits. a. Define roles of EHSD staff, CBOs, and other in-custody staff to assist with applications for benefits prior to and post release. b. Include application for safety net benefits as part of pre -release planning and provide information regarding benefits eligibility and application processes and support at release. D. Housing Access and Attainment Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Develop a data-informed understanding of housing system needs for justice-involved individuals. a. Conduct a housing needs survey of the reentry population to identify types of housing needed. b. Based on the needs identified in the survey, inventory the number and location of beds available to identify gaps and prioritize resources Objective 2: Identify resources to increase housing options —based on the housing needs survey —for populations with the most unmet needs. a. Create a plan for the allocation/prioritization of reentry housing funds for housing services for populations with unmet n eeds. b. Explore the creation of new housing facilities/programs, based on the housing needs survey. c. Identify and leverage other funding toward reentry-focused housing services for populations with the most needs, based on the housing needs survey. d. Continue to collaborate with Housing Authority to explore ways to increase access to housing for returning residents and their families Objective 3: Implement an integrated plan for conducting and deploying the Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) during pre- release planning and post-release service delivery. a. Expand VI-SPDAT administration to all individuals pre-release, with follow-up post-release assessments while on community supervision, as appropriate. b. Use VI-SPDAT results to connect individuals to appropriate housing. Objective 4: Educate community members and landlords about fair housing practices. a. Develop new or modify existing informational materials that outline/define fair housing practices for justice -involved individuals. b. Disseminate materials and trainings targeting justice-involved individuals about housing rights. Page 71 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 56 c. Disseminate informational materials about fair housing practices for justice-involved individuals to landlords and hold trainings. E. Behavioral Health Access Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Reduce the use of the criminal justice system for individuals whose primary need is behavioral health treatment. a. Establish a taskforce on behavioral health issues within the justice system. b. Research best practice models statewide and nationally that address behavioral health issues within the justice system. c. Continue participation in the Stepping Up Initiative, and use sequential intercept mapping to identify opportunities to divert individuals at various points in the criminal justice system. d. Leverage the CoCo LEAD+ initiative and monitor and improve the use of Behavioral Health staff in the field . Objective 2: Identify resources to begin substance abuse treatment in jail with a warm handoff to community treatment upon release. a. Identify or generate funds to employ an AOD counselor assigned to the jail to work collaboratively with DEUCE teachers to provide individual or group treatment, identify appropriate post-release treatment options, and provide transportation upon release. b. Develop a process to coordinate pre-release AOD treatment and planning with mental health treatment and planning for individuals with a dual diagnosis. c. Explore available models to implement a solution that use in-custody peer recovery coaches to provide transportation directly from jail to treatment or other programs. d. Provide in-custody Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for individuals with opioid disorders, then establish linkages with MAT resources in the community prior to release to promote continuity of care. Objective 3: Increase the number of detoxification beds available to returning residents. a. Leverage AODS’ ongoing efforts to expand detox availability so that returning residents have sufficient access to detox beds. b. Establish and share criteria/scale for detox bed qualification across all consumer populations, including returning reside nts. c. Include recent criminal justice system involvement in the assessment for detox and treatment bed priority. Objective 4: Improve linkage to behavioral health services for justice-involved individuals who are not on any form of supervision. a. Review the current level of access to Behavioral Healthcare Services. b. Review best practices in access to care for individuals who were formerly incarcerated. c. Assess the need for and accessibility of behavioral health services for returning residents who are not under supervision. d. Conduct improvement projects that address access to care for individuals who were formerly incarcerated . Page 72 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 57 F. Use and Coordination of Data Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Objective 1: Establish a data committee that leads data use, needs, and policy discussions specific to the adult reentry system. a. Determine committee membership, roles and responsibilities, and purview. b. Determine lead agency responsible for scheduling and facilitating regular committee meetings. c. Hold regular committee meetings to review data. Objective 2: Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation plan that identifies the specific measures that ORJ will use t o assess program and system effectiveness. a. Determine outcomes and measures that ORJ will regularly collect to monitor and evaluate the reentry system’s capacity and effectiveness . b. Identify existing data as well as data that is not currently being collected, and work with County agencies and providers to develop plans to collect/track necessary data for evaluation and monitoring. c. Implement technical solutions for identified agencies to submit defined data on a consistent schedule to a secure ORJ data warehouse and define a plan for ORJ quality assurance. d. Determine capacity needed and roles and responsibilities to conduct regular monitoring and evaluation, including regular r ecidivism measurement. Objective 3: Increase County agencies’ and contracted service providers’ access to data needed for decision -making and evaluation within a framework that protects the privacy of personal data. a. Collaborate with County agencies and service providers to identify current and desired data access . b. Employ committee, legal research, and discussions with County Counsel to address personal data, privacy, and information sharing concerns. c. Develop protocols for information sharing to inform decision making (e.g., budget allocation process). d. Sign data sharing agreements among identified agencies. e. Assess data systems capacity and research the ability to link data sources where possible Objective 4: Provide training and technical assistance so that ORJ, County agencies, and contracted providers have sufficient skills for data collection, reporting, and use of data for decision-making. a. Identify current and needed data leads in appropriate agencies. b. Study how partners track and use data to inform decision-making and identify needs for process improvements and/or training needs. c. Provide training and technical assistance on data sharing and data-driven decision-making, including training and technical assistance on the use of SAFE to maximize its utility, and the use of any new or updated data systems. Page 73 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 58 Appendix C. List of Acronyms AB – Assembly Bill ACER – Arraignment Court Early Representation AJCC – America’s Job Center of California/EASTBAY Works AODS – Alcohol and Other Drugs Services, a part of CCHS BHS – Behavioral Healthcare Services, a part of CCHS BOS – Board of Supervisors CAB – Community Advisory Board CAIS – Correctional Assessment Intervention System CAO – County Administrator’s Office CBO – Community-based organization CCCCD – Contra Costa Community College District CCCOE – Contra Costa County Office of Education CCHS – Contra Costa Health Services CCP – Community Corrections Partnership CSEC – Commercially Sexually Exploited Children DA – District Attorney DEUCE – Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluating DJJ – Division of Juvenile Justice EHSD – Employment and Human Services Department H3 – Health, Housing, and Homelessness, a part of CCHS HUD – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development JBJDC – Jail-Based Job Development Center JMS – Jail Management System Page 74 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 59 LEA – Law enforcement agency MDF – Martinez Detention Facility MERP – Misdemeanor Early Representation Program ORJ – Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice PTS – Pretrial Services RDA – Resource Development Associates ROI – Release of Information RTS – Reentry Transition Specialist SAMHSA – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services SLE – Sober Living Environment SSDI/SSI – Social Security Disability Insurance/Supplemental Security Income SUD – Substance Use Disorder TAY – Transition Age Youth VI-SPDAT – Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool VPRAI – Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument WCDF – West County Detention Facility WDB – Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County WRTH – West Contra Costa County Reentry, Treatment, and Housing Facility Page 75 of 370 Contra Costa County Reentry System Strategic Plan for 2018–2023 DRAFT – June 14, 2018 | 60 Appendix D. Local Planning Group Members California State Parole Board: Scott McLeod, Albert Lee Concord Police Department: Chief Guy Swanger Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Services: Fatima Matal Sol Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board: Jason Schwartz Contra Costa County Detention Health: David Seidner Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office: Tom Kensok, Diana Becton, Venus Johnson Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services: Maura Connell Contra Costa County Health Services: Erika Jensson Contra Costa County Health, Housing, and Homeless Services: Lavonna Martin Contra Costa County Mental Health Services: Jan Cobaleda-Kegler Contra Costa County Office of Education, Adult Correctional Education: Lindy Khan Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice: Lara DeLaney, Donté Blue Contra Costa County Office of the Public Defender: Robin Lipetzky and Ellen McDonnell Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff: Undersheriff Matthew Schuler, Captain Kristi Butterfield, Chrystine Robbins Contra Costa County Probation Department: Chief Todd Billecci, Malkia Crowder, Yuri Secoquian Contra Costa Reentry Network for Returning Citizens: Patrice Guillory Reentry Success Center: Nicolas Alexander, John Douglass Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County: Charles Brown III Page 76 of 370 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE - SPECIAL MEETING 5. Meeting Date:06/25/2018   Subject:Racial Justice Task Force Final Report and Recommendations Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Racial Justice Task Force Final Report and Recommendations  Presenter: L. DeLaney & M. Rabinowitz Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: The Public Protection Committee first considered this matter on its agenda in July 2015 in response to an April 2015 letter to the Board of Supervisors from the Racial Justice Coalition. After PPC discussion and direction, staff returned with a comprehensive report to the PPC in September 2015 with data related to race in the local justice system, the County’s Workplace Diversity Training, and information regarding outside diversity and implicit bias trainings. In November 2015 the PPC discussed the data from the September 2015 staff report and how it compared to the County’s 2008 report on Disproportionate Minority Contacts (DMC) in the local juvenile justice system. This led to joint recommendations to the PPC in December 2015 by the Chief Probation Officer, District Attorney, and Public Defender that included: 1. The County convene a Task Force to revisit and expand upon the findings of the County’s 2008 juvenile justice DMC report. 2. The County enter into a contract for a facilitator to help guide the Task Force through this process, and 3. A researcher be paid to help the Task Force collect and analyze data during the process. In April 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted recommendations from the PPC to form a 17-member Task Force and approved the composition in September 2016. Following up the remaining recommendations from above, in September 2016 County Administrator staff worked with the Reentry Coordinator and representatives from the AB 109 Community Advisory Board (CAB), the District Attorney’s Office (Tom Kensok), the Public Defender Robin Lipetzky, and the Racial Justice Coalition (Jeff Landau) to develop and release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure “Facilitation and Data Analyst Services” to help guide the work of the Task Force. The composition of a Review Panel was also selected that consisted of Page 77 of 370 four representatives from the County’s law and justice partners (District Attorney, Probation, Sheriff, and Public Defender) and four representatives of the public that were appointed by the Racial Justice Coalition. Resource Development Associates (RDA) was ultimately awarded a contract by the Board of Supervisors on February 14, 2017 to provide the facilitation and data analysis services to the Racial Justice Task Force. Referral Update: In February 2017, Resource Development Associates (RDA) was hired to provide Task Force facilitation and data analysis services and on April 5, 2017, the RJTF convened for the first time. The RJTF met monthly from April 2017 through June 2018 to review data on local criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes, discuss best practices and emerging practices for addressing racial disparities in those systems and processes, and develop recommendations for action to address those disparities. Two ad hoc subcommittees were also convened to foster community engagement and plan for two series of community forums. In November 2017, the RJTF hosted 5 community forums to solicit residents’ input on priority areas for the Task Force to focus on and in May 2018, the RJTF hosted 3 additional forums to solicit input on preliminary recommendations. On June 6, 2018, the Task Force met for the last time to vote on recommendations to present to the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this memo (Attachment A) is to present those recommendations to the Board and the larger body of local stakeholders in order to move forward their adoptions and implementation. This memo begins with a brief discussion of the considerations taken into account by the RJTF as it developed these recommendations, followed by an overview of the racial disparities in Contra Costa County, and then a presentation of recommendations. Appendices provide more information on the Task Force voting process, including a breakdown of how each RJTF member voted on each recommendation, as well as additional data on disparities in local criminal and juvenile justice systems. Racial Justice Task Force Members: Member Seat Name 1.County Probation Officer Todd Billeci 2.Public Defender Robin Lipetzky 3.District Attorney Tom Kensok 4.Sheriff-Coroner John Lowden 5.Health Services Director Dr. William Walker 6.Superior Court Designee*Magda Lopez 7.County Police Chief’s Association representative Bisa French 8. Mount Diablo Unified School District representative Debra Mason 9.Antioch Unified School District representative Cardenas Shackelford Page 78 of 370 10. West Contra Costa Unified School District representative Marcus Walton 11.CBO seat 1 Stephanie Medley 12.CBO seat 2 Donnell Jones 13.CBO seat 3 Tamisha Torres-Walker 14.CBO seat 4 Leslie Takahashi 15.CBO seat 5 Dennisha Marsh 16.Mental Health representative Christine Gerchow, PhD. 17.Public Member – At Large Harlan Grossman Attachment B is a summary of the final recommendations. Attachment C is a letter from the Racial Justice Coalition, addressed to the Board of Supervisors. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT the report "Racial Justice Task Force--Final Report and Recommendations" and RECOMMEND its consideration and adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): The Board of Supervisors authorized a contract in the amount of $225,650 for the provision of project facilitation and data analysis services with Resource Development Associates, funded entirely by AB 109 Public Safety Realignment revenue allocated to the County Administrator's Office. Attachments Attachment A: Report on Final Recommendations Attachment B: Summary of Recommendation Attachment C: Letter from Racial Justice Coalition Page 79 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 1 Final Report to Board of Supervisors Introduction Overview of Racial Justice Task Force On April 12, 2016 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) unanimously voted to create the Racial Justice Task Force (RJTF), prompted in large part by the activism and advocacy of the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition. Tasked with building on the County’s 2008 report and recommendations, “Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparities in Contra Costa County,” the 17-member body was designed to represent a range of local stakeholders, including County criminal and juvenile justice agencies, County health and behavioral health, community-based organizations, local school districts and law enforcement agencies, and the community at large. In February 2017, Resource Development Associates (RDA) was hired to provide Task Force facilitation and data analysis services and on April 5, 2017, the RJTF convened for the first time. The RJTF met monthly from April 2017 through June 2018 to review data on local criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes, discuss best practices and emerging practices for addressing racial disparities in those systems and processes, and develop recommendations for action to address those disparities. Two ad hoc subcommittees were also convened to foster community engagement and plan for two series of community forums. In November 2017, the RJTF hosted 5 community forums to solicit residents’ input on priority areas for the Task Force to focus on and in May 2018, the RJTF hosted 3 additional forums to solicit input on preliminary recommendations. On June 6, 2018, the Task Force met for the last time to vote on recommendations to present to the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this memo is to present those recommendations to the Board and the larger body of local stakeholders in order to move forward their adoptions and implementation. This memo begins with a brief discussion of the considerations taken into account by the RJTF as it developed these recommendations, followed by an overview of the racial disparities in Contra Costa County, and then a presentation of recommendations. Appendices provide more information on the Task Force voting process, including a breakdown of how each RJTF member voted on each recommendation, as well as additional data on disparities in local criminal and juvenile justice systems. Considerations in RJTF Areas of Focus and Recommendations The criminal and juvenile justice systems are comprised of a wide array of agencies and organizations that have different statutory responsibilities and authority and operate in different jurisdictions (Figure 1). As the RJTF began its work, the group had to grapple with two key considerations related to the scope of the justice system and of the Task Force itself: 1) whether to focus only on agencies and processes under County jurisdiction and authority, and 2) how to prioritize breadth, and make recommendations across Attachment A Page 80 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 2 the justice system, or depth, and make a smaller number of recommendations but with greater specificity and readiness for implementation. In terms of the former, RJTF members quickly agreed that despite the body having been convened to make recommendations for County action, it was impossible to understand disparities in County justice processes without first examining adults’ and youths’ entry into these processes, namely arrests and other issues related to local law enforcement. Therefore, both data and recommendations below are inclusive of criminal justice system agencies that operate within Contra Costa County but do not report to the Board, including local law enforcement agencies and the Superior Court. There are also recommendations for the school districts that operate within the County. Figure 1. Overview of Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Process In addition to taking a more expansive approach in deciding which justice system agencies and processes to include under its purview, the RJTF also agreed to take a broad focus, looking at disparities across criminal and juvenile justice processes and putting forth an extensive set of recommendations to address all of them, rather than a narrower focus on any one process or area of focus. As a consequence, the recommendations made here should be viewed as a starting point as part of a longer implementation process. The Basic Criminal & Juvenile Justice System Process Page 81 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 3 In addition to the two considerations described above, as the RJTF engaged in the process of developing recommendations, one other key decision point regularly emerged for consideration: whether and how much to focus on feasibility—and affordability—in making recommendations to the Board. Ultimately, the majority of RJTF members felt strongly that the task of this body was to review data and make recommendations based on observed disparities; RJTF members did not want the scope of these recommendations to be constrained by “likely” County action, agreeing that if a recommendation was important, the Task Force should make it rather than pre-determining what the County might ultimately implement. Key Findings: Overview of Racial Disparities in Contra Costa County Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems and Processes Obtaining and examining data on racial disparities within the justice system was a critical step in the RJTF’s process and allowed the Task Force to identify key junctures where disparities exist in order to target interventions. A number of data limitations, tied to both data availability and data access, meant that the RJTF was not able to examine all data points of interest, driving a number of recommendations related to data collection and reporting. The lack of available data was a consistent challenge throughout this process, and key challenges included:  Inconsistent data collection across the many local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in Contra Costa County meant that the RJTF was not able to obtain up-to-date, racially specific data about law enforcement processes and practices; different LEA collect different data elements, have different policies and procedures around the dissemination of data collected, and have varying internal capacity for data management and analysis;  Concerns about protecting youth’s confidentiality limited the Court’s willingness to make juvenile delinquency court data available; and  California Judicial Council guidance to the Contra Costa County Court Executive Officer discouraged the Court from sharing individual-level criminal court data. Because of these challenges, the RJTF had limited ability to obtain he type of individual-level data necessary to track racial disparities across different points in the criminal or juvenile justice process and relied largely on aggregate data and/or data available through public data sources. Data were collected from the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Justice Statistics Center (CJSC), the Contra Costa County Probation Department, the Contra Costa County Superior Court, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, and the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition. Because different data are available from different sources at different points in time, these data span from 2013 through 2017. Based on the data that was available, the following findings emerged: Page 82 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 4 Law Enforcement Disparities Finding 1. Higher arrest rates for Black youth and adults across Contra Costa County drive disparities in justice system involvement and outcomes. According to data from the State of California DOJ CJSC, in both 2013 and 2014, Blacks were more likely to be arrested than individuals from any other racial/ethnic group in every city except one in Contra Costa County. While the specific rate of the disparity varied by city the disparity tended to be higher in cities with smaller black populations (see Appendix B for more information). Across the County, Black adults were more than 3 times more likely to be arrested than adults from any other racial/ethnic group, and Black youth were more than 7 times more likely to be arrested than youth from any other racial/ethnic group. Figure 2. Contra Costa County, 2014 Adult Arrests per 1,000 Figure 3. Contra Costa County, 2014 Juvenile Arrests per 1,000 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 SexArrest Rate Black Latino White Other 12 7 2 1111 0111 0000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Violent Property Drug SexArrest RateBlack Latino White Other Page 83 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 5 Finding 2. While this finding is consistent across cities in the County, differences in the offenses with the greatest disparities indicates that different local contexts drive these disparities. Despite the clear and consistent trend in Blacks being arrested more than any other racial/ethnic group, 2013 and 2014 DOJ data that there are notable differences in the rate of this disparity, as well as in the specific offenses for which Black residents are disproportionately arrested. For example, some cities show the greatest rate of disparity for felony offenses, while others show greater disparities for misdemeanors; similarly, some cities show greater disparities for violent offenses, while others show greater disparities for property or drug crime. What these data make clear is that different local patterns and practices drive these disparities. This finding was also supported by qualitative data collection, which showed that the practices related to routing people away from formal criminal or juvenile justice processing—known ask “diversion”—vary greatly across Contra Costa County. Different cities have different approaches to both formal and informal diversion, including different offenses for which they are willing to divert people and differences in whether and to what extent individuals who are arrested may be diverted to local organizations to address underlying issues that may lead to criminal or delinquent behavior and, subsequently, arrests. Juvenile Justice Disparities Finding 3. Black youth in Contra Costa County were much more likely than Latino and White youth to be referred to Probation. Unsurprisingly given the disproportionate rate at which Black you are arrested, data from the Contra Costa County Probation Department indicate that Black youth are more likely to be referred to Probation for possible further delinquency system processing. According to data from the Probation Department, in 2014 and 2015, Black youth were between 9-11 times more likely to be referred to Probation than White youth and 5-6 times more likely to be referred than Latino youth. Latino youth were also approximately twice as likely to be referred to Probation as White youth. As noted above, the RJTF was not able to obtain individual-level data on youth arrests or referrals, so we could not determine whether or not Black youth were more likely to be referred for similar offenses. Finding 4. Black and Latino youth were more likely than White youth to be detained prior to adjudication. Among youth who were referred to the Probation Department, both Black and Latino youth were more likely to be detained in the County’s Juvenile Hall, based on Probation data from 20 14 and 2015. Both Black and Latino youth were 50% more likely to be detained than White youth after being referred to Probation and, because Black youth are already overrepresented in youth who are arrested and referred to Probation, Black youth who live in Contra Costa County are detained in Juvenile Hall at 14-16 times the rate of White youth. Again, data limitations limited the RJTF’s ability to compare the specific circumstances under which different youth were detained. Page 84 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 6 Finding 5. In 2014, Black youth were sent to secure confinement at a higher rate than all o ther races; relative to being a ward of the Court, Hispanic youth were securely confined at a higher rate. Among youth who are adjudicated delinquent, Black and Latino youth are more likely to receive a disposition that involved secure confinement, including either the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (“the Ranch”) or the California Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). According to Probation data from 2014 and 2015, Black youth were 50% to 200% more likely to be sent to secure conferment and Lat ino youth were 80% to 300% more likely than Whites; because of the cumulative disparities across the juvenile justice system, Black youth in Contra Costa County are confined 16-14 times often as White youth. Criminal Justice Disparities Finding 6. In 2014 and 2015, a greater proportion of cases with Latino or Black defendants had charge enhancements than cases with White defendants. Sentencing enhancements are additional charges within the California Penal Code that allow for additional prison time if an underlying fact or condition is met. There are two kinds of enhancements that can increase the penalties for individuals who are convicted of a criminal offense, “charge enhancements” and “person enhancements.” Charge enhancements can occur when something about the way a crime is committed make the offense eligible for a more serious sentence that it would usually be, for example if someone is convicted of possessing or distributing drugs in a “drug free zone,” around a school or other designated area. Data from the Contra Costa County Superior Court for 2015 and 2016 show that a greater proportion of Black and Latino defendants have charge enhancements, meaning that they are likely receiving more serious penalties for comparable offenses as White defendants. Finding 7. In 2014 and 2015, a greater proportion of Black defendants had person enhancements than either Latino or White defendants. An individual can also be eligible for a more serious sentence if he or she has a prior criminal history via “person enhancements,” such as three strikes laws and other “habitual offender” laws. Data from the Contra Costa County Superior Court for 2015 and 2016 show that a greater proportion of Black defendants have person enhancements than White defendants, meaning that they are likely receiving more serious penalties for comparable offenses as White defendants. Although the data available to the RJTF did not allow us to compare the outcomes of defendants of different race/ethnicity with the same charges, this 17% 23%22% 28%28%31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014 2015 Figure 4. Black and Latino defendants are more likely to have charge enhancements than Whites White Black Latino Page 85 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 7 pattern is nonetheless important in light of a growing body of research showing that both kinds of enhancements are a major driver of disparities in imprisonment.i In particular, research has shown that Blacks are more likely to live in “drug free zones,” increasing the likelihood that they will be eligible for place-based enhancements; in addition, higher overall context with law enforcement and the criminal justice system has cumulative effects whereby Black defendants are more impacted by habitual offender laws. ii iii Finding 8. From 2015 to 2017, Black adults in Contra Costa County were more likely than Latino or White adults to be detained pre-trial. Data from the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office showed that in 2016 and 2017, Black and Latino defendants were disproportionately likely to be detained pretrial than White defendants. The reasons for this included both court decisions related to bail and release as well as defendants’ ability to pay bail and obtain release. Given the cumulative disparities across criminal justice processes, Black residents of Contra Costa County are held in pretrial detention at almost 7 times the rate of White residents; Latino residents are held in pretrial detention at 2.5 times the rate of Whites. Finding 9. Changes to County jury selection processes have increased disparities in who services on juries in Contra Costa County. Starting in 2011, Contra Costa County Superior Court made changes to the jury selection process and misdemeanor trial locations. Whereas previously, jurors for misdemeanor trials had been selected regionally to serve on trials in East, West and Central county regions, so that the jury pool was representative of the region in which an alleged crime occurred, beginning in 2011, the Court centralized the trials to occur at the Martinez Courthouse and began selecting jurors from a countywide pool. In tandem, these processes appear to have resulted in juries that are more White and less representative of the overall County population. 516 564 404 532 341 381 144 134 100 92 78 102 432 530 372 397 284 309 438 679 175 267 304 474 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Detention Non-detention- Bail Non-detention- OR Non-detention- Letter to appear 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 Figure 5. Black defendants are most likely to be detained pretrial White Black Latino Page 86 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 8 Recommendations Oversight and Accountability While the Contra Costa County RJTF has made critical progress in developing a broad set of recommendations for addressing racial disparities in the County’s criminal and juvenile justice systems, there is much work to be done to implement these recommendations and assess their efficacy. Moreover, it is critical to the RJTF that this be done transparently and with ongoing input from a diverse array of stakeholders. 1) The Racial Justice Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Task Force, as specified by the Board of Supervisors. The RJOB would meet on a quarterly basis and report to the Board on an annual basis. The RJOB shall be made up of the following members: 1. A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member 2. The Sheriff or his designee 3. The Chief Probation Officer or his designee 4. The Public Defender or her designee 5. The District Attorney or her designee 6. A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs’ Association 7. A representative from the Contra Costa County Board of Education 8. A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services 9. Eight community-based representatives, that include at a minimum: a. Two members of the Racial Justice Coalition, b. Two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement, c. Three representatives from community-based organizations that work with individuals in the justice system, including at least one person who works directly with youth d. One representative from a faith-based organization Any individual may meet more than one of these qualifications. The RJTF further recommends that the work of this body be staffed by the County Office of Reentry and Justice, and that funds for facilitation be allocated through an RFP process. 1) a. The RJOB should or a subcommittee thereof should review local criminal and juvenile justice data in order to identify and report on racial disparities. This will include a review of use-of-force data, as available from the California Department of Justice’s Open Justice data. Page 87 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 9 Diversion Diversion is a broad umbrella term that refers to the process of diverting individuals from formal criminal or delinquent processes following an encounter with law enforcement. Informal diversion may include the decision by a law enforcement officer not to arrest someone from criminal or delinquent behavior or, after arresting someone, choosing not to refer the person onto the District Attorney or Probation Department. Formal diversion generally involves linking individuals to services, supports, and opportunities that can help them address underlying issues that may lead to criminal or delinquent behavior. By helping people avoid formal justice system processing, diversion can be a critical vehicle for reducing racial disparities in the justice system. iv v While diversion programs and practices redirect contact with the justice system, local jurisdictions must be aware that racial disparities can exist in this decision point and further exacerbate racial disparities if decision-making is not carefully monitored. In addition, because Blacks are so much more likely to have contact with the justice system and are often charged with more serious offenses than individuals from other racial/ethnic groups, diversion efforts that exclude people with prior justice system contact and/or are only limited to the most minor offenses often exacerbate racial disparities. Effective diversion programs are targeted, collaborative, and data driven. Diversion is currently implemented inconsistently across Contra Costa County. May local law enforcement agencies have their own diversion approaches and programs, but neither diversionary offenses nor diversion programs/processes are standardized across the county. At the County level, the District Attorney’s Office has some limited diversion programs, such as the Bad Check Diversion Restitution program, and the Probation Department informally diverts youth whose offense are not determined appropriate for formal processing. 2) With the goal of reducing racial disparities in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, form a committee to recommend countywide criteria and protocols for formal and informal diversion. The recommendations shall be evidence-based and follow established best practices. In considering what criteria and protocols to recommend, the committee shall 1. Develop separate recommendations for adult and juvenile populations. 2. Strive to ensure the broadest possible pool of eligible participants. 3. Strive to ensure that prior criminal justice involvement does not bar a person’s eligibility for diversion. 4. Ensure that the inability to pay for the costs of diversion will not prohibit participation. 5. Recommend, as appropriate, partnerships between law enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to provide diversion services and oversight. This committee may be a subgroup of the Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) and will report to the RJOB. Page 88 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 10 3) Expand the use of crisis intervention teams, mobile crisis teams, and behavioral health assessment teams so they are available across the County. 4) Local law enforcement agencies shall issue citations and establish non-enforcement diversion programs as an alternative to arrests. Data Thorough data collection and use are essential to monitoring and tracking whether agencies are producing equitable outcomes across race and ethnicity, and efforts to address bias and disproportionate minority contact throughout justice systems are succeeding. Data collection, analysis and reporting disaggregated by race, ethnicity, geography and offense will give stakeholders visibility on efficacy and implementation fidelity of interventions, where disparities persist, whether progress to reduce disparities is being made, and whether the strategies are properly implemented. Ultimately, data driven processes increase transparency and legitimacy to broader stakeholders about the initiatives to reduce disparities in the county. Although County criminal justice system agencies and local law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County generally collect data about individual contact with different criminal or juvenile justice systems, there has been no systematic countywide effort to standardize what data are collected, define how race is identified and tracked across different systems, or agree on reporting processes. In addition, although the County has used AB 109 funds to invest in client data management systems for several public agencies, these agencies tend to lack to the capacity to extract and analyze these data on a regular basis. 5) All Contra Costa County justice partners and local law enforcement agencies shall collect individual-level data on all individual encounters with criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes. In so doing, they should consult best practices to balance data needs with confidentiality regulations. a. Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) should publish race-specific data (diversion, arrest, and outcomes on calls for service) online to create greater transparency and accountability of the County justice partners and LEAs. b. All Contra Costa County justice partners and local law enforcement agencies should improve capacity for data collection and analysis including expanding staff with data analysis capabilities. i. Probation Department, in partnership with County justice partners should assess tools regularly to ensure a decrease in racial disparities. c. Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) should support analysis of interventions implemented through the RJTF to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities. Page 89 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 11 County Support for Local Agencies As Figure 1. Overview of Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Process on page 2 makes clear, county-level criminal and juvenile justice agencies are fundamentally connected to and impacted by the policies and practices of non-county agencies. In particular, city-level law enforcement practices necessarily determine who ends up in County-level justice system agencies. In addition, school district approaches to school discipline have a direct relationship with whether or not youth are referred to county juvenile justice systems. Thus, while the RJTF was convened by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to make recommendations for County processes, the following recommendations are based on addressing the inherent interconnectedness of County and more local processes. 6) The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds that support the integration of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations. a. The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds to implement improved procedural justice practices and implicit bias training. i. Identify funding for procedural justice training utilizing the train the trainer model. ii. Work with the Chief’s Association to create a forum to share information and strengthen promising practices around procedural justice and implicit bias trainings. 7) In addition, local enforcement agencies in CCC should: i. Ensure inclusion of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations ii. Provide procedural justice and implicit bias training to all staff 8) The County Office of Education shall provide resources to incentivize school districts to explore, evaluate, implement or expand existing non-punitive discipline practices, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions Support (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ) practices. i. Identify funding for continuous 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. 9) The County Office of Education shall work with school districts to provide behavioral health services such as counseling, peer support, and early intervention services for youth presenting signs of emotional, mental, and/or behavioral distress. Community Engagement and Services Collaboration and structured partnerships with the community is essential. The justice system needs to recognize community based organizations and faith-based organizations as legitimate partners in Page 90 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 12 reducing disparities. The community brings urgency, insight and creative solutions that can acutely reduce disparities and bring about a lasting change especially around reintegration and serving as alternatives to justice involvement. Reentry programming in Contra Costa County is provided regionally using AB 109 funding, with the Reentry Success Center serving West County and HealthRIGHT360 delivering services under the Central- East Network of Services, also known as The Network. The Reentry Success Center provides services to individuals and families impacted by incarceration, helping to plan critical next steps after contact with police or courts. In addition, AB 109 funding supports a range of services and supports for any individual with a history of justice system involvement. The County is also in the process of revising its reentry strategic plan through a community -engagement and planning process. 10) County justice partners shall establish formal partnerships with community-based organizations to provide greater capacity for i. diversion, ii. reentry programs, iii. alternatives to detention iv. pretrial services v. in custody programming All community-based organizations receiving funding from the County shall be evaluated for efficacy and effectiveness of program goals and objectives to ensure populations are appropriately served. Community input shall be an integral part of this process. 11) Establish a community capacity fund to build the capacity of community-based organizations – especially those staffed by formerly incarcerated individuals – to contract with the County and provide services to reentry clients. 12) The County and/or oversight body shall collaborate with the Community Corrections Partnership- Executive Committee (CCP-EC) to consider increasing realignment funding for community services. Practices Related to Trial and Adjudication Processes There are a number of practices that agencies involved in the adjudication process – courts, prosecution, and defense – can implement to reduce racial disparities in the justice system. For the Court, using a jury pool that is as representative as possible to the local population increases the likelihood that individuals are judged by a jury of their peers. District Attorney’s Offices wield a great deal of power through their ability to decide whether and how to charge an individual with a criminal offense, as well as whether to request money bail or a release on recognizance. Public Defenders Offices, as the public agency Page 91 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 13 advocating for the rights of individuals accused of crimes, are uniquely situated to support defendants, not only through vigorous defense but also by providing other services aimed at both addressing underlying issues that may be associated with justice system involvement, such as behavioral health issues, as well as by providing legal services to help people address some of the collateral consequences of criminal justice contact, such as immigration or child welfare issues. Contra Costa County uses a master jury list created by combining a list of all registered voters as well as persons who have a valid driver’s license or identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Contra Costa County employs a One Day/One Trial system, were vi Under this system, individuals are typically assigned to jury selection after one day at the courthouse, and then their service is complete for at least 12 months.vii Individuals are selected from a countywide pool. The District Attorney’s Office does not currently have any official policies regarding the use of sentence enhancements or bail requests.1 The Public Defender’s Office currently employs several social workers, funded through AB 109, who work with clients to support both legal advocacy and linkage to services to address psychosocial needs. 13) Encourage the Superior Court to return to the process of jury selection whereby jurors are called to service to their local branch court for misdemeanor trials. 14) The Public Defender’s Office shall hire social workers who can assess clients’ psychosocial needs and link them to services. 15) The Public Defender’s Office, either directly or through partnerships with community-based organizations, should offer civil legal representation to clients. For youth, this should focus on educational advocacy. Confinement Indiscriminate use of confinement increases racial and ethnic disparity. Disparities in confinement can be reduced when successful and robust strategies are implemented at the front end of the justice system. Strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in confinement address policies and practices that affect discipline, conditions of confinement, and facilitate smooth reintegration into the community. Contra Costa County has placed emphasis on developing formalized partnerships between the Office of the Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff’s Department, and the District Attorney’s Office in order to decrease the pretrial in-custody population. Through this collaboration, the County has developed the cross-departmental Pretrial Services (PTS) and Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program. PTS provides judges with greater information by using a modified version of the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI). ACER ensures the presence of attorneys at defendants’ initial court 1 The RJTF considered but did not ultimately support a recommendation to limit the use of sentence enhancements. Page 92 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 14 appearances and is intended to increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released on their own recognizance (OR) for the duration of the court process and allow for the expedited resolution of cases. Contra Costa County also worked with RDA to develop a pre-release planning pilot program plan, and has recently implemented a pre-release planning pilot program in the County. Finally, the County’s Custody Alternative Facility allows individuals who are low risk to public safety to be released from custody and supervised by deputies from the Sheriff’s Office. 16) Expand eligibility for pre-trial services and increase pre-trial services staffing, with a focus on reducing racial disparities and replacing the money bail system. 17) Expand the current pre-release pilot to serve all individuals in custody. 18) Establish an independent grievance process for individuals in custody in the County adult detention facilities to report concerns related to conditions of confinement based on gender, race, religion, and national origin. This process shall not operate via the Sheriff’s Office or require any review by Sheriff’s Office staff. 19) Establish an independent monitoring body to oversee conditions of confinement in County adult detention facilities based on gender, race, religion, and national origin and report back to the Board of Supervisors. Other 20) All County staff shall participate in and complete implicit bias training. Next Steps The RJTF has made important progress in reducing racial disparities in Contra Costa County justice systems and there are a number of next steps that will be essential for carrying this work forward. The first recommendations provided here – the creation of a Racial Justice Oversight Body – will be an essential vehicle for taking these steps, and establishing the RJOB is an important next step. Once this Body has been established, staffed, and membership recruited, there are several steps necessary to ensure its progress and efficacy: 1. Prioritization of recommendations: the RJTF intentionally choose to take a broad view of its charge and developed a lengthy set of recommendations across justice systems and processes. Further action will now require greater focus on a smaller set of recommendations in order to delineate and then implement the concrete steps necessary for implementation. Toward this end, the County and/or RJOB must prioritize those recommendations of greatest interest, in particular identifying those that will be addressed in the upcoming fiscal year versus those that will be addressed in subsequent years. Page 93 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | 15 2. Establish subcommittees: For each recommendation selected for immediate action, the RJOB should convene a subcommittee of RJOB members who bring expertise in and commitment to addressing that issue or topic area. These subcommittees should include public agency and community member representation and be small enough to do concrete implementation planning. 3. Develop workplans: Each subcommittee must develop a workplan that delineates core steps for implementing the recommendation(s) that it is working on, including timelines and roles and responsibilities. This will require identifying the individuals and organizations that have influence and authority over changes to policy and practice and establishing processes for engagement them in next steps. i Nazgol Ghandnoosh. “Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequity In The Criminal Justice System,” The Sentencing Project. 2015. ii Ibid. iii John MacDonald and Steven Raphael. “An Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Case Dispositions and Sentencing Outcomes for Criminal Cases Presented to and Processed by the Office of the San Francisco District Attorney.” (2017). iv Ryan C. Wagoner, Carol A. Schubert, and Edward P. Mulvey, “Probation Intensity, Self -Reported Offending, and Psychopathy in Juveniles on Probation for Serious Offenses,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 43, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): 191–200. v Youth.Gov: Points of Intervention. (2017). Retrieved December 15, 2017 f rom https://youth.gov/youth- topics/juvenile-justice/points-intervention vi http://www.cc-courts.org/jury/general.aspx vii http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jurysys.pdf Page 94 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | i Appendix A: Detailed Summary of Votes When the RJTF began meeting, members established a series of working agreements that were designed to ensure that all perspectives were valued and that dissenting views were given due consideration. Toward that end, the Task Force agreed to a voting process whereby members could choose one of three options in responding to recommendations: 1. support, 2. do not support, and 3. oppose. If four or more RJTF members—or one-quarter—of the voting RJTF members oppose any action or recommendation, the Task Force agreed that it would not pass. Task Force members could also abstain from any vote. Oversight and Accountability 1) The Racial Justice Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Task Force, as specified by the Board of Supervisors. The RJOB would meet on a quarterly basis and report to the Board on an annual basis. The RJOB shall be made up of the following members: 1. A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member 2. The Sheriff or his designee 3. The Chief Probation Officer or his designee 4. The Public Defender or her designee 5. The District Attorney or her designee 6. A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs’ Assn. 7. A representative from the Contra Costa County Board of Education 8. A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services 9. Eight community-based representatives, that include at a minimum: a. Two members of the Racial Justice Coalition, b. Two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement, c. Three representatives from community-based organizations that work with individuals in the justice system, including at least one person who works directly with youth d. One representative from a faith-based organization Any individual may meet more than one of these qualifications. The RJTF further recommends that the work of this body be staffed by the County Office of Reentry and Justice, and that funds for facilitation be allocated through an RFP process. 1 The RJTF spent several meetings discussing and refining these recommendations. Through this process, some recommendations were combined or rearranged; as a result, there are some times gaps in numbering. Page 95 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | ii Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed The RJOB should or a subcommittee thereof should review local criminal and juvenile justice data in order to identify and report on racial disparities. This will include a review of use-of-force data, as available from the California Department of Justice’s Open Justice data. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed Diversion With the goal of reducing racial disparities in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, form a committee to recommend countywide criteria and protocols for formal and informal diversion. The recommendations shall be evidence-based and follow established best practices. In considering what criteria and protocols to recommend, the committee shall 1. Develop separate recommendations for adult and juvenile populations. 2. Strive to ensure the broadest possible pool of eligible participants. 3. Strive to ensure that prior criminal justice involvement does not bar a person’s eligibility for diversion. 4. Ensure that the inability to pay for the costs of diversion will not be a bar to eligibility or participation. Page 96 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | iii Recommend, as appropriate, partnerships between law enforcement agencies and community based organizations to provide diversion services and oversight. This committee may be a subgroup of the Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) and will report to the RJOB. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain John Lowden, Cardenas Shackelford 2 Result: Passed County criminal and juvenile justice agencies and the Police Chief’s Association shall establish criteria for informal and formal diversion, with a focus on those offenses with greatest racial disparity. Toward that end, the County shall identify the offenses for which Black and Latinos are most disproportionately arrested, charged, and convicted and use those as a starting point for diversion efforts. Vote by Members* Vote Members Total Support 0 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 * Members did not vote as Revised Recommendation #2 passed Result: Failed Criteria for diversion shall include non-violent felony level crimes such as burglary. Vote by Members* Vote Members Total Support 0 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 * Members did not vote as Revised Recommendation #2 passed Page 97 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | iv Result: Failed Criteria for diversion shall allow individuals with prior justice system involvement to be diverted. Vote by Members* Vote Members Total Support 0 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 * Members did not vote as Revised Recommendation #2 passed Result: Failed Local enforcement agencies shall establish formal partnerships with community based organizations to provide diversion programs & services for youth and adults. Inability to pay shall not prohibit participation in diversion programs. Vote by Members* Vote Members Total Support 0 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 * Members did not vote as Revised Recommendation #2 passed Result: Failed County justice partners shall establish formal partnerships with community based organizations to provide diversion programs & services for youth and adults. Inability to pay shall not prohibit participation in diversion programs. Vote by Members* Vote Members Total Support 0 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 * Members did not vote as Revised Recommendation #2 passed Page 98 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | v Result: Failed Expand the use of crisis intervention teams, mobile crisis teams, and system-wide behavioral health assessment teams so they are available across the County. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed Local law enforcement agencies shall issue citations and establish non-enforcement diversion as an alternative to arrests. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 13 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Harlan Grossman 1 Result: Passed Page 99 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | vi Data All Contra Costa County criminal justice agencies and local law enforcement agencies shall collect individual-level data on all individual encounters with criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes. In so doing, they shall consult best practices to balance data needs with confidentiality concerns. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 13 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Todd Billeci 1 Result: Passed Office of Reentry and Justice shall publish race-specific data on all of the above online to create greater transparency and accountability of the County criminal justice agencies and local enforcement agencies. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Discussion: Todd Billeci shared there may be court-involved issues attaining juvenile data Result: Passed Page 100 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | vii All Contra Costa County criminal justice agencies and local law enforcement agencies shall improve capacity for data collection and analysis including expanding staff with data analysis capabilities. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 11 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French, Todd Billeci, John Lowden, 3 Discussion: Bisa French shared concern about the fiscal impact of this recommendation. Todd Billeci shared he does not like the word “shall” in this recommendation. Venus Johnson shared she whole heartedly believes system change is driven through data and policy however, the Board does not have the authority to make this happen. She stated all agencies should be working independently towards better data collection and analysis to drive policy change. . John Lowden shared he will abstain in interest of other agencies. Harlan Grossman shared he is unsure who has the authority to do this. Result: Passed Office of Reentry and Justice shall support analysis of interventions implemented through the RJTF to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed Page 101 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | viii County Support for Local Agencies The County shall provide resources to ensure integration of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Marcus Walton, Tamisha Walker 3 Do Not Support Leslie Takahashi, Stephanie Medley 2 Oppose Todd Billeci, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Robin Lipetzky 8 Abstain Debra Mason 1 Discussion: Leslie Takahashi shared while she understands the Board may not have the jurisdiction to do this, it is important to identify the resources needed to make this recommendation happen. Result: Failed The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds that support the integration of de- escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed The County shall provide resources to incentivize local enforcement agencies to implement improved procedural justice practices and implicit bias training. i. Identify funding for procedural justice training utilizing the train the trainer model ii. Work with the Chief’s Association to create a forum to share information and strengthen promising practices around procedural justice and implicit bias trainings. Page 102 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | ix Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed In addition, local enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County shall: i. Ensure inclusion of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations ii. Provide procedural justice and implicit bias training to all staff Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed The County Office of Education shall provide resources to incentivize school districts to explore, evaluate, implement or expand existing non-punitive discipline practices, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions Support (PBIS) and Restorative Justice practices. i. Identify funding for continuous 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. Page 103 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | x Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Todd Billeci, Venus Johnson 2 Result: Passed The County Office of Education shall work with school districts to provide supportive behavioral health services such as counseling, peer support, and early intervention services for youth presenting signs of emotional, mental, and/or behavioral distress. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 13 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Todd Billeci 1 Result: Passed In their review and approval of Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and supplemental funding, the County Office of Education shall prioritize the following, as far as legally possible. a. Exploring and identifying programs that focus on faculty and staff trainings and their interactions with students. Such programs shall support developing strategies that address behavior issues to achieve positive outcomes such as My Teacher Partner Program (MTP). b. Requiring school districts to create partnerships with culturally specific organizations to routinely train faculty and staff on the issues facing communities of color. Page 104 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xi Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, , William Walker, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 7 Do Not Support Marcus Walton, Cardenas Shackelford, Harlan Grossman 3 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Venus Johnson, John Lowden 4 Result: Failed Community Engagement and Services County criminal justice agencies shall establish formal partnerships with community-based organizations to provide greater capacity for i. diversion, ii. reentry programs, iii. alternatives to detention iv. pretrial services v. in custody programming All community-based organizations receiving funding from the County shall be evaluated for efficacy and effectiveness of program goals and objectives to ensure populations are appropriately served. Community input shall be an integral part of this process. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed Establish a community capacity fund to build the capacity of community-based organizations – especially those staffed by formerly incarcerated individuals – to provide services to reentry clients. Page 105 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xii Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, , Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 13 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Tamisha Walker 1 Result: Passed The County and/or oversight body shall collaborate with the Community Corrections Partnership- Executive Committee (CCP-EC) to consider increasing realignment funding for community services. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support Todd Billeci 1 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French 1 Result: Passed Practices Related to Trial and Adjudication Processes Encourage the Superior Court to return to the process of jury selection whereby jurors are called to service to their local branch court for misdemeanor trials. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 14 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Result: Passed Page 106 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xiii Encourage the Superior Court to assign felony jury trials to the branch courts having jurisdiction over the location where the alleged offense occurred. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Robin Lipetzky 5 Do Not Support John Lowden, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason 4 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French, Todd Billeci, , Marcus Walton, William Walker, 5 Result: Failed Establish circumstances where DA won’t seek sentence enhancements. As a starting point, the DA’s Office shall not seek enhancements for any offenses in which defendants are eligible for Prop 47 relief. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, William Walker, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 7 Do Not Support John Lowden 1 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Venus Johnson, Marcus Walton, Cardenas Shackelford, Harlan Grossman 6 Discussion: Venus Johnson shared there is a caveat to this recommendation. She shared there are currently cases going through the justice system where the courts are deciding if Prop 47 applies to certain offense that may not have been specifically listed in the ballot initiative. . Depending on the results of those cases, charging decisions will be impacted. Venus shared she does not disagree with the recommendation, but due to the way it is written and the stance of the legal system, she will abstain. Result: Failed Page 107 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xiv Public Defender’s Office shall hire social workers who can assess clients’ psychosocial needs and link them to services. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Todd Billeci, John Lowden 2 Result: Passed The Public Defender’s Office, either directly or through partnerships with community-based organizations, shall offer civil legal representation to clients. For youth, this shall focus on educational advocacy Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 10 Do Not Support 0 Oppose Harlan Grossman 1 Abstain Todd Billeci, Venus Johnson, John Lowden 3 Discussion: Tamisha Walker shared the County does not currently provide enough funding for the Public Defender’s Office so she will support it. Stephanie Medley shared similar sentiments as Tamisha and shared the recommendation as it is written does not attach any resources to it or identifies any Result: Passed Page 108 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xv Confinement Expand eligibility for pre-trial services and increase pre-trial services staffing, with a focus on reducing racial disparities and replacing the money bail system. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 13 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Bisa French 1 Result: Passed Expand the current pre-release pilot to serve all individuals in custody. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, , Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support John Lowden, Debra Mason 2 Oppose 0 Abstain 0 Discussion: Todd Billeci clarified this recommendation pertains to a pre-release program not pre-trial Result: Passed Establish an independent grievance process for individual in custody on the County adult detention facilities to report concerns related to conditions of confinement based on gender, race, religion, and national origin. This process shall not operate via the Sheriff’s Office or require any review by Sheriff’s Office staff. Page 109 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xvi Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, , Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Robin Lipetzky 10 Do Not Support Todd Billeci, Debra Mason 2 Oppose John Lowden 1 Abstain Bisa French 1 Discussion: Debra Mason shared she does not support the recommendation if it requires the elimination of the Sherriff’s current process. She shared she believes there should be an additional step to process any complains if one is not satisfied with the Sherriff’s process. Result: Passed Establish an independent monitoring body to oversee conditions of confinement in County adult detention facilities based on gender, race, religion, and national origin and report back to the Board of Supervisors. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Leslie Takahashi, Venus Johnson, , Marcus Walton, William Walker, , Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 11 Do Not Support 0 Oppose Todd Billeci, John Lowden 2 Abstain Cardenas Shackelford 1 Discussion: Todd Billeci shared that even though he opposes this recommendation, he appreciates the engagement and involvement of the community throughout this process. Result: Passed Page 110 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xvii Added Recommendation All County staff shall participate and complete implicit bias training. Vote by Members Vote Members Total Support Bisa French, Venus Johnson, John Lowden, Marcus Walton, William Walker, Cardenas Shackelford, Tamisha Walker, Stephanie Medley, Harlan Grossman, Dennisha Marsh, Debra Mason, Robin Lipetzky 12 Do Not Support 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Todd Billeci, Leslie Takahashi 2 Discussion: Todd shared that he will abstain because he has heard that recent studies indicate that implicit bias training may cause more harm than good. Result: Passed Page 111 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xviii Appendix B: Data reviewed by RJTF This appendix includes a summary of all quantitative data obtained and reviewed by the RJTF. As noted in the project Findings above, data were obtained from a variety of sources, including the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ), the Contra Costa County Probation Department, the Contra Costa County Superior Court, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, and the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition. Because different data are available from different sources at different points in time, these data span from 2013 through 2017. Local Law Enforcement Data All data provided below are from the State of California DOJ Criminal Justice Statistics Center (CJSC). Data are from 2014, unless otherwise indicated. Figure 1. Contra Costa County, Adult Arrests per 1,000 Figure . Illustrates countywide arrest trends among Black, Latino, 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. 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 SexArrest Rate Black Latino White Other Page 112 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xix 6% 12% 51% 31% Total Population: 24, 136 Black Hispanic White Other 80 177 14 40 3 86 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Felony MisdemeanorArrest Rate Figure 2. Contra Costa County, Juvenile Arrests per 1,000 Figure 2. illustrates countywide arrest trends among Black, Latino, 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. 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 4. El Cerrito Adult Arrest Rates per 1,000 Figure 3. represents a breakdown of El Cerrito’s total population, which is relatively a small population. Of El Cerrito’s total population, 6% are black. Figure 4. shows that Black individuals are approximately 13 times as likely as White individuals to be arrested for a felony and approximately 11 times more likely to be arrested for a misdemeanor. 12 7 2 1111 0111 0000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Violent Property Drug SexArrest RateBlack Latino White Other Page 113 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xx Figure 5. Richmond City Population Figure 6. Richmond Adult Arrests Rate per 1,000 Figure 5. represents a breakdown of Richmond’s total population, which is a much larger city with a larger black population (23%) than El Cerrito. While the racial disparities are not as great as those in El Cerrito or smaller cities, disparities remain. As seen in Figure 6, Black adults are approximately 4.5 times as likely as White adults to be arrested for a felony and approximately 4 times as likely to be arrested for a misdemeanor. While these graphs are city specific data, they are examples of a larger trend across most cities in Contra Costa County. Figure 7. City of El Cerrito, Adults Arrest Rates per 1,000 As Figure 7. illustrates, disparities are greatest for property offenses in El Cerrito where Black adults are approximately 18 times as likely as White adults to be arrested for a property offense. 23% 41% 17% 19% Total Population: 106,469 Black Latino White Other 37 2011 102 38 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Felony MisdemeanorArrest Rate26 72 33 13 14 7 0244 0221 0 0 20 40 60 80 Violent Property Drug SexArrest RateBlack Latino White Other Page 114 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxi Figure 8. City of Antioch, Adult Arrest Rates per 1,000 As seen in Figure 8., disparities are greatest for violent offenses in Antioch where Black adults are 4 times more likely than White adults to be arrested for a violent offense compared to only 1.5 times more likely to be arrested for a property or drug offense respectively. Figure 9. Contra Costa County, Felony Arrest Rates per 1,000 Figure 9. illustrates countywide data in which 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. 24 14 14 1689 0 0 20 40 60 80 Violent Property Drug SexArrest Rate Black Latino White Other 50 1114 2 11 14 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Adult JuvenileArrest RateBlack Latino White Other Page 115 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxii Figure 10. Contra Costa County, Misdemeanor Arrest Rates per 1,000 Figure 10. illustrates countywide data in which 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. Figure 11. City of Richmond, Juvenile Arrest Rates per 1,000 As seen in Figure 11, disparities are greatest for violent offenses in Richmond where Black youth are 7 times more likely to be arrested for a violent offense than White or Latino youth. 39 1916 3 13 36 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Adult JuvenileArrest RateBlack Latino White Other 7 2 0 1111 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Violent Property Drug SexArrest RateBlack Latino Other White Page 116 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxiii Figure 12. City of Pittsburg, Juvenile Arrest Rates per 1,000 As seen in Figure 12, disparities are greatest for property offenses in Pittsburg where Black youth are 3 times more likely to be arrested for a property offense than White or Latino youth. None of the following law enforcement agencies collect race-specific data on diversion practices:  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. 4 3 1 0 2 1 1 00 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Violent Property Drug SexArrest Rate Black Latino Other White Page 117 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxiv 9.7 6.2 88.5 68.4 14.7 13.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 2013 2014 9x 11x White Black Latino Juvenile Justice Data All data provided below are from the Contra Costa County Probation Department. Data are from 2013 and 2014. Figure 13. Rated of Referral to Probation per 1,000 Figure 14. Referrals to Probation RRI, youth, by Race by Race Figure and Figure 13. Rated of Referral to Probation per 1,000 Figure 14. Referrals to Probation RRI, illustrate overall, in 2013 and 2014, Black youth were 9 times more likely than White youth and 6 times more likely than Latino youth to be referred to Probation. 1.0 1.0 9.1 11.1 1.5 2.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2013 2014 2.3 1.3 32.8 21.0 5.4 4.2 0 10 20 30 40 2013 2014 14x 16x 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.51.5 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Latino Figure 15. Pre-Adjudication Detention Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race Figure 16. Pre-Adjudication Detention RRI, by Race Page 118 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxv As seen in Figure and Figure 16, of all youth referred to Probation, Black and Latino youth are 50% more likely than White youth to be detained prior to adjudication. Figures 17 and 18 show that 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. 5.2 3.3 56.9 36.2 9.6 7.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2013 2014 10x 10x 1.0 1.01.2 1.01.2 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Latino 4.3 2.5 44.5 26.0 8.5 5.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 2013 2014 11x 11x 1.0 1.01.0 0.91.1 1.1 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Latino Figure 17. Pre-Adjudication Detention RRI, by Race Figure 18. Pre-Adjudication Detention Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race Figure 19. Rates of Petitions Filed per 1,000 youth by Race Figure 20. Petitions Filed RRI, by Race Page 119 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxvi White Black Latino 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. As Figures 21 and 22 illustrate, 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. 0.7 0.2 10.5 6.0 2.3 1.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2013 2014 16x 24x 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.8 3.0 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 White Black Latino Figure 23. Placement Rates per 1,000 Youth, by Race Figure 24. Placement RRI, by Race Figure 21. Ward of the Court Rates per 1,000 by Race 3.3 2.0 32.4 18.7 6.1 4.1 0 10 20 30 40 2013 2014 10x 9x 1.0 1.01.0 0.90.9 0.9 0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 Figure 22. Ward of the Court RRI, by Race Page 120 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxvii Among all youth who were made a ward of the court, Latino 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. Page 121 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxviii 11 50 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Felony White Black Latino 13 39 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Misdemeanor Criminal Justice Data Data provided below are from the California DOJ CSJC, Contra Costa County Superior Court, and Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office. Data are from 2014-2017. Specific data sources and dates are provided below. As Figure 25 illustrates, Black adults were three times more likely to be arrested for a misdemeanor compare to Whites. Similarly, Figure 26 shows Black adults were four times more likely to be arrested for a felony than White adults. White Black Latino 20.4 19.8 108.8 111.7 34.3 35.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2016 2017 5.3x 5.6x 50.1 48.8 146.0 140.6 76.2 74.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2016 2017 2.9x 2.8x *Data from Contra Costa County Criminal Court *Data from across all cities in Contra Costa County from California DOJ CSJC Figure 28. Felony Case Filing Rates, by Race* 3x 5x Figure 25. Misdemeanor Arrest Rates, by Race* Figure 26. Felony Arrest Rates, by Race* Figure 27. Misdemeanor Case Filing Rates, by Race* Page 122 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxix 516 564 404 532 341 381 144 134 100 92 78 102 432 530 372 397 284 309 438 679 175 267 304 474 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Detention Non-detention- Bail Non-detention- OR Non-detention- Letter to appear 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 White Black Latino Figure 27 shows how in both 2016 and 2017, Black adults were approximately three times more likely to have a misdemeanor case filing than their White counterparts. Similarly, as shown in Figure 28, Black adults were more than five times more likely to have a felony case filing than White adults. As Figure 29 illustrates, in 2015, Black adults were approximately 7 times more likely to be detained pre- trial than White adults. Figure 30 shows in both 2016 and 2017, Black adults were more likely to be detained as compared to White adults who have higher rates of non-detention OR and letter to appear. Black adults are also significantly less likely to be given a letter to appear than both White and Latino adults. 10.1 69.8 25.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2015 6.9x Figure 29. Pre-Trial Detention Rates, by Race* Figure 30. Pre-Trial Detention versus Non-Detention, by Race* *Data is a snapshot of detained population on 7/9/2015 Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office *Data from Contra Costa County Criminal Court Page 123 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxx 17% 23%22% 28%28%31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014 2015 46%42% 52%50% 35%37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014 2015 White Black Latino Figure 31 shows in both 2014 and 2015, Latino adults had the highest proportion of cases with charge enhancements. Figure 32 shows both in 2014 and 2015, Black adults had the highest proportion of cases with person enhancements, followed by White adults. 14.8 15.4 79.0 85.5 25.3 27.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2016 2017 5.3x 5.5x 54.6 52.7 168.8 164.4 83.8 81.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2016 2017 3.1x 3.1x White Black Latino Figure 31. Proportion of Cases with Charge Enhancements, by Race* Figure 32. Proportion of Cases with Person Enhancements, by Race* Figure 33. Misdemeanor Conviction Rates, by Race* Figure 34. Felony Conviction Rates, by Race* *Data from Contra Costa County Criminal Court *Data from the Public Defender’s Office Page 124 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxxi Figure 33 shows Black adults were three times more likely to have a misdemeanor conviction than White adults. Figure 34 shows Black adults were more than five times as likely to get a felony conviction than White adults in 2016 and 2017. Page 125 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxxii Appendix C. Community Forums The Racial Justice Task Force hosted two rounds of community forums throughout Contra Costa County. The goal of each community forum was to engage community members with the project and gather community input and feedback on the projects’ areas of focus and set of draft recommendations. The first round of community forums took place in November and consisted of five community forums in the cities of Concord, Danville, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Antioch. The focus of the first round of community forums was to share the purpose of the Racial Justice Task Force and share work to date. Community members also had the opportunity to provide input towards the project’s areas of focus. Table 1. Attendees per Location Location Number of Public Attendees Concord 32 Danville 35 Pittsburg 34 Richmond 28 Antioch 25 The Racial Justice Coalition, District Attorney, Board of Supervisors, School Board, Teachers, Public Defender, faith-based organizations, and Local Law Enforcement were some of the stakeholders in attendance. Figure 35. November Community Forums Key Themes Impact of Historical Trauma •Lack of cultural competence/ awareness in schools and justice system agencies •Restorative justice •Need for increased mental health services Implicit & Explicit Bias •Need for cultural responsive implicit bias training for all justice stakeholders School to Prison Pipeline •Role of schools pushing youth of color into the justice system •Youth development Mistrust of Law Enforcement •Sherriff's Office's relationship to ICE County Processes •Expand and standardize diversion programs, policies, and procedures. •Standardize data collection across the county •Reform bail cash system Page 126 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations June 2018 | xxxiii Following the first round of community forums, the Racial Justice Task Force analyzed community input and integrated feedback into areas of focus. After a series of discussions of best practices, current practices, and analysis of racial disparities in the county, the Racial Justice Task Force drafted a set of preliminary recommendations for the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the second round of community forums was to share the set of preliminary set of recommendations and solicit feedback for any revisions, additions, or removals of drafted recommendations. Table 2. Attendees per Location Location Number of Public Attendees Walnut Creek 59 Antioch 24 Richmond 28 The Racial Justice Coalition, District Attorney, Board of Supervisors, School Board, Teachers, Public Defender, Behavioral Health, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, Local Law Enforcement, and residents were some of the stakeholders in attendance. Figure 36. May Community Forums Key Themes Highest Priorities •Expand diversion and criteria •Establish sliding scale fees/ fee waivers for pre-trial and diversion programs •Develop data collection and accountability measures •Establish oversight committee for implementation process that includes community members •Ensure recommendation planning process includes community input Key Concerns •Avaialble funding and budget prioritization for recommendations •Misuse of publically avaialble data •Buy-in from implementin partners such as education •Language accessibility for programs/ services Gaps •Use of force policies and police engaged violence •Police disclosure and monitoring of police misconduct •Body cameras for law enforcement •Recruitment and retention of school staff that are reflective of communities they serve •Community centered services that prevent any contact with the justice system •Staffing and racial disparities in various policing agencies Page 127 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Recommendations June 2018 | 1 Recommendations Oversight and Accountability 1) The Racial Justice Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Task Force, as specified by the Board of Supervisors. The RJOB would meet on a quarterly basis and report to the Board on an annual basis. The RJOB shall be made up of the following members: 1. A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member 2. The Sheriff or his designee 3. The Chief Probation Officer or his designee 4. The Public Defender or her designee 5. The District Attorney or her designee 6. A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs’ Assn. 7. A representative from the Contra Costa County Board of Education 8. A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services 9. Eight community-based representatives, that include at a minimum: a. Two members of the Racial Justice Coalition, b. Two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement, c. Three representatives from community-based organizations that work with individuals in the justice system, including at least one person who works directly with youth d. One representative from a faith-based organization Any individual may meet more than one of these qualifications. The RJTF further recommends that the work of this body be staffed by the County Office of Reentry and Justice, and that funds for facilitation be allocated through an RFP process. 1) a. The RJOB should or a subcommittee thereof should review local criminal and juvenile justice data in order to identify and report on racial disparities. This will include a review of use-of-force data, as available from the California Department of Justice’s Open Justice data. Diversion 2) With the goal of reducing racial disparities in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, form a committee to recommend countywide criteria and protocols for formal and informal diversion. The recommendations shall be evidence-based and follow established best practices. In considering what criteria and protocols to recommend, the committee shall 1. Develop separate recommendations for adult and juvenile populations. Attachment B Page 128 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Recommendations June 2018 | 2 2. Strive to ensure the broadest possible pool of eligible participants. 3. Strive to ensure that prior criminal justice involvement does not bar a person’s eligibility for diversion. 4. Ensure that the inability to pay for the costs of diversion will not prohibit participation. 5. Recommend, as appropriate, partnerships between law enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to provide diversion services and oversight. This committee may be a subgroup of the Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) and will report to the RJOB. 3) Expand the use of crisis intervention teams, mobile crisis teams, and behavioral health assessment teams so they are available across the County. 4) Local law enforcement agencies shall issue citations and establish non-enforcement diversion programs as an alternative to arrests. Data 5) All Contra Costa County justice partners and local law enforcement agencies shall collect individual-level data on all individual encounters with criminal and juvenile justice systems and processes. In so doing, they should consult best practices to balance data needs with confidentiality regulations. a. Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) should publish race-specific data (diversion, arrest, and outcomes on calls for service) online to create greater transparency and accountability of the County justice partners and LEAs. b. All Contra Costa County justice partners and local law enforcement agencies should improve capacity for data collection and analysis including expanding staff with data analysis capabilities. i. Probation Department, in partnership with County justice partners should assess tools regularly to ensure a decrease in racial disparities. c. Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) should support analysis of interventions implemented through the RJTF to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities. County Support for Local Agencies 6) The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds that support the integration of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations. a. The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds to implement improved procedural justice practices and implicit bias training. i. Identify funding for procedural justice training utilizing the train the trainer model. Attachment B Page 129 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Recommendations June 2018 | 3 ii. Work with the Chief’s Association to create a forum to share information and strengthen promising practices around procedural justice and implicit bias trainings. 7) In addition, local enforcement agencies in CCC should: i. Ensure inclusion of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations ii. Provide procedural justice and implicit bias training to all staff 8) The County Office of Education shall provide resources to incentivize school districts to explore, evaluate, implement or expand existing non-punitive discipline practices, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions Support (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ) practices. i. Identify funding for continuous 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. 9) The County Office of Education shall work with school districts to provide behavioral health services such as counseling, peer support, and early intervention services for youth presenting signs of emotional, mental, and/or behavioral distress. Community Engagement and Services 10) County justice partners shall establish formal partnerships with community-based organizations to provide greater capacity for i. diversion, ii. reentry programs, iii. alternatives to detention iv. pretrial services v. in custody programming All community-based organizations receiving funding from the County shall be evaluated for efficacy and effectiveness of program goals and objectives to ensure populations are appropriately served. Community input shall be an integral part of this process. 11) Establish a community capacity fund to build the capacity of community-based organizations – especially those staffed by formerly incarcerated individuals – to contract with the County and provide services to reentry clients. 12) The County and/or oversight body shall collaborate with the Community Corrections Partnership- Executive Committee (CCP-EC) to consider increasing realignment funding for community services. Practices Related to Trial and Adjudication Processes 13) Encourage the Superior Court to return to the process of jury selection whereby jurors are called to service to their local branch court for misdemeanor trials. Attachment B Page 130 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force – Final Recommendations June 2018 | 4 14) The Public Defender’s Office shall hire social workers who can assess clients’ psychosocial needs and link them to services. 15) The Public Defender’s Office, either directly or through partnerships with community-based organizations, should offer civil legal representation to clients. For youth, this should focus on educational advocacy. Confinement 16) Expand eligibility for pre-trial services and increase pre-trial services staffing, with a focus on reducing racial disparities and replacing the money bail system. 17) Expand the current pre-release pilot to serve all individuals in custody. 18) Establish an independent grievance process for individuals in custody in the County adult detention facilities to report concerns related to conditions of confinement based on gender, race, religion, and national origin. This process shall not operate via the Sheriff’s Office or require any review by Sheriff’s Office staff. 19) Establish an independent monitoring body to oversee conditions of confinement in County adult detention facilities based on gender, race, religion, and national origin and report back to the Board of Supervisors. Other 20) All County staff shall participate in and complete implicit bias training. Attachment B Page 131 of 370 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition cccrjcinfo@gmail.com June 19, 2018 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Dear Chair Mitchoff, Vice-Chair Gioia, and Supervisors Anderson, Burgis, and Glover, The Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition has been deeply involved with the work of the County’s Racial Justice Task Force. We are glad that the Task Force is now ready to report its recommendations for reducing racial disparities in our criminal and juvenile justice systems. We ask you to accept them in full although we know that, even when you do, there will still be a great deal of work to be done. Our primary concern is that, although the first mandate you gave the Task Force in April, 2016 (“Research and identify consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system” ) has now – to some extent – been completed, two crucial mandates remain in order to achieve any substantive change. These are:  to plan and oversee implementation of the measures once identified; and  to report back to the Board of Supervisors on progress made toward reducing racial disparities within the criminal justice system. Therefore, we ask you to create without delay all that’s needed to implement, oversee, and report back on these recommendations. One of the most important recommendations put forth by the Task Force includes the creation of a Racial Justice Oversight Body with strong community representation. The Racial Justice Coalition strongly supports this recommendation and stands ready to nominate representatives to serve on this body to provide oversight and reporting. Overall, the Coalition believes the Task Force’s recommendations are good, though extremely broad in their current form. The recommendations will mean little without the necessary allocation of personnel responsible for turning them into specific policies and practices, along with the skilled facilitation and dedicated funding to make that happen. The data on racial disparities in our criminal and juvenile justice systems included in the Task Force’s report remains as disturbing as the data that led you to create the Task Force two years ago. We expect you to take decisive action to create and fund the next steps needed to help reduce these disparities and achieve a higher level of justice for all County residents. Respectfully, The Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition Attachment C Page 132 of 370 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE - SPECIAL MEETING 6. Meeting Date:06/25/2018   Subject:REFERRAL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: REFERRAL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, 5-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, 5-1036 Referral History: On February 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Committee a review of the production of the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The plan is due to the state on May 1 of each year, as a condition of Contra Costa’s annual funding through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG). For Contra Costa County, this amounts to over $8 million in annual funding specifically for juvenile justice activities.  Subsequent to the referral, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) met on March 6, 2018 to discussed the revised, consolidated Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The JJCC is staffed by the Probation Department and is composed of the following individuals in CY 2018:  Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, (Current BOS Chair rotates annually)1. Karen Moghtader, Public Defender’s Office2. Dan Cabral, District Attorney’s Office3. Brian Vanderlind, Office of the Sheriff4. Lynn Mackey, Contra Costa Office of Education5. Eric Ghisletta, Martinez Police Department6. Shirley Lorenz, Juvenile Justice-Delinquency Prevention Commission7. Dan Batiuchok, Behavior Health-Health Services Department8. Kathy Marsh, Employment and Human Services Department - Children and Family Services9. Mickie Marchetti, REACH Project10. Ruth Barajas-Cardona, Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)11. Fatima Matal Sol, County Alcohol and Other Drugs Director12. A copy of the Plan, which was presented to and approved by the JJCC in March 2018 is attached to this staff report for reference. Page 133 of 370 Referral Update: At the April 2018 meeting of the Public Protection Committee, staff was directed to return at a future meeting date with information regarding the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) and the Delinquency Prevention Commission (DPC). This information will allow the Committee to better assess a path forward for potential changes, mergers or consolidation of juvenile justice oversight by multiple advisory committees. Below is a summary of the JJC and the DPC: Juvenile Justice Commission: The Juvenile Justice Commission is a state body created by statute and is in effect part of the Superior Court. (Welf. & Inst., § 229.). The charge of JJCs is, among other things, to inspect detention facilities or group homes in counties where a minor has been held in custody. In addition, a JJC may hold hearings from time-to-time and compel the attendance of individuals to testify at such hearings. The JJC is not subject to the Brown Act, but rather the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code, § 11120 et. seq.) and falls within an exemption to that Act specifically for courts. (Gov. Code, § 11121.1 (a).) The exemption allows for the Court to choose not to post agendas or otherwise meet publicly.  Delinquency Prevention Commission: The board of supervisors in each county has statutory authority to create and appoint members to a Delinquency Prevention Commission. The charge of a DPC is to coordinate on a countywide basis activities of governmental and non-governmental entities related to juvenile delinquency prevention. In lieu of appointing all members, a county board may designate the JJC (the State body described above) to also serve as the DPC. In Contra Costa County, the Board has chosen to designate members of the Court's JJC as the County's DPC by ordinance. The DPC is a local body implemented in this County by an ordinance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 233. Ord. Code, Ch. 26-6, “Delinquency Prevention Commission.”) Thus, it is a legislative body for purposes of the Brown Act. (Gov. Code, § 54952 (a), (b).) DPC meetings must be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. CONSIDERATIONS: The County has two advisory bodies that are charged with similar duties. Specifically, the duties of the Delinquency Prevention Commission must also be assumed in parallel by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council while deliberating and developing the annual multi-agency juvenile justice plan. For this reason, staff recommends that the Committee consider recommending to the full Board of Supervisors: 1. Dissolution of the Delinquency Prevention Commission, including full repeal of County Ordinance Code, Ch. 26-6, “Delinquency Prevention Commission" to effectuate the repeal; and 2. Direct the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to assume the duties of coordinating juvenile delinquency prevention initiatives through the annual multi-agency juvenile justice planning process. Page 134 of 370 This would ensure that delinquency prevention activities are evaluated in tandem with other juvenile justice initiatives from a policy and funding perspective. Additionally, this would avoid confusing the duties of the Juvenile Justice Commission and the Delinquency Prevention Commission, which currently share the same membership, but have different open meeting requirements and report to separate governmental entities (i.e. one to the County and one to the State via the local Superior Court). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT a report on juvenile justice advisory bodies within the County; and  2. PROVIDE direction to staff. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact. Attachments Board of Supervisors' Referral JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Plan 2018 Page 135 of 370 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee consideration of producing a Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Multi-Agency Plan is Contra Costa’s sole opportunity to produce a robust and well-informed justice plan for our county’s children. It is due to the state on May 1, as a condition of Contra Costa’s annual funding through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). For more the a decade, Contra Costa has made minimal changes in its plan. This state-mandated annual multi-agency plan provides singular opportunities for truly meaningful progress to support young people (including, for example, systemic issues related to immigrant youth, disabled youth, cross-over youth, children of incarcerated parents, school push-out, and racial justice). It is recommended that the item be referred to the Public Protection Committee. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/13/2018 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: Timothy Ewell (925) 335-1036 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 13, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant County Administrator C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:February 13, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:REFER to the Public Protection Committee Page 136 of 370 Page 137 of 370 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act & Youthful Offender Block Grant (JJCPA-YOBG) Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Contact: Lesha Roth Assistant Chief Probation Officer Lesha.Roth@prob.cccounty.us 925-313-4149 Page 138 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 2 CONTENTS Part I: Countywide Service Needs, Priorities and Strategy Page Assessment of existing services 3 Identifying and prioritizing focus area 6 Juvenile Justice action strategy 7 Part II: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Page Information sharing and data 9 JJCPA Funded Programs, strategies and/or system enhancements 9 Part III: Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Page Strategy for non-707(b) offenders 11 Regional agreements 12 Funded programs, placements, services, strategies and or systems enhancements 12 Page 139 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 3 Part I: Countywide Service Needs, Priorities and Strategy Assessment of Existing Services: Contra Costa County offers a wide variety of resources to at risk and justice system involved youth and their families within the community. These resources are provided by city, county and state agencies as well as community based organizations. Law Enforcement: Contra Costa County is unique in that the county is comprised of 22 distinct law enforcement agencies which include city police, county sheriff, the District Attorney and the Probation Department. Early intervention and prevention services such as education, parenting, counseling, treatment and restorative justice are provided through diversion in some jurisdictions. Examples of diversion programs are: The Reach project in Antioch, RYSE in Richmond, and Community Court is utilized in the cities of Pittsburg, Concord, and San Ramon. The Contra Costa County Probation Department offers opportunities for informal supervision, Deferred Entry of Justice in collaboration with the court, and service referrals to youth and their families prior to entry into the justice system as well as youth who are new to the justice system. In addition to early interventions the Probation Department offers a continuum of supervision and treatment services for youth who have become justice system involved. Youth and Family Service Agencies: Services are offered to youth and their families by both county agencies and community based organizations.  The Children and Family Services Department (CFS) in Contra Costa County offers programs that include services such as Family Finding, Family Maintenance, Family Preservation, Family Reunification and Safe and Stable Families. Foster care is provided to justice involved youth collaboratively with the Probation Department. Youth in foster care also become eligible for Extended Foster Care services (AB-12) after their 18 th birthday and into young adulthood. For youth who are aged out or unable to return home to their families, CFS provides an Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP). ILSP works with youth to develop life skills, money management, preparation for college applications, and housing, cooking and other skills necessary to succeed after leaving the foster care system.  The John F. Kennedy University Community Center provides mental health services for parent issues and child-parent conflicts, school related problems, abuse and trauma, and anxiety and depression.  Community Violence Solutions (CVS) is part of the County wide Commercially Exploited Youth (CSEY) steering committee and provides services for children and adults who are victims of sexual abuse, including evaluation and therapy. CVS provides CSEY counseling within the Juvenile Hall.  The Reach Project provides counseling, age appropriate support and peer groups, teen and adult drug and alcohol treatment, and supports parents and grandparents. Page 140 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 4  The Center for Human development offers mediation for families in conflict as well as a spectrum of services for at-risk youth. Services are provided in the school and in the community.  The Counseling Options Parent Education (C.O.P.E) program offers parenting classes and counseling services.  Community Options for Families and Youth (COFY) offers therapeutic behavioral services, educational mental health management, trauma therapy, parent education, Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). COFY partners with the County Mental Health Department and the Probation Department to offer FFT though the MIOCR grant.  Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of the East Bay offer mentoring services for youth through the age of 18 or graduation from High School.  The Contra Costa County Youth Continuum of Services (Heath Services) offers emergency shelter, meals, showers, laundry facilities, mail service, health care, transitional and permanent housing, case management, counseling, family reunification, employment assistance, peer support groups, substance abuse education, links to substance abuse and mental health treatment, school enrollment and transportation assistance. The Youth Continuum currently partners with the Probation Department to provide a bed at Pomona Street for a homeless youth and also will provide a bed for a DJJ returnee in the future.  The RYSE Youth Center offers Richmond and West county youth ages 13-24 assistance with education and justice, community health programming (case management, counseling, Restorative Pathways Project), youth organizing and leadership through the Richmond Youth Organizing team, as well as providing access to media, arts, and culture. The RYSE Center also offers workforce development and job attainment supports.  Community Works West provides Family Services and Restorative Community Conferences.  The West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau offers coordinated services to youth and families that include Wraparound, kinship support for relative care givers, family preservation support and youth development.  Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) provides assistance to youth, adults and families in need. Services include: After school programs, workforce and education programs, alcohol and other drug programs, national service through AmeriCorps, tobacco cessation classes and education, counseling and mental health services, and school based counseling.  One Day at a Time provides direct mentoring at the elementary, middle school and high school levels, artistic outlets, educational and recreational field trips, community service opportunities, home visits, and youth employment referrals.  Rubicon programs serve youth and their families by removing barriers to help teach financial literacy including credit repair and household budgeting, help in finding immediate employment, as well as on the job training and internships. Rubicon also Page 141 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 5 provides adult education and literacy, wellness, community connections and restorative circles.  Boys and Girls Clubs of Contra Costa County offer programs in sports and recreation, education, the arts, health and wellness, career development, and character and leadership.  The Rainbow Community Center focuses on serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning community. The center offers a youth advocacy collaborative, LBGT and friends NA meetings, mixed AA meetings, counseling services, HIV testing, a transgender group, men’s HIV support group, a discussion group on gender identity, and youth programs.  The Congress of Neutrals (VORP) Victim Offender Reconciliation program applies restorative justice techniques to juveniles without prior records. VORP receives referrals from the Probation Department as part of the intake/informal process in an effort to divert them from the juvenile justice system.  Community Health for Asian Americans (CHAA) provides programs in behavioral health, community engagement, youth leadership, music programs, and early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment for substance abuse in collaboration with mental health. Health, Mental Health, and Substance Use Disorder Programs : Contra Costa County Health Services acts as the overall umbrella agency for Health, Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Programs.  Health services include, but are not limited to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, dental clinics, the Teenage Program (T.A.P), Head Start, specialized services for children with disabilities, public health clinics, and the Child Health and Disability Prevention program.  Mental Health Services include but are not limited to: a 24 hour hotline for crisis and suicide, a 24 hour behavioral health access line for mental health services, clinic services for youth and their families, Wraparound services, evidence based practices provided through programs such as Functional Family Therapy, Multi- Systemic Therapy and Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy, Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Mobile Response Team.  Alcohol and other Drug Services include a youth crisis line, Behavioral Health Access Line for screening and referrals to substance use disorder prevention and treatment, Alateen and 12 step meetings, and minimal outpatient and residential treatment programs. Prevention services are also offered in collaboration with community based organizations. Education Partners and Programs: The Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) delivers education and services to more than 176,000 students in Contra Costa County. CCCOE offers afterschool education and safety programs, bullying prevention, services for expelled students, a coordinating council that provides active coordination local school districts and the Page 142 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 6 CCCOE, English learner support, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics education (STEAM). CCCOE also provides adult correctional education, career technical education, court and community schools, and special education and youth development services. Youth Development Services specifically include the following programs: Education for Homeless Children and Youth, Foster Youth Services, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity program. Additionally, CCCOE offers the following services to justice system involved youth: Job Tech classes for post disposition students, school staff participate in Bridge/Multidisciplinary Referral Team (MRT)meetings, Transition and Assessment specialists meet with students to complete Independent Learning Plans, Tutors provide intervention, Data Technicians and Principals review credits earned and the graduation plan of each student, students are screened for AB 167 eligibility, Special Education teachers provide transition planning, community college liaisons provide workshops regarding financial aid and conduct orientations, and students are given continuous positive feedback about their behavior and receive Behavior Intervention Plans (BIP) to address needs. Contra Costa County facilitates the dissemination of information regarding services that are available through “211 Contra Costa” and through a published “Surviving Parenthood” resource directory that is prepared by the Child Abuse Prevention Council. Many of the services listed above are referenced in the 211 database which contains social service and health information available 24 hours per day, seven days per week just by calling “211” from any phone. In addition to the telephone, information regarding services can be accessed through a website. As indicted on the list above, Contra Costa County offers a variety of services to youth and families county-wide; however, improvements can be made to increase the ability of youth and families to navigate and access the resources available. Collaboration of services is a challenge that the Probation Department would like to address in the next year. Approaches to collaboration include an increase in the use of multi- disciplinary team meetings, as well as Child and Family team meetings, and transitional meetings for re-entry youth. The Probation Department will work towards building stronger relationships with local law enforcement diversion programs, community based organizations and our county agency partners to insure that appropriate and effective services are provided. Identifying and Prioritizing Focus Areas: The Probation Department and county agencies provide core services and supervision for youth and families that are already justice involved. Improvements can be made on the front and back end of the local justice system, as well as by increasing the very limited Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment services. Most recently, the west (Richmond) and central (Concord/ Martinez) areas of the county have experienced loss of outpatient SUD services for youth. It is the hope that by addressing the insufficient outpatient and intensive outpatient SUD treatment options as well as enhancing diversion and re-entry/aftercare services many youth will not Page 143 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 7 enter the system at all and of those who do, juvenile recidivism and later entry into the adult system will be significantly reduced. According to the Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS) the five Contra Costa County Law Enforcement Jurisdictions with the most referrals to the Probation Department over the last several years include Antioch, Concord, Richmond, Brentwood, and Sheriff’s Office/Martinez. However, it should be noted that referrals from these agencies significantly reduced in 2017. Overall referrals from all of the agencies have decreased from almost 800 in 2016 to roughly 500 in 2017. In order to continue the trend of decreased referrals, diversion, re-entry services, and SUD treatment have been identified as priority moving forward. The Probation Department utilizes JJCPA funds to work collaboratively with the schools and police departments, and as such, infusion of Probation services in the areas of the community with the most need has and continues to be a primary focus. Juvenile Justice Action Strategy: The Contra Costa County Probation Department offers a continuum of services to at risk and justice involved youth and their families. Services have varying levels of intensity ranging from informal probation to commitment to a custodial treatment program. Most juvenile services include referrals to county agencies and community based organizations as treatment needs are identified through the Department’s use of evidence based risk/needs assessment tools, the OYAS (Ohio Youth Assessment System) and the JAIS (Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System). The Probation Department is currently developing a Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) to allow for more equitable, objective, and informed intake decision making at the Juvenile Hall. Current Probation services include:  Referral/citation closed at intake, no action taken.  Referral to resources and referral/citation closed at intake.  Referral to a diversion program or placement on non-court involved Informal Probation for six months.  Filing of a petition with the Juvenile Court and working with the court and the family to recommend a disposition if the petition is sustained.  Maintaining a youth in custody at the Juvenile Hall pending court. While the youth is housed at the Juvenile Hall services such as medical, dental, mental health care, recreational activities, education, and evidence based programming are offered.  Home supervision with the aid of electronic monitoring that allows the youth to remain in the community and receive services pre and post disposition. Page 144 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 8  Community Supervision post disposition that includes Deputy Probation officers in schools, at police departments, and providing community supervision based on geographic location.  Non-wardship supervision for youth determined to be dependents per W&I 300.  Juvenile Placement (foster care) and re-entry supervision.  Non-Minor Dependent services and supervision post placement (AB-12).  Commitment to the Girls in Motion rehabilitative program in the Juvenile Hall and re- entry supervision.  Commitment to the Orin Allen Youth Ranch Rehabilitation Facility for boys and re-entry supervision.  Commitment to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program for boys at the Juvenile Hall and re-entry supervision.  Re-entry supervision for youth who have completed their commitment to the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The Probation Department is providing services primarily to youth who have entered into the justice system. A priority moving forward and a recommendation of the Contra County Racial Justice Task Force is to develop new and enhanced diversion services. Although juvenile detention and probation supervision populations continue to be on the decline, more work needs to be done to continue this trend by providing non-justice system evidence based interventions and services to youth and their families. The Probation Department will work with other justice partners to increase the capacity of city and county agencies, as well as community based organizations to deliver early intervention diversion services, re-entry services to youth who are returning to the community from custodial programs, and outpatient SUD treatment. Probation will work with CBOs and other justice partners to offer the following: Diversion services: 1) An evaluation of current services and how they can be enhanced 2) Delivery of best practice and evidence based programs that include restorative justice, intensive family therapy and services 3) Development of a methodology for tracking and reporting outcomes Re-entry/after care services: 1) Staffing of re-entry specialists that will: a. Actively participate in transitional or “bridge” meetings in the custodial programs between Probation, School, Mental Health, families, youth and other necessary providers. b. Serve as education advocates to insure youth are properly enrolled in their school district and receive all services due to them. c. Provide services to all three areas of the county and during non- traditional working hours. Page 145 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 9 d. Provide services to families in their homes e. Help youth and families navigate and receive the county wide services to include housing and health. f. Work collaboratively with the Probation Department 2) A coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Treatment. Combining SUD and Probation resources to: 1) Create outpatient and intensive outpatient programs in Central and West County that may include collaboration with existing community based organizations and local schools. a. If needed the Probation Department may provide training to our partners on the use of Cognitive- Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (CBI-SA) In addition to enhancing diversion services at the point of entry into the system, and SUD treatment, the Probation Department will prioritize working with community based organizations to build upon the concept of the re-entry network established by the Youth Justice Initiative which included re-entry case management, systems navigation, and bridge meetings narrowing the gap between custody and community release. Part II: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) was created to provide a stable funding source for local juvenile justice programs aimed at curbing criminal delinquency among at risk youth. Information sharing and data: Contra Costa County Probation and Courts operate on a “main frame” computer case management system. Information is shared from the mainframe in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 827.12 and with authorization from the court. Aggregate data is provided to the Department of Justice Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System. The Probation Department currently utilizes in house Access databases and Excel spreadsheets to collect data and evaluate programs. A comprehensive case management system is currently in development and it is anticipated to be fully functional in FY2019/2020. JJCPA Funded Programs, Strategy, and/or System Enhancements: FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY (FFT) The FFT program is offered to youth who are transitioning back into the community after a custodial commitment. FFT is a resource that will enhance the ability for Deputy Probation Officers to insure that the transitioning youth will receive the necessary services to successfully reintegrate into their community. Page 146 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 10 Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an empirically-grounded, strengths and family based intervention program for youth. FFT is an evidence based practice known to be effective for treating youth with conduct disorder and delinquency (Henggler and Sheidow, 2012, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy). The goal of FFT is to improve family communication through engagement, motivation, relational assessment, behavior change and generalization. This intervention program that can be conducted in the home is facilitated by a clinician during 12- 14 intensive sessions over three to five months. FFT is an essential resource that the Probation and Mental Health Department offers to youth who often find the transition from a detention setting back into their home challenging. FFT was funded previously by the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCR) which sunsets in June of 2018. Recognized as one of the most effective programs currently offered, collaboration was agreed upon between Health Services- Mental Health and the Probation Department to continue to fund FFT utilizing Med-Cal, Mental Health funds and JJCPA funds. DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS Contra Costa County Probation utilizes JJCPA funds to staff Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) at public high schools within several communities in the county. This collaboration between Probation and local schools employs a variety of preventative strategies designed to keep youth from entering or re-entering the juvenile justice system. DPOs provide supervision for youth on informal probation or who have been adjudged wards who attend their assigned school and provide referrals for supportive community resources to the youth and their families. DPOs are trained to facilitate evidence based practice programs, utilize risk assessments to identify criminogenic needs, develop case plans, complete court reports, provide services to victims and participate in collaborative operations and projects. School specific services are also made available by the DPOs that include the facilitation of conflict resolution to teach the youth to use non-violent communication strategies. They also participate in the School Attendance Review Board (SARB) which assists the schools in preventing truancy. General assistance is provided that includes reaching out to youth who present as high risk, but have not yet had contact with law enforcement. Many of the youth who present as high risk have been suspended on numerous occasions and exhibit behavioral issues in the classroom. It is the goal of the School DPO to facilitate early interventions which divert youth from the system using appropriate behavior modification techniques and targeted community provider referrals. Page 147 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 11 School age youth who have been in custody or foster care placement and are returning to the community receive assistance from the High School DPOs with their re-enrollment back into school. The DPO meets with the family to identify any needs that they may have and develop strategies to ensure their successful reintegration. COMMUNITY PROBATION Contra Costa County currently utilizes JJCPA funds to provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) to community police agencies throughout the county that focus on high risk youth and at risk chronic youthful offenders. Similar to the DPOs in High Schools program, DPOs assigned to police agencies provide supervision and referrals for youth and their families, are trained to facilitate EBP programs and conduct risk assessments, develop case plans, complete reports for the court, provide services to victims, and participate in collaborative operations and projects. DPOs in police agencies work on the front end at the time of arrest or citation and are a valuable resource for an arresting officer when determining if a youth should receive diversion services, informal probation services, or formal probation interventions. The DPOs communicate with victims, schools, parents and the youth to inform the best course of action to address at risk behaviors. The vetting process provided by the DPO to the police agency is a preventative tool to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system whenever possible. ORIN ALLEN YOUTH REHABILITATION FACILITY DEPUTIES JJCPA funds are utilized to pay for Deputy Probation Officers to provide aftercare and re-entry services to male youth who have successfully completed a commitment at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF). The OAYRF is an open setting ranch/camp facility that houses youth whose risk and needs indicate that placement in such a setting would aid in their rehabilitation. The OAYRF provides services for youth who have committed less serious offenses than the youth committed to the Juvenile Hall residential program, YOTP. OAYRF DPOs allow for continuity of care as young men reintegrate into the community. The DPOs begin supervision during the custodial phase of the program and continue to provide service during transition and after release. Similar to other Contra County treatment program re-entry models, case plans are developed with the youth and their family or support system that identify resources that continue to target the criminogenic needs identified earlier in the youth's program. DPOs also insure that basic needs such as housing, food, ongoing education, and employment services are met. Youth that complete the OAYRF program are connected to Page 148 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 12 county providers such as mental health and substance use disorder services to increase their opportunities for success. Part III: Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Youthful Offender Block Grant funds are used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol services, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders. Strategy for Non 707 (b) Offenders: The Contra Costa County Probation Department delivers services to justice system involved youth utilizing a continuum of proactive responses that include the use of evidence based risk assessment tools and varying levels of supervision, out of home placements and custodial rehabilitative programs. Case plans are developed and recommendations are formulated for the court that takes into account prevention and intervention strategies which focus on criminogenic needs and community safety. Youthful offenders who are not eligible for a commitment to DJJ that may have been committed in the past are now provided an opportunity to remain locally in the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. While in the program rehabilitative services are provided to empower the youth to have a positive outcome upon release. Regional Agreements: The Probation Department and County Health Services/Mental Health have an ongoing contract which utilizes YOBG funds to provide a full time mental health clinician for the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. YOBG Funded Programs, Placements, Services, Strategies and/or System Enhancements: GIRLS IN MOTION (GIM) The Girls in Motion program (GIM) is a residential program housed in the Juvenile Hall in which staffing is partially supported with YOBG funds. GIM provides a safe and structured environment in which adolescent females can achieve positive change and personal growth. As they move through a phase system, that normally requires a five to six month commitment; the youth benefit from individualized treatment plans, individual counseling, and evidence based group programming focused on strengthening pro-social values/attitudes and restructuring anti-social behaviors. Probation staff have received gender specific training and lead many of the girl’s groups. Counseling is also provided by mental health therapists as well as community based organizations that offer specialized services for youth on the topics of trauma, relationship development, anger management/conflict resolution and substance abuse. Treatment is also provided for youth who have been identified as a victim of commercial sexual exploitation and abuse. Specific programming includes, but is not limited to, Aggression Page 149 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 13 Replacement Training (ART), Thinking For a Change (T4C), Girl's Circle, Job Tech/Life Skills, AA/NA, Alateen, Cognitive Behavior Intervention Substance Abuse (CBI-SA), and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). In 2016, the GIM treatment dosage was enhanced with the introduction of the CBI-SA and Advanced Practice treatment programs. The GIM youth also received enhanced services through a Multi-Disciplinary team consisting of Mental Health, Education, Medical and Probation staff. The team worked collaboratively on difficult cases and created individualized behavioral intervention plans for severely aggressive and violent youth. Enhancements and increased collaboration with our county partners allowed the GIM program to improve targeted individualized services. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM (YOTP) The Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) is a residential commitment program, housed in the Juvenile Hall, in which staffing and mental health services are funded by YOBG. The program's mission is to serve young males by providing them with cognitive behavioral programming and the life skills necessary to transition back into the community. The YOTP program is a local alternative to a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice for youth who have committed serious and possibly violent offenses, but can be treated at the local level. The YOTP is a best practice model involving a four phase system. Youth committed to the YOTP can expect to stay in the program for a minimum of nine months or longer depending on their level of progress through each phase. While in the program youth receive Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Thinking for a Change (T4C), The Council, Impact of Crimes on Victims, Phoenix Gang Program, Job Tech/Life Skills, Substance Abuse Counseling that includes Cognitive Behavior Intervention Substance Abuse (CBI-SA) treatment, and Work Experience (wood working). All treatment is provided by trained Probation staff, County Mental Health staff and community providers. In addition to the cognitive behavioral programming, youth also attend school and many achieve their High School diploma. For youth who have attained their High School diploma, the Probation Department worked collaboratively with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) and Los Medanos Community College to allow the YOTP students to enroll in online college courses. The Contra Costa Community College District also allows qualified 12 th grade seniors the opportunity to enroll in college courses and earn college credits prior to graduation from High School. In 2016, YOTP treatment dosage was enhanced with the introduction of the CBI-SA and Advanced Practice treatment programs. The YOTP youth also received enhanced services through a Multi-Disciplinary team consisting of Mental Health, Education, Medical and Probation staff. The team worked collaboratively on difficult cases and created individualized behavioral intervention plans for severely aggressive and violent youth. Enhancements and Page 150 of 370 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 14 increased collaboration with our county partners allowed the YOTP to improve targeted individualized services. During the residential treatment phase and after re-entry into the community, youth in the YOTP consistently receive collaborative supervision and services from Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) specifically assigned to the program. The DPOs work to insure that the youth receive the necessary assistance for a smooth transition out of the program and back into their community. YOBG funds partially provide for YOTP Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) who begin providing services to YOTP youth in the institutional setting and continue to supervise and provide for aftercare in the community. After completion of three phases, youth are released to the community on electronic monitoring (phase four). Prior to and after release, DPOs coordinate re-entry and ongoing transition with the youth, the youth's family and/or community support system. The DPO creates a case plan that utilizes community resources to target the youth's criminogenic needs to insure that the appropriate community services are in place and that the youth has a smooth transition home, as well as the best possible chance at success. To foster a productive transitional environment, referrals are made to existing mental health and county programs for continuity of care. Youth are also connected to services that assist with basic needs such as housing, food, ongoing education, and employment services. Probation supervision is provided to assist youth with compliance to court ordered terms and conditions in order to increase their chance of success, provide for the safety of victims and mitigate risk to the community. Page 151 of 370 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE - SPECIAL MEETING 7. Meeting Date:06/25/2018   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. The Committee had 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,Page 152 of 370 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 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 Page 153 of 370 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. 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. On February 5, 2018, staff updated the Committee on various litigation related to immigration across the nation and reported on the County's compliance with SB 54 following the January 1, 2018 effective date. In addition, staff reported that the U.S. Department of Justice appears to be satisfied with the County's revised immigration policy in the Sheriff's Office, which strikes a balance with complying with both federal and state law. Also, the Public Defender's Office provided an update on efforts to launch the County's Stand Together Contra Costa program, which provide various services to undocumented residents in the County seeking assistance. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to return to return to the next meeting with information related to the public forum required under the Truth Act and a litigation update. On April 12, 2018, staff provided an update regarding the TRUTH Act community forum determination process. In addition, the Committee directed County Counsel to review a letter submitted by the Asian Law Caucus to Sheriff David Livingston on the evening prior to the meeting regarding the Sheriff's Immigration Status Policy. On May 23, 2018, staff provided an update regarding the due diligence process undertaken to determine whether or not the County was required to hold a TRUTH Act community forum. Staff informed the Committee that, based on responses from County department heads, it is necessary to hold a community forum and the forum had been scheduled for Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:00PM. 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. Update on the County's compliance with the TRUTH Act public forum review process required by Government Code section 7283.1(d). For reference, a copy of the relevant code section is included below: (d) Beginning January 1, 2018, the local governing body of any county, city, or city and county inPage 154 of 370 (d) Beginning January 1, 2018, the local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement agency has provided ICE access to an individual during the last year shall hold at least one community forum during the following year, that is open to the public, in an accessible location, and with at least 30 days' notice to provide information to the public about ICE's access to individuals and to receive and consider public comment. As part of this forum, the local law enforcement agency may provide the governing body with data it maintains regarding the number and demographic characteristics of individuals to whom the agency has provided ICE access, the date ICE access was provided, and whether the ICE access was provided through a hold, transfer, or notification request or through other means. Data may be provided in the form of statistics or, if statistics are not maintained, individual records, provided that personally identifiable information shall be redacted. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including compliance with state and federal law, 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  Interagency Service Agreement ICE w/ Amendments Probation Department Immigration Policy Sheriff's Office Immigration Policy Stand Together CoCo - Partner Advisory Letter Letter from Asian Law Caucus to Sheriff David O. Livingston, April 12, 2018 County Counsel Response to Letter from Asian Law Caucus, May 23, 2018 Page 155 of 370 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 156 of 370 being deported. It is timely and in the public interest to refer this issue to the Public Protection Committee. Page 157 of 370 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 158 of 370 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 159 of 370 (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 160 of 370 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 161 of 370 (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 162 of 370 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 163 of 370 “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 164 of 370 (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 165 of 370 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 166 of 370 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 167 of 370 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 168 of 370 Page 169 of 370 Page 170 of 370 Page 171 of 370 Page 172 of 370 Page 173 of 370 Page 174 of 370 Page 175 of 370 Page 176 of 370 Page 177 of 370 Page 178 of 370 Page 179 of 370 Page 180 of 370 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 181 of 370 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 182 of 370 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 183 of 370 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 184 of 370 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 185 of 370 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 186 of 370 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 187 of 370 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 188 of 370 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 189 of 370 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 190 of 370 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 191 of 370 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 192 of 370 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 193 of 370 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 194 of 370 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 195 of 370 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 196 of 370 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 197 of 370 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 198 of 370 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 199 of 370 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 200 of 370 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 201 of 370 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 202 of 370 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 203 of 370 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 204 of 370 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 205 of 370 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 206 of 370 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 207 of 370 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 208 of 370 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 209 of 370 Page 210 of 370 Page 211 of 370 Page 212 of 370 Page 213 of 370 Page 214 of 370 Page 215 of 370 Page 216 of 370 Page 217 of 370 Page 218 of 370 Page 219 of 370 Page 220 of 370 Page 221 of 370 Page 222 of 370 Page 223 of 370 Page 224 of 370 Page 225 of 370 Page 226 of 370 Page 227 of 370 Page 228 of 370 Page 229 of 370 Page 230 of 370 Page 231 of 370 Page 232 of 370 Page 233 of 370 Page 234 of 370 Page 235 of 370 Page 236 of 370 Page 237 of 370 Page 238 of 370 Page 239 of 370 Page 240 of 370 Page 241 of 370 Page 242 of 370 Page 243 of 370 Page 244 of 370 Page 245 of 370 Page 246 of 370 Page 247 of 370 Page 248 of 370 Page 249 of 370 Page 250 of 370 Page 251 of 370 Page 252 of 370 Page 253 of 370 Page 254 of 370 Page 255 of 370 Page 256 of 370 Page 257 of 370 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 258 of 370 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 259 of 370 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 260 of 370 Page 261 of 370 Page 262 of 370 Page 263 of 370 Page 264 of 370 Page 265 of 370 Page 266 of 370 Page 267 of 370 Page 268 of 370 Page 269 of 370 Page 270 of 370 Page 271 of 370 Page 272 of 370 Page 273 of 370 Page 274 of 370 Page 275 of 370 Page 276 of 370 Page 277 of 370 Page 278 of 370 Page 279 of 370 Page 280 of 370 Page 281 of 370 Page 282 of 370 Page 283 of 370 Page 284 of 370 Page 285 of 370 Page 286 of 370 Page 287 of 370 Page 288 of 370 Page 289 of 370 Page 290 of 370 Page 291 of 370 Page 292 of 370 Page 293 of 370 Page 294 of 370 Page 295 of 370 Page 296 of 370 Page 297 of 370 Page 298 of 370 Page 299 of 370 Page 300 of 370 Page 301 of 370 Page 302 of 370 Page 303 of 370 Page 304 of 370 Page 305 of 370 Page 306 of 370 Page 307 of 370 Page 308 of 370 Page 309 of 370 Page 310 of 370 Page 311 of 370 Page 312 of 370 Page 313 of 370 Page 314 of 370 Page 315 of 370 Page 316 of 370 Page 317 of 370 Page 318 of 370 Page 319 of 370 Page 320 of 370 Page 321 of 370 Page 322 of 370 Page 323 of 370 Page 324 of 370 Page 325 of 370 Page 326 of 370 Page 327 of 370 Page 328 of 370 Page 329 of 370 Page 330 of 370 Page 331 of 370 Page 332 of 370 Page 333 of 370 Page 334 of 370 Page 335 of 370 Page 336 of 370 Page 337 of 370 Page 338 of 370 Page 339 of 370 Page 340 of 370 Page 341 of 370 Page 342 of 370 Page 343 of 370 Page 344 of 370 Page 345 of 370 Page 346 of 370 Page 347 of 370 Page 348 of 370 Page 349 of 370 Page 350 of 370 Page 351 of 370   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 352 of 370   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 353 of 370   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 354 of 370 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 355 of 370 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 356 of 370 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 357 of 370 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 358 of 370 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 359 of 370 (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 360 of 370 (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 361 of 370 (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 362 of 370 (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 363 of 370 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 364 of 370 Page 365 of 370 Page 366 of 370 Page 367 of 370 Page 368 of 370 County Counsel Response Review of Letter from Asian Law Caucus At its meeting on April 12, 2018, the Public Protection Committee asked that the County Counsel’s Office provide the Committee with a response to the legal issues raised in a letter dated April 11, 2108, to Sheriff David Livingston from the Asian Law Caucus alleging that the Sheriff’s Immigration Status Policy No. 1.02.28 was not in compliance with the California Values Act (“SB 54”). Their response follows: Issue #1: Does SB 54 prohibit a Sheriff’s Department from having a policy that allows deputies to use their reasonable suspicion about a person’s immigration status when it is reasonably relevant to an investigation of crimes such as trafficking or smuggling? Response to Issue #1: SB 54 does not restrict local law enforcement from investigating activities that may violate state criminal laws. Government Code section 7284.6, subdivision (f), recognizes that local law enforcement agencies retain jurisdiction of criminal law enforcement matters. Immigration Status Policy Section IV.B.1 states that: 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. The focus of SB 54 is on restricting the use of local law enforcement for civil immigration enforcement activities. Trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism are all offenses that may be violations of state criminal laws. Such offenses may be committed by citizens or noncitizens alike and may involve victims or witnesses who are citizens or noncitizens. The Immigration Policy simply recognizes that immigration status may be a factor in the investigations of those crimes. Issue #2: Is Section III.A.1. of the Immigration Policy inconsistent with SB 54 by permitting a deputy to investigate, enforce, detain, or arrest an individual who is suspected of unlawfully re-entering the United States during an unrelated law enforcement activity? Response to Issue #2: The Policy language is not inconsistent with SB 54, but admittedly SB 54 does not provide clear guidance on this issue. Immigration Status Policy Section III.A.1 states that: 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. Page 369 of 370 If, during a law enforcement activity, a deputy discovers that an individual who was previously deported may have unlawfully entered the United States, then a deputy is permitted to investigate, enforce, detain, or arrest such individuals. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(b)(1).) SB 54 includes some additional language to suggest that an individual’s prior deportation should have been the result of a conviction of an aggravated felony in order for a deputy to conduct an investigation into the unlawful reentry. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(b)(1).) Whether investigations related to unlawful reentry are strictly limited to individuals who were deported following conviction of an aggravated felony is not clear in SB 54. Due to the uncertainty of the intent of the language, the Sheriff’s Office could consider adding language to the Policy regarding aggravated felonies. Issue #3: Is posting of inmate release information on the Sheriff’s website a violation of SB 54 if such information was not already posted prior to the effective date of SB 54? Response to Issue #3: The California Public Records Act specifically identifies inmate release information as public information. (CA Gov. Code § 6254(f)(1), identifying “time and manner of release.”) SB 54 recognizes it is lawful to disclose release date information that is available to the public. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(C).) For these reasons, the release information posted by the Sheriff’s Office is public information, the disclosure of which is not prohibited by SB 54. The Sheriff’s Office advises that it has posted inmate release information on its website since approximately February 2018. Other counties, including Orange, San Diego, and Alameda, also post inmate release information on their websites. Page 370 of 370