HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07012019 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
July 1, 2019
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the June 3, 2019 meeting. (Page 4)
4. CONSIDER accepting an report on the collection of certain fees assessed by the County
related to the criminal justice system and provide direction to staff regarding next steps.
(Paul Reyes, Committee Staff) (Page 7)
5. CONSIDER accepting the FY 2017-18 AB 109 Annual Report and forward
recommendation of its acceptance to the Board of Supervisors. (Lara DeLaney, Office
of Reentry and Justice) (Page 26)
6. PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for the two youth-serving
community-based organizations representatives' seats on the Contra Costa County
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. (Paul Reyes, Committee Staff) (Page 77)
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for August 5, 2019.
8.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/01/2019
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - June 3, 2019
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - June 3, 2019
Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, (925) 335-1096
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 June 3, 2019 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the June 3, 2019 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - June 3, 2019
Page 4 of 80
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
***RECORD OF ACTION***
June 3, 2019
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: John Gioia, Chair
Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Todd Billeci, Chief Probation Officer
Lara DeLaney, Acting Director, ORJ
Donte Blue, Deputy Director, ORJ
1.Introductions
Convene - 10:32 am
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
Public comment was received.
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the April 1, 2019 meeting.
Approved as presented.
Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
Passed
4.1. CONSIDER applications submitted to the Clerk of the Board for the vacant seats on
the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC).
2. INTERVIEW applicants for the vacant seats on the JJCC: three (3) At-Large
Community Representatives; two (2) At-Large Youth Representatives.
3. CONSIDER the applications received and interviews conducted and CONSIDER
making nominations to the Board of Supervisors at their June 18, 2019 meeting to fill
the vacancies on the JJCC in the At-Large Community Representative Seats #13, #14,
Page 5 of 80
and #15 and the At-Large Youth Seats #18 and #19.
4. PROVIDE any additional direction to staff regarding the establishment of the
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.
The Committee nominated the following individuals for consideration of the Board
of Supervisors:
At-Large Youth Seats:
1. D'Ana Clark
2. Journey Horacek-Lee
At-Large Community Representative Seats
1. Jonathan Bean
2. LeDamien Flowers
3. Stephanie Medley
4. Tamisha Torres-Walker
The Committee provided the following direction to staff:
Return to the Committee with a recruitment process for the two Community
Based Organization seats;
1.
Return to the Committee to discuss school district involvement; 2.
Update JJCC's establishing resolution to have the Board of Supervisors
approve nominations for the city police representative and County Office of
Education or school distrct representative; and
3.
Update the County website to reflect the current JJCC membership.4.
Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
Passed
5.REVIEW the AB 109 Community Programs contract award recommendations of the
ORJ and RFP review panels and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors award three
year contracts for services, effective July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022, as follows:
Civil Legal Services
Bay Legal for up to $471,000
Management of the East/Central County Reentry Network
HealthRIGHT 360 for up to $2,937,000
Employment Support and Placement Services
Rubicon Programs for up to $6,849,000
Family Reunification Services
Centerforce for up to $282,000
Mentoring Services in West County
Men and Women of Purpose for up to $345,000
Page 6 of 80
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Shelter Inc. for up to $2,576,000
Lao Family Community Development for up to $1,290,000.
Approved as presented with staff being directed to work with Lao Family
Community Development regarding concerns of limited resources.
Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
Passed
6.CONSIDER providing direction to staff on the development of the procurement process
for grant writing services for justice-related grants, including recommendations related
to Review Panel members, timeline of the process, and outreach activities.
Approved as presented.
Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
Passed
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 1, 2019.
8.Adjourn
Adjourned
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:
Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
Page 7 of 80
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/01/2019
Subject:Criminal Justice Fees
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Criminal Justice Fees
Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096
Referral History:
On February 26, 2019, The Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee the topic of criminal
justice system fees charged to individuals and a review the current programs, policies and practices related to
criminal justice fees. A copy of the referral is included as Attachment A.
On April 1, 2019, the Public Protection Committee considered an introductory report on the issue of criminal justice
fees assessed in the County. During that meeting, it was noted that momentum to end criminal fees is growing in the
state and individual counties have begun to view criminal justice fees as ineffective and have taken steps to
eliminate them. In 2017, the County of Los Angeles eliminated its public defender registration fee. In May 2018,
San Francisco eliminated all criminal administrative fees under its control, freeing over 21,000 people of more than
$32,000,000 in outstanding criminal administrative fees and surcharges. Most recently, in December 2018, the
Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate a host of county-imposed criminal fees. The board voted
to eliminate $26,000,000 in fees for tens of thousands of Alameda County residents. A copy of the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors approved ordiance is included as Attachment B.
With the passage of Senate Bill 190 in 2017, the State of California eliminated juvenile justice fees in all counties. In
January 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 144 was introduced by Sen. Holly Mitchell and would state the intent of the
Legislature to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized
to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of
the imposition of administrative fees. At the time of the April PPC meeting there had been discussion at the state
level about the proposed elimination of specific fees – the probation fee, the public defender fee, and work furlough
fee.
Also during the April PPC, general arguments in favor or against continuing criminal justice fees was discussed. It
was also noted that analysis of adult criminal justice fees had proven to be complicated. State law dictates a very
complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. Per a recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report, state
law currently contains at least 215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be
distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when payments are not made in full.
The report provided at the April PPC meeting focused on those fees that had been positively identified as being
local and discretionary fees (i.e. not mandated by California law), specifically Probation Fees, Public Defender
Fees, and Sheriff Custody Alternative Facility Fees. Further research and analysis will be needed on other fines and
fees collected by the Contra Costa Superior Court of California (Court) and remitted to the County.
The April staff report included the following infomation on Probation, Public Defender, and work furlough fees:
Probation Fees
Page 8 of 80
Probation Report Fee - In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2009-28 authorizing the Probation
Department to charge a fee of $176 for the cost of generating a probation report to the Court. This is one-time fee.
Cost of Probation Fee - In 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/262 to increase the monthly
Cost of Probation Fee from $50 per month to $75 per month (average daily cost of $2.50).
Probation Drug Testing Fee – The Probation Department currently charges $10 per month (average daily cost of
$0.33) for drug testing.
Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee – The Probation Department currently receives approximately $1,000 per year
from this fee.
All adults that have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and ordered to pay
Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their court report shall be assessed for their ability to pay said
fees. The ability-to-pay determination is sent to the Court. The Court will order the amount the probationer is
required to pay and refer the probationer to the Court Collections Unit for collection.
The following table illustrates the total amount of probation fees a probationer could hypothetically be charged. This
is assuming the probation is placed on 3 years of probation and requires monthly drug testing. Over 3 years, a
probationer could be charged up to $3,236 for probation.
Example Probationer Cost # of Months Total
Supervision $75/month 36 2,700
Drug Testing $10/month 36 360
Report Fee $176 one-time n/a 176
Total Cost of Probation 3,236
Cost of Collection and Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The
Probation fee revenue is used to offset the salaries of adult Deputy Probation Officers.
Fee
FY 17/18 Estimated FY 18/19
Collection
Cost Revenue Collection
Cost Revenue
Probation Dept. Drug Diversion
Fee (PC 1001.9)143 1,249 10 1,000
Cost of Probation Fee 91,957 475,573 82,000 444,000
Probation Cost of Drug Test Fee
(PC 1203.1(ab))12,332 60,638 12,000 61,000
Probation Report Fee (PC
1203.1(b))4,554 27,333 5,000 30,000
Total 108,986 564,793 99,010 536,000
Public Defender Fees
Penal Code 987.81 authorizes the Court to consider and make a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay all or a portion
of the costs of legal assistance provided through the public defender or private counsel appointed by the court and may order
the defendant to pay all or a part of the cost.
Adults charged with capital or homicide cases may have to pay fees ordered by the court at the conclusion of the case to
reimburse the County for the cost of outside counsel. The defendant is referred to the Contra Costa Superior Court Collections
Unit by the judge who orders the amount to be paid. The Court makes a determination as to how much, if any, of the ordered
amount the person can afford to pay. This determination is made on a sliding scale based upon the person's financial resources.
The Office of the Public Defender is not involved in the determination of, or collection of fees.
Page 9 of 80
Cost of Collection and Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The
Public Defender Fee revenue is used to offset cost of County trial court function, specifically costs associated with capital cases.
Fee
FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19
Collection
Cost Revenue Collection
Cost Revenue
Public Defender
Fee 1,849 26,100 - 121,000
Sheriff Office Custody Alternative Facility Program Fees
In 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2009/435 setting the fees for the Office of the Sheriff custody
alternative programs. The current fees for the Custody Alternative Facility programs are provided below.
Fee Cost
Electronic Home Detention and Alcohol
Monitoring:
Application fee $125.00 one-time
Electronic Home Monitoring Only $20.00 per day
Alcohol Monitoring Only $20.00 per day
Electronic Home Monitoring and Alcohol Monitoring $23.50 per day
Urinalysis Test $6.00 per test
Work Alternative Program:
Application fee $125.00 one-time
Daily Fee $16.00 per day
Ability to Pay Process
The current Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) procedure provides for the CAF participant to be completely enrolled in a CAF
program prior to discussing fees or ability to pay. Participants review and complete the personal budget with their assigned CAF
Specialist. The participant will then request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant will
review and approve the Personal Budget form. A participant's inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) will not preclude
them from being enrolled or completing any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility.
Process of Collections
CAF fees are collected after the participant is enrolled in a CAF program. Fees can be paid in the manner which is most
appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time or over a pre-determined length of time.
There is no process established to collect payment from participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's
ability to successfully complete a CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment.
Future Plan for CAF Electronic Home Detention and Work Alternative Prog rams
CAF is currently working with representatives from the Office of Re-Entry and Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and
Reentry Solutions Group to present updated Ability to Pay forms.
Revenue
The following table shows the actual and estimated revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The CAF Fee revenue is
used to offset program costs.
Program FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19
Work Alternative Program 443,055 423,000
Electronic Home Detention 568,541 12,000
Page 10 of 80
Total 1,011,596 435,000
The PPC accepted the introductory report and directed staff to perform further research on other fees that are collected or
remitted to the County and to report back to the Committee with staff's findings.
Referral Update:
Criminal Justice Fees
The Legistlative Analyst's Office (LAO) provided a report titled "Overview of State Criminal Fines and Fees and Probation
Fees. The report provide background information regarding both cirminal fines and fees and probation fees. This includes an
explanation of how cimrinal fines and fees are assessed. A copy of the LAO report is included as Attachment C.
Upon the request of the Committee, the analysis of the County's criminal justice fees was expanded beyond the fees charged
for Probation, indigent defense, and alternatives-to-incarceration fees. Attachment D summaries the fee analysis performed by
staff which includes: fee description, relevant code section, authority, ability-to-pay provision, funded County program or
function, and revenue collected.
Senate Bill 144
SB 144 has passed through the California Senate and is now in the California Assembly. SB 144 is set to be heard on July 9th
in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. SB 144 is currently opposed by Calfiornia State Association of Counties, Urban
Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, and the Chief Probation Officers of California. These
organizations’ opposition is not based on the underlying policy conversation regarding lessening the financial burden associated
with fines and fees levied on adults in the criminal justice system, but is based on the fiscal implications and the request for the
addition of a sustainable funding source to ensure this does not inadvertently impact the core services, programs and efforts to
promote the rehabilitation of offenders. A copy of the amended SB 144 can be found here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB144&version=20190SB14497AMD
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT a report on the collection of certain fees assessed by the County related to the criminal justice
system; and
1.
PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A - BOS Referral - Criminal Justice Fees
Attachment B - Alameda County Ordinance Eliminating Fees
Attachment C - LAO Report
Attachment D - Adult Fee Analysis
Page 11 of 80
RECOMMENDATION(S):
REFER to the Public Protection Committee the issue of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. This action refers the issue of justice system fees to the Public Protection Committee.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law allows the County to impose various criminal justice fees for the cost of administering the
criminal justice system. This referral is being requested to review the current programs, policies and
practices related to criminal justice fees.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The issue will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/26/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Diane Burgis, District III
Supervisor
Contact: Paul Reyes,
925-335-1096
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 26, 2019
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 83
To:Board of Supervisors
From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:February 26, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Criminal Justice Fees
Page 12 of 80
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-67 --
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42.190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO
ELIMINATE PROBATION FEES; REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-142 REGARDING PUBLIC
DEFENDER/CONFLICT COUNSEL FEES FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT ADULTS;
AND ELIMINATING SHERIFF'S WORK ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE AND
ATTENDANCE FEES.
WHEREAS, criminal justice financial obligations like probation supervision and investigation fees,
indigent defense fees, and fees associated with work release programs, can have long-term
effects that can undermine successful societal reentry goals of the formerly-incarcerated, such as
attaining stable housing, transportation, and employment; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors recognizes that criminal justice debt levied against low-
income or indigent adults compromises key principles of fairness in the administration of justice
in a democratic society and engenders deep distrust of the criminal justice system among those
overburdened by such debt; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 1203 .1 b authorizes but does not require a county to
recover the actual costs for probation services in lieu of incarceration; and
WHEREAS, County of Alameda Administrative Code section 2.42.190 establishes probation
department fees; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code sections 987 .5 and 987.8 authorizes but does not require the
assessment of fees to cover the costs of appointed counsel; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors most recently authorized Indigent Defense Fees in
Resolution 2011-142; and
WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 4024.2 authorizes but does not require a board of
supervisors to assess an administrative fee on inmates of the county jail for costs associated with
a county 's work release program; and
WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors has approved the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Sheriff
Work Alternative Program (SWAP) and set administrative and attendance fees for participation in
that Program ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County, justice-
involved adults , and the larger community to repeal the above-named adult fees; and
WHEREAS, it is also in the best interests of the County and the community that the Auditor-
Controller be authorized to write-off all accounts receivable balances and close the associated
fee accounts;
Page 13 of 80
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows:
SECTION I
Section 2.42.190 of the County of Alameda Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
2.42.190 Probation Department fees.
Notwithstanding any prior County ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors to permit
assessment of probation fees and costs under California Penal Code section 1203.1 b, neither
the Probation Department nor any other County agency shall assess fees for probation
services , or any other fees or costs authorized by Penal Code section 1203.1 b.
SECTION II
The Public Defender schedule of fees authorized by this Board in Resolution No. 2011-142 on
May 1 0, 2011 is hereby repealed.
SECTION Ill
The Sheriff's Office Alternative Work Program (SWAP) administrat ive fee and attendance fee ,
authorized by this Board by resolution as permitted by Penal Code section 4024.2 is repealed .
Neither the Sheriff's Office or any other County agency shall assess SWAP administration or
attendance fees.
SECTION IV
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published once with the
~
names of the members voting for and against the same in the Inter-City Express , a newspaper
published in the County of Alameda.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on the 4th
day of December ,· 2018 , by the following called vote :
AYES : Su pervisors Carson, Haggerty, Miley & Preside n t Ch a n
NOES : None
EXCUSED : Su pervisor V a l le
' ~~/2--
President of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST :
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ,
Page 14 of 80
\)~ By:. __ ~~~~~~~~-----------
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DONNA R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL
By:
Assistant County Counsel
I -Page 15 of 80
Assembly Committee on Public Safety
Hon. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
PRESENTED TO:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
Overview of State
Criminal Fines and Fees and
Probation Fees
FEBRUARY 5, 2019
Page 16 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 1
Introduction
In this handout, we provide background information responding to common
questions regarding both criminal fines and fees and probation fees.
Criminal Fines and Fees. During court proceedings, trial courts
typically levy fines and fees upon individuals convicted of criminal
offenses (including traffic violations).
Probation Fees. State law authorizes counties to levy fees on
probationers to cover probation-related costs. For example, a
probationer who is subject to electronic monitoring—such as being
required to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit on his or her
ankle—can be charged for its costs.
Page 17 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2
How Are Criminal Fines and Fees Assessed?
The total amount owed by an individual begins with a base fine set in state law
for each criminal offense. State law then requires courts to add certain charges
to this fine. On a limited basis, counties and courts can levy additional charges
depending on the specific violations and other factors. Statute gives judges
some discretion to reduce the total amount owed by waiving or reducing
certain charges.
Various Fines and Fees Substantially Add to Base Fines
As of January 1, 2019
How Charge is Calculated
Stop Sign Violation
(Infraction)
DUI of Alcohol/Drugs
(Misdemeanor)
Standard Fines and Fees
Base Fine Depends on violation $35 $390
State Penalty Assessment $10 for every $10 of a base finea 40 390
County Penalty Assessment $7 for every $10 of a base finea 28 273
Court Construction Penalty Assessment $5 for every $10 of a base finea 20 195
Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment $1 for every $10 of a base finea 4 39
DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment $4 for every $10 of a base finea 16 156
EMS Penalty Assessment $2 for every $10 of a base finea 8 78
EMAT Penalty Assessment $4 per conviction 4 4
State Surcharge 20% of base fine 7 78
Court Operations Assessment $40 per conviction 40 40
Conviction Assessment Fee $35 per infraction conviction and
$30 per felony or misdemeanor
conviction
35 30
Night Court Fee $1 per fine and fee imposed 1 1
Restitution Fine $150 minimum per misdemeanor
conviction and $300 minimum
per felony conviction
—150
Subtotals ($238)($1,824)
Examples of Additional Fines and Fees That Could Apply
DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment Actual costs up to $50 for specif-
ic violations
—$50
Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Up to $50 —50
County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty
Assessment
Up to $100 —100
Subtotals (—)($200)
Totals $238 $2,024
a The base fine is rounded up to the nearest $10 to calculate these additional charges. For example, the $35 base fine for a failure to stop would be rounded up to $40.
DUI = Driving Under Influence; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation.
Page 18 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 3
How Have Fine and Fee Levels
Changed Over Time?
Total Fine and Fee Levels Have Increased Significantly. Since 2005,
the number and size of charges added to the base fine have increased
significantly—resulting in increases in the total amount owed by individuals
convicted of criminal offenses. As shown in the above figure, the total penalty
for a stop sign violation has increased by 54 percent since 2005.
Fine and Fee Levels Set to Serve Multiple Purposes. The state has enacted
various fines and fees for various purposes. Some (such as the base fine)
are generally tied to the seriousness of the crime. Others (such as the DNA
assessments) were enacted to generate revenue to fund specific activities.
Finally, some fines and fees were enacted to help offset state or local costs for
providing particular services to individuals paying the specific charge.
Total Fine and Fee Level for Stop Sign Violation Has Increased
Significantly Since 2005a
Stop Sign Violation(Infraction)
2005 2019 Change
Base Fine $35 $35
State Penalty Assessment 40 40 —
County Penalty Assessment 28 28 —
Court Construction Penalty Assessment 20 20 —
Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment 4 4 —
DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment —16 $16
EMS Penalty Assessment —8 8
EMAT Penalty Assessment —4 4
State Surcharge 7 7 —
Court Operations Fee 20 40 20
Conviction Assessment Fee —35 35
Night Court Fee 1 1 —
Totals $155 $238 $83
a Depending on the specific violation and other factors, additional county or state assessments may apply.
EMS = Emergency Medical Services and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation
Page 19 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 4
How Is Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed?
Numerous Funds Eligible to Receive Fine and Fee Revenue. Over 50 state
funds—in addition to many local funds throughout the state—are eligible
to receive fine and fee revenue. However, some of these funds receive very
little revenue, such as those that only receive revenue from fines and fees for
specific offenses that occur infrequently.
Complex Process for Distributing Fine and Fee Revenue. State law (and
county resolutions for certain local charges) dictate a very complex process
for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. State law currently contains at least
215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be
distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when
payments are not made in full. In order to comply with these requirements,
collection programs must carefully track, distribute, and record the revenue
they collect.
Page 20 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 5
Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue?
State Receives Majority of Revenue. According to available data compiled
by the State Controller’s Office and the judicial branch, we estimate that a
total of $1.7 billion in fine and fee revenue was distributed to state and local
governments in 2015-16. (This is the most recent data that we have analyzed.)
As shown in the figure, the state received $881 million (or roughly half) of
this revenue. Of this amount, roughly 60 percent went to support trial court
operations and construction.
Local Governments Receive Most of Remaining Revenue. We estimate that
local governments received $707 million (or 42 percent) of the total amount
distributed in 2015-16. Of this amount, about 80 percent went to the counties.
Majority of Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed to the State
2015-16
a Split between courts (state government) and counties (local government) depending on who is actually collecting the delinquent
payments.
State Trial Court Operations
State Trial
Court Construction
Other State Programs
Collection Programsa
Cities
Counties
Total: $1.7 billion
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
DeputyARTWORK #170127
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
Page 21 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 6
(Continued)
Collection Programs Receive Share of Revenue. Collection programs
received $114 million (or 7 percent) of the total amount distributed in 2015-16
for their operational costs related to the collection of delinquent payments.
These funds are split between state trial courts and counties depending on
which entity incurred the costs.
Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue?
Page 22 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 7
How Are Probation Fees Assessed?
Fee Levels Vary Between and Within Counties. The above figure shows
certain probation fees charged by three selected counties. As shown, the
number, type, and level of probation fees varies significantly by county and
the specific fee levied. We note that in addition to probation fees, probationers
could also be required to pay other government fines and fees, such as the
criminal fines and fees assessed by trial courts.
Ability to Pay Can Impact Fees Levied. Some probation fees can be adjusted
based on a probationer’s ability to pay. In addition, some counties have policies
stating that inability to pay shall not prevent a probationer from receiving
services such as supervision and electronic monitoring.
Examples of Probation Fees for Selected Counties
Fee
San Luis Obispo
County
San Diego
County
Butte
County
GPS monitoring (daily)$12 $9 $5 to $7
Supervision fees (monthly)$76 $17 to $176 $164
Installment fee (one time)a $75 $75 —
Transfer between counties (one time)$148 —$392
Court mandated reports (per report)—Up to $1,433 Up to $1,077
Drug testing fee (per test)$55 —$32
Probation violation (per event)——$109
a Fee charged in exchange for allowing probationers to pay their other fees on an installment plan
GPS = Global Position System.
Page 23 of 80
Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 8
What Is the Total Amount of Probation Fees
That Probationers Are Charged?
Fees Owed Can Vary Substantially Between Probationers. The figure
above provides hypothetical examples of the total probation fees that two
probationers might be charged over a three-year period. These examples are
intended to demonstrate the magnitude of (1) the fees a probationer can owe
and (2) the difference between fee levels for similar probationers in different
counties.
Level of Supervision Significantly Impacts Fee Amounts. A probationer
on low-level supervision (such as someone convicted for a misdemeanor)
is generally charged fewer fees compared to a probationer on high-level
supervision (such as someone convicted of a felony) who must also follow
certain other requirements (such as being on GPS monitoring and receiving
random drug tests on a regular basis).
Hypothetical Examples of Probation Fees Charged for Three Selected Counties
Estimates Over a Three-Year Period
Probationer
San Luis Obispo
County
San Diego
County
Butte
County
Low supervision and feesa $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
High supervision and feesb 18,000 18,000 16,000
a On probation for a misdemeanor, has one pre-sentence report, is on the lowest level of active supervision, and is on an installment plan, which allows the
probationer to pay fees on an installment basisb On probation for a felony, has one pre-sentence report, is on the highest level of active supervision, is on GPS monitoring, receives random drug testing
once a month, committed one felony probation violation, and is on an installment plan
Page 24 of 80
Contra Costa County Attachment D
Crminal Justice Fee Analysis
Court Collected Fees:
Court Fee Description Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue
Alcohol Prevention Fee APPA PC 1463.25 State None specified. Alcohol & Other Drugs - SB920 Alcohol Education Program 78,328$ 73,800$
10% Fee PC 1203.1 (l)County None specified. Trial Court Programs 75,246$ 82,800$
California Fingerprint ID Penalty GC 76102 County None specified. Automated Fingerprint ID 170,986$ 174,300$
Domestic Violence Fee PC 1203.097(a)5 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Domestice Violence Victim Assistance 32,269$ 40,200$
Booking Fee GC 29550.1 County None specified. Sheriff Central Admin 39,464$ 42,300$
Adult DA Diversion Fee PC 1001.16 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs
Drug Diversion Fee PC 1211(c)(3)County Fee exemptions available.Trial Court Programs
Alcohol Test Fee PC 1463.14 County Ability to pay determination required.Sheriff - General Lab
C.A.P. Fee PC 1463.16 County None specified. Combined with Alchohol Test Fee
B&P 7028.2 (Compliants Against Unlicensed Contractors)BPC 7028.2 State None specified. SLESF-Criminal Prosecution 373$ 900$
DNA Penalty Fee GC 76104.6 State Hardship determination by the court.DNA Identification Fund 235,130$ 237,400$
CITE Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs *
Own Recognizance Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs
Drug Program Fee H&S 11372.7 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Criminalistics Lab Fund 15,314$ 14,000$
Probation Drug Diversion Fee PC 1001.9 N/A N/A Probation - Adult 1,273$ 1,200$
Probation Supervision Fee PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 488,374$ 452,600$
Probation Drug Test Fee PC 1203.1ab County Ability to pay determination required.Probation - Adult 65,921$ 61,400$
Probation Report Fee PC PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 27,995$ 28,700$
Alcohol/Drug Assessment Fee PC 1463.13 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Alchohol & Other Drugs - SB921 Drug Abuse Ed 207,529$ 194,300$
Public Defense Fee PC 987.81 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs 28,499$ 118,200$
Total 2,166,517$ 2,225,100$
* Revenue amounts for CITE and OR Fees are combined with Traffic School Fees (VC 42007) when remitted from the Court.
Sheriff Collected Fees:
CAF Fee Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue
Work Alternative PC 4024.2 County Ability to pay program admin. fee.Custody Alternative Facility 443,055 363,000
Electronic Home Detention/Alcohol Monitoring PC 1203.016 County Ability to pay program admin. fee pay.Custody Alternative Facility 568,541 38,000
Total 1,011,596 401,000
111,085$ 117,400$
462,000$ 458,755.86$
129,975$ 123,600$
Page 25 of 80
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/01/2019
Subject:AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2017-18
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2017-18
Presenter: L. DeLaney & D. Blue Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097
Referral History:
The County Administrator’s Office has commissioned the preparation of an AB 109 Annual
Report since FY 2014-15. The FY 2017-18 Annual Report has been prepared by the Office of
Reentry and Justice in collaboration with all AB 109-funded County
departments/agencies/divisions, the Superior Court, and community-based organizations engaged
in reentry service provision. The report draws from a template prepared by Resource
Development Associates (RDA), with oversight from the Community Corrections Partnership
(CCP).
The Community Corrections Partnership accepted the FY 2017/18 AB 109 Annual Report at its
meeting on June 7, 2019 and recommended its acceptance by this Committee.
Referral Update:
The AB 109 Annual Report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in
Contra Costa County during the fiscal year 2017/18, with a focus on understanding the impact of
AB 109-funded County departments, divisions, programs, and contracted service providers.
Toward this end, this report describes the volume and type of services provided by all of the
County’s AB 109 partners over the course of the year. The FY 2017-18 Annual Report is
included with this staff report as Attachment A.
Contra Costa County has responded to AB 109 Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has
allowed the County to provide supervision and services to the AB 109 population, while building
a collaborative reentry infrastructure to support the reentry population’s successful reintegration
into the community. The County has followed best practice models in establishing access to
services through the West County Reentry Success Center’s “one-stop” model and the Central &
East County Reentry Network’s “no wrong door” approach.
Page 26 of 80
During the 2017/18 Fiscal Year, a number of key changes and investments further refined the
County’s approach to AB 109, as well as reentry more generally. These included:
Comprehensive planning process to update the County’s 5-year Reentry Strategic Plan
(2018-2023);
Development of the County’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Plus (“CoCo LEAD+”)
project to divert individuals with behavioral health needs and multiple recent low-level
arrests from the justice system into a supportive array of programs including cognitive based
teaching, restorative programs, employment and housing assistance;
Launch of the Stand Together Contra Costa pilot project by the Public Defender's Office to
provide no-cost rapid-response support, civil deportation defense legal services and clinics,
immigrant rights education and training, and direct-service support for immigrant
individuals and families in the County;
Completion of the Final Report from the Board of Supervisors’ 17-member Racial Justice
Task Force (RJTF) identifying racial disparities in the local justice system and providing the
BOS with a set of recommendations on how these disparities might be addressed and
reduced.
Development of a state funded “Sustainable Occupational Advancement and Reentry
Success” (CoCo SOARS) program to provide employment training for individuals on formal
probation and to host three Fair Chance Employer Summits;
Launch of the Smart Reentry Pilot aiming to serve 100 moderate to high risk transition aged
youth (TAY) who are returning to East County after a period of incarceration;
Establishment of the FAST START automotive training program to provide distance
learning opportunities for individuals incarcerated in the County’s local jails and to provide
post-release hands-on training at Fast Eddie’s automotive repair shop;
Launch of the Richmond Workforce Development Board’s 60-hour “Accelerating Careers
through Essential Skills” (ACES) Academy to improve participants’ ability to attain and
retain gainful employment through vocational training courses; and
Launch of the Central-East Ceasefire program seeking to reduce firearm violence through a
focused deterrence model that uses law enforcement data to direct program resources to
individuals at the highest risk of being perpetrators or victims of gun violence.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT the FY 2017/18 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.
Attachments
Attachment A - AB 109 Annual Report FY 2017-18
Page 27 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 1
Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa
County
AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017/18
Prepared by the Office of Reentry & Justice
Attachment A
Page 28 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 2
Staff Assigned to CCP
Paul Reyes, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry & Justice, Acting Director
Donte Blue, Office of Reentry & Justice, Deputy Director
This AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017/18 was prepared by Denise
Zabkiewicz, Research and Evaluation Manager, and Monica Carlisle, Management Analyst, in the Office of
Reentry & Justice. For questions regarding this report, please contact Denise Zabkiewicz or Monica
Carlisle via email at: Denise.Zabkiewicz@cao.cccounty.us or Monica.Carlisle@cao.cccounty.us.
2019 Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) of Contra Costa County
Todd Billeci, Chief Probation Officer, Chair Donna Van Wert, Workforce Development Board
Executive Director
David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County Patrice Guillory, Community Based Programs
Representative
Guy Swanger, Concord Chief of Police Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human
Services Director
Diana Becton, District Attorney Matthew White, Behavioral Health Services
Director
Jim Paulsen, Superior Court designee Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant County
Administrator
Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Fatima Matal Sol, Alcohol and Other Drugs
Director
Vacant, Victim's Representative Lynn Mackey, County Superintendent of Schools
Page 29 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11
A Note on Data ............................................................................................................................... 11
Realignment & Reentry in Contra Costa County ......................................................................................... 12
Historical Overview of AB 109 & Legislative Impacts .................................................................... 12
Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County ....................................................................... 13
Other Reentry Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 14
County Department Impacts....................................................................................................................... 15
District Attorney’s Office ............................................................................................................... 15
Office of the Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 18
Stand Together Contra Costa ......................................................................................................... 20
Pre-trial Services ............................................................................................................................ 21
Office of the Sheriff ........................................................................................................................ 25
Probation Department ................................................................................................................... 29
Detention Health Services ............................................................................................................. 32
Behavioral Health Services............................................................................................................. 34
Alcohol and Other Drugs ................................................................................................... 34
Homeless Program ............................................................................................................ 35
Mental Health Division ..................................................................................................... 36
Public Benefits .................................................................................................................. 37
Workforce Development Board ..................................................................................................... 38
Community Based Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 39
Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.) ...................................................................... 39
Page 30 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 4
Countywide .................................................................................................................................... 40
Overview of AB 109 Community Partnerships .............................................................................. 42
Bay Area Legal Aid............................................................................................................. 43
Center for Human Development ...................................................................................... 43
Fast Eddie’s Auto Services ................................................................................................ 44
Goodwill Industries ........................................................................................................... 44
Men and Women of Purpose ............................................................................................ 44
Mz. Shirliz .......................................................................................................................... 44
Reach Fellowship .............................................................................................................. 45
Rubicon ............................................................................................................................. 45
SHELTER Inc. ...................................................................................................................... 46
AB 109 Population Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 47
Violations ....................................................................................................................................... 47
New Charges and Convictions........................................................................................................ 48
Looking Ahead to Fiscal Year 2018/19 ........................................................................................................ 49
Page 31 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 5
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, by quarter ................... 16
Figure 2: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences ....................................... 16
Figure 3: Number of AB 109 Split Sentences by Quarter ........................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations ................................................................................... 17
Figure 5: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations ............................ 17
Figure 6: Clients referred to Social Worker by PD and community service providers by Social Worker .. 19
Figure 7: Number and percentage of clients released on OR .................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions ........................................................................... 20
Figure 9: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied ........................................................................... 20
Figure 10: PTS clients assessed for Pre-trial risk ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 11: PTS clients monitored and completed ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 12: Assessed Pre-trial risk levels ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 13: Percentage of assessed clients starting Pre-trial monitoring, by risk level .............................. 23
Figure 14: Pre-trial monitoring case closures ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Unsuccessful Pre-trial monitoring case closures, by type ........................................................ 24
Figure 16: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility .......................................................... 26
Figure 17: Average daily jail population ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 18: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility .............................................. 27
Figure 19: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility ........................................ 27
Figure 20: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ......................................... 28
Figure 21: Average custodial days served by AB 109 clients, by classification ........................................... 28
Figure 22: Jail to Community Program ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 23: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification ........................................................... 30
Page 32 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 6
Figure 24: Total AB 109 individuals under supervision .............................................................................. 30
Figure 25: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification ................................. 31
Figure 26: Initial CAIS risk levels ................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 27: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs ............................................................... 32
Figure 28: DHS intake screenings for AB 109 inmates ............................................................................... 33
Figure 29: Percentage of In-Custody Population with a Mental Health Condition ................................... 33
Figure 30: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates ............................................................................... 34
Figure 31: Outpatient AODS Treatment Services ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 32: Residential AODS Treatment Services ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 33: Count of Individuals provided Homeless Services .................................................................... 36
Figure 34: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population ........................................................................ 36
Figure 35: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services .................... 37
Figure 36: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 37: Individuals Served by Region across the County ...................................................................... 40
Figure 38: Distribution of Men and Women Served .................................................................................. 40
Figure 39: Criminal Justice Involvement .................................................................................................... 41
Figure 40: Housing Status at Service Intake with Community Based Organizations ................................. 41
Figure 41: Completed Goals by Domain .................................................................................................... 42
Figure 42: PRCS flash incarcerations ........................................................................................................... 47
Figure 43: Percentage and number of 1170(h) clients revoked ................................................................ 47
Figure 44: Percentage and number of PRCS clients revoked ..................................................................... 48
Figure 45: New charges or new criminal convictions, by AB 109 classification type ................................. 48
Page 33 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 7
Glossary of Terms
AB 109: Assembly Bill 109
ACER: Arraignment Court Early Representation
ACES: Accelerating Careers through Essential Skills
AODS: Alcohol and Other Drugs Services
BALA: Bay Area Legal Aid
BHS: Behavioral Health Services
BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance
BOS: Board of Supervisors
CAIS: Correctional Assessment and Intervention System
CBO: Community-based Organization
CCEB: Catholic Charities of the East Bay
CCP: Community Corrections Partnership
CDCR: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
CFRP: Community and Family Reunification Program
CHD: Center for Human Development
CoCo Lead+: Contra Costa Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Plus
DA: District Attorney
DHS: Detention Health Services
DPO: Deputy Probation Officer
EBP: Evidence Based Practice
FAST: Foundations in Automotive Services Training (FAST)
FTA: Failure to Appear
FY: Fiscal Year
GA: General Assistance
Page 34 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 8
Goodwill: Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
HRS: Housing Resource Specialist
JAG: Justice Assistance Grant
MDF: Martinez Detention Facility
MCDF: Marsh Creek Detention Facility
MWP: Men and Women of Purpose
OR: Own recognizance
ORJ: Office of Reentry & Justice
PD: Public Defender
PRCS: Post-Release Community Supervision
PSR: Public Safety Realignment
PTS: Pre-trial Services
RDA: Resource Development Associates
REACH: Reach Fellowship International
RFP: Request for Proposals
RJTF: Racial Justice Task Force
SLE: Sober Living Environment
SOARS: Sustainable Occupational Advancement and Reentry Success
SSDI/SSI: Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income
START: Service Technician and Auto Repair Training
TAY: Transition aged youth
TIC: Trauma-informed care
WCDF: West County Detention Facility
WDB: Workforce Development Board
YJI: Youth Justice Initiative
Page 35 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 9
Executive Summary
This report provides an overview of AB 109-funded services provided in Contra Costa County during the
fiscal year 2017/18 (“FY 17/18”) and concludes with priorities for FY 18/19.
As the County implemented AB 109 Public Safety Realignment (“PSR”) in 2011, the need for an inclusive
reentry system that individuals could access regardless of their AB 109 status became apparent.
Consequently, in 2015 the County expanded access for AB 109-funded services to any local returning
resident released from incarceration in the past three years. This important step ensured all individuals
who leave custody have access to the services they may need to avoid recidivism and reintegrate
successfully back into their families and communities.
In terms of reentry system development during the FY 17/18, the County undertook a comprehensive
planning process to update its Reentry Strategic Plan1. This 5-year Strategic Plan (2018-2023) serves as
the County’s guiding document for reentry programs and services as a whole, including but not limited to,
AB 109-funded services. The County will use the Plan to engage stakeholders to define priority areas,
goals, and strategies that can help address gaps and needs of the local reentry system.
The Workforce Development Board (“WDB”) contributed significantly to the development of the County’s
reentry system by using a state funded grant to implement its “CoCo SOARS” (“Sustainable Occupational
Advancement and Reentry Success”). A collaborative County effort of the WDB and Probation, this project
sought to not only provide employment training for individuals on formal probation but also led to three
Fair Chance Employer Summits in the County that were aimed at improving the job prospects of the
reentry population by increasing the willingness of employers to recruit and hire from this population.
Other important reentry initiatives in FY 17/18 included the launch of the Smart Reentry program,
developed to address the particular needs of transition aged youth (“TAY”). Drawing on a Bureau of
Justice Assistance funded grant, the collaborative project aims to serve 100 moderate to high risk TAY in
East County who are returning home after a period of incarceration. Providing services to TAY who are
homeless, or at high risk of homelessness, are a priority for this project.
The County’s Local Innovation Fund, a required set-aside comprised of a portion of the revenue from
several local accounts related to PSR, was used to pilot two new innovative local reentry programs during
FY 17/18: the FAST START automotive training program and the ACES skill building academy. The FAST
START program is operated by Fast Eddie’s from its automotive repair shop in Oakley, and includes a 60-
hour distance learning course for individuals incarcerated in the County’s local jails using the program’s
Foundations in Automotive Services Training (“FAST”) curriculum. Upon a person’s release, those who
have completed the foundations course are eligible to participate in the Service Technician and Auto
1 Available at: http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6867/Strategic-Planning-Project.
Page 36 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 10
Repair Training (“START”), a four-week hands-on training. The second innovative program is run by the
Richmond Workforce Board and consists of the Board’s 60-hour Accelerating Careers through Essential
Skills (“ACES”) Academy to improve participants’ ability to attain and retain gainful employment once they
complete a subsequent vocational training course matched to their interests and strengths.
Central-East Ceasefire, an AB 109 funded program also launched in FY 17/18, builds on a Ceasefire
program in Richmond. The program seeks to reduce firearm violence through a deterrence model that
uses law enforcement data to direct resources to individuals at the highest risk of being perpetrators or
victims of gun violence. The program aims to raise community awareness and support through the use
of community led evening marches in impacted neighborhoods (“night walks”), and “call-ins” where law
enforcement lead conversations with at-risk individuals to thwart the use of firearms in local communities.
Launched in FY 17/18, the County’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Plus (“CoCo LEAD+”) project is
led by the Health Services Department and funded through a Prop. 47 grant to the County’s Health
Services Department. In collaboration with HealthRIGHT 360 and the Antioch Police Department, the
program’s objective is to divert individuals with behavioral health needs and multiple recent low-level
arrests from the justice system into an array of supportive programs. These programs include cognitive
based teaching, restorative programs, employment and housing assistance.
On January 1, 2018, Stand Together Contra Costa was launched as a pilot project managed by the Office
of the Public Defender in partnership with nonprofit organizations and community members.
Unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors (“BOS”), Stand Together provides no-cost rapid-
response support, civil deportation defense legal services and clinics, immigrant rights education and
training, and direct-service support for immigrant individuals and families in Contra Costa County. The
backbone of Stand Together Contra Costa is a Rapid Response Hotline, which is staffed 24 hours a day,
seven days a week to provide a single point of contact for people who witness or are targeted by federal
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions undertaken in the County.
Finally, in FY 17/18 the BOS’ 17-member Racial Justice Task Force (“RJTF”) completed its 18-month inquiry
into the local juvenile and criminal justice systems. The Task Force was commissioned with identifying
racial disparities in the local justice system and providing the Board of Supervisors with a set of
recommendations on how these disparities might be addressed and reduced. The Task Force completed
its Final Report in June 2018 and submitted it to the Board of Supervisors for adoption the following
month. Implementation of the adopted recommendations is expected to begin in FY 18-19 through the
Board’s newly created Racial Justice Oversight Body.
For FY 18/19, the Requests for Proposals (“RFP”) process to identify vendors to provide reentry services
to residents returning to local communities is a focus of work for the Office of Reentry and Justice (“ORJ”).
The process will result in new or continuing contracts with community- based organizations (“CBOs”) for
a 3-year term during the period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. Further, in an effort to develop
additional resources for the reentry system, the ORJ supports the County’s efforts to compete for various
state and federal grants, as well as continued advancement of the County’s efforts in “Stepping Up,” a
national initiative to reduce the number of people with mental illnesses in jail.
Page 37 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 11
Introduction
This report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities and services provided in Contra Costa County
during FY 17/18. As context, the report begins with a historical overview and the legislative impact of AB
109 on California counties, followed by a discussion of Contra Costa County’s response to Public Safety
Realignment. Then an in-depth look at the AB 109-related supervision and services provided by each of
the County’s AB 109-funded departments, as well as the cross-departmental Pre-trial Services program,
is presented.
The County departments, divisions, and programs included in this report, listed in alphabetical order, are:
Behavioral Health Services (BHS)
Detention Health Services
District Attorney’s Office
Office of the Public Defender
Pre-trial Services
Probation Department
Office of the Sheriff
Workforce Development Board (WDB)
After summarizing the implementation and impact of AB 109 across County departments, the report
describes services each of the AB 109-contracted community based organizations provides, highlighting
the referrals they received from Probation and other CBOs, as well as the total number of enrollments
and successful completions of program services over the course of the year. Finally, the report concludes
with an overview of AB 109 population outcomes and a discussion of the County’s reentry priorities for
FY 18/19.
A Note on Data
The Office of Reentry & Justice worked with each County department, as well as nine community-based
organizations contracted to provide AB 109 services, in order to obtain the data necessary for this report.
As data were collected across a variety of departments and organizations with different tracking systems,
we caution against making direct comparisons from figures across the sections of this report. Moreover,
some measures such as the percentage of the AB 109 population under supervision with new criminal
charges and/or convictions during FY 2017/18 could not be calculated, as tracking individuals across
departments was unfeasible. Worth noting is that the ORJ is currently working with all participating
agencies and community-based organizations to improve the reporting process and better ensure data
validity.
Page 38 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 12
Realignment & Reentry in Contra Costa
County
Historical Overview of AB 109 & Legislative Impacts
Largely a response to prison overcrowding in California, the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill
109 [“AB 109”]) was signed into law in 2011 and took effect on October 1, 2011. AB 109 transferred the
responsibility of supervising individuals convicted of specific lower-level felonies, and detention for parole
violations, from the state’s California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to counties,
realigning three major areas of the criminal justice system. Specifically, AB 109:
Transferred the location of incarceration for those convicted of lower-level felonies (specified
non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jails and provided
for an expanded role for post-release supervision for this population;
Transferred the responsibility for post-release supervision of individuals released from prison
after serving a sentence for a specified non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense from the
state to the county by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community
Supervision (“PRCS”);
Shifted the responsibility for processing certain parole revocations from the state Parole Board to
the Superior Court;
Shifted the responsibility for housing revoked supervisees affected by the above changes from
CDCR to county detention facilities.
The County is now responsible for the housing and/or supervision of three new populations, all classified
under AB 109. These populations include:
Post-Release Community Supervisees: Individuals discharging from prison whose commitment
offense was non-sexual, non-violent and non-serious.
Parole Violators: Excluding those serving life terms – individuals who violate the terms of their
parole will serve any detention sanction in the local jail rather than state prison. In addition,
effective July 1, 2013 local courts are responsible for parole revocation hearings for parolees who
violate the terms of their parole, rather than the state Parole Board.
1170(h) Sentenced defendants: Individuals convicted of non-violent or non-serious felonies serve
their sentence under the jurisdiction of the county instead of state prison. Sentences are served
Page 39 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 13
either in county jail, on a term of “Mandatory Supervision” by the probation department or on a
split sentence (where part of the term is served in jail and part under supervision by the county
probation department).
In addition to transferring the responsibility of housing and supervision to the County, AB 109 also enables
the County to use AB 109 funding towards the development of partnerships with local health and social
service agencies and community based organizations. The intention of these partnerships is to provide
supportive services that facilitate the successful reentry and reintegration of individuals into the
community and reduce their likelihood of recidivism.
Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County
After the enactment of AB 109, the Executive Committee of Contra Costa County’s Community Corrections
Partnership (“CCP”) developed an AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan approved by
the County’s Board of Supervisors. During the first two years of PSR, the County examined the impacts of
AB 109 across departments and drew on the resulting data to inform decision-making surrounding how
to best prepare for housing and supervision of the AB 109 population. During this time, the County also
created an AB 109 Operational Plan and worked towards developing a coordinated reentry infrastructure,
emphasizing the use of evidence-based practices (“EBPs”) for serving the AB 109 reentry population.
The overarching approach to AB 109 implementation has largely centered on the development of
formalized partnerships between different law enforcement agencies, as well as partnerships between
law enforcement agencies and health or social service agencies, such as Behavioral Health Services
(“BHS”) and AB 109-contracted community-based organizations. For instance, the Sheriff’s Department
and Probation have increased coordination with each other so that Deputy Probation Officers (“DPOs”)
have greater access to County jails than they did prior to AB 109. In addition, Probation has increased
communication and collaboration with BHS and AB 109-contracted CBOs. This cooperative effort has
resulted in a greater number of referrals to supportive reentry services established to facilitate a person’s
successful reintegration into the community.
In recent years, the following service programs have been developed:
In FY 13/14, the Pre-trial Services Program was developed as an evidence based collaborative
between the Office of the Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff’s Department, and the District
Attorney’s Office to reduce the use of money bail and the number of individuals held in jail prior
to trial.
During the FY 14/15, the West County Reentry Success Center, a one-stop center where the
reentry population can connect with a diverse array of reentry support providers, was opened.
In addition, the Network Reentry System was launched in FY 15/16. The Network uses mobile
Coordinators to connect the reentry population, especially those in East and Central County, with
County services and AB 109-contracted service providers.
In FY 16/17, a Pre-release Planning Pilot Program was developed to improve the transition of
individuals from incarceration to services and programs that aid in their successful reentry into
Page 40 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 14
the community once they are released from custody. This is accomplished by screening for and
assessing a person’s needs, developing an individualized transition plan related to the identified
needs, and providing the person with support as they implement their plan.
Other Reentry Initiatives
In addition, during the FY 17/18, the Smart Reentry Pilot was developed to address the particular needs
of transition aged youth (TAY). Drawing on a Bureau of Justice Assistance (“BJA”) funded grant, the
collaborative pilot seeks to serve 100 moderate to high risk TAY who will reside in East County after a
period of incarceration. TAY who are or at high risk of homelessness are a priority for this project.
Stand Together Contra Costa was launched as a pilot project on January 1, 2018 and is managed by the
Office of the Public Defender in partnership with nonprofit organizations and community members.
Unanimously approved by the BOS, Stand Together provides no-cost rapid-response support, civil
deportation defense legal services and clinics, immigrant rights education and training, and direct-service
support for immigrant individuals and families in Contra Costa County. The mission of the project is to
ensure that all people in Contra Costa County, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, are afforded
the rights established by the United States Constitution and are protected from actions or policies that
result in disparate, discriminatory, or unlawful treatment. The backbone of Stand Together Contra Costa
is a Rapid Response Hotline, which is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide a single point
of contact for people who witness or are targeted by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
actions undertaken in the County. The pilot phase of the initiative is scheduled through June 30, 2020.
Finally, during FY 17/18, the County undertook a comprehensive planning process to update its Reentry
Strategic Plan to better guide the County’s development of its local reentry system, including but not
limited to AB 109-funded services. The five-year strategic plan began with a needs assessment to identify
key strengths and needs in the reentry system. This needs assessment built on recommendations from
AB 109 evaluations conducted over previous years and was drawn on to further engage stakeholders in
defining priority areas, goals, and strategies to address gaps and needs in the reentry system. The Reentry
Strategic Plan serves as the guiding document for the County’s reentry programs and services for 2018-
2023.
Page 41 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 15
County Department Impacts
Public Safety Realignment required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships
between County departments to provide coordinated and evidence-based supervision of, and services
for, the AB 109 reentry population. In Contra Costa County, through partnerships with local health and
social service agencies, individuals supervised by the Probation Department as part of PSR are provided
with access to supportive services that help facilitate their reentry and reintegration into the community
when released from custody. Organized in the order a typical defendant’s case would move through the
justice system, the sections below summarize how AB 109 has impacted County Departments by
highlighting the volume and types of supervision and services provided to the AB 109 population across
the included County agencies.
District Attorney’s Office
Table 1: Budget Allocation for the DA
DA Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits: Victim Witness Program $ 109,231
Salaries & Benefits: Arraignment Program $ 649,491
Salaries & Benefits: Reentry/DV Program $ 693,512
Salaries & Benefits: ACER Clerk $ 64,094
Salaries & Benefits: Gen'l Clerk $ 63,536
Operating Costs $ 86,109
Total $ 1,665,973
The District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) functions to protect the community by prosecuting crimes and
recommending sentences intended to increase public safety. The program expenditures above reflect an
approximate 2 percent increase over the previous fiscal year.
Certain felony charges, if convicted, result in AB 109 sentences. As shown in both Figure 1 and Figure 2
below, on average, 13 percent of all convicted felonies in the County in FY 2017/18 resulted in AB 109
sentences.
Page 42 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 16
Figure 1: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, by quarter
Figure 2: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences
The Court may sentence a convicted AB 109 individual to either local custody or a split sentence, which
entails local incarceration followed by Probation supervision. Increasing evidence shows that split
sentences lead to better outcomes, and the County’s District Attorney has been a statewide leading
advocate for split sentences. In FY 17-18, 100% of AB 109 sentences in the County were a combination of
custody and supervision. Figure 3 presents the number of AB 109 split sentences by quarter. Overall, 139
individuals received a split sentence with an average of 35 per quarter.
Figure 3: Number of AB 109 Split Sentences by Quarter2
2 Only includes new 1170(h) sentences
15%15%12%9%
39 41
31
28
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences% Other
% AB 109
# AB 109
AB 109 sentences
n=139,
13%
Other felony
sentences
n=952,
87%
39 41
31 28
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4AB 109 Split SentencesPage 43 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 17
Additionally, the DA can initiate supervision revocations for probation and parole violations. Figure 4
presents the number of AB 109 supervision revocations by AB 109 classification and quarter. Over the
course of FY 17/18 there were a total of 660 revocations. While there is some variation by quarter, the
number of revocations by AB 109 classification are somewhat consistent over time with the highest
number of parolee and PRCS revocations occurring in the 4th quarter.
Figure 4: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations
As presented below, the majority of revocations (n=396, 60%) were among the PRCS population with one-
third (n=220, 33%) among parolees. The small remainder of revocations (n=44, 7%) occurred among the
1170(h) population.
Figure 5: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations
13 5 14 12
96 96
101 103
49 47
49
75
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
# of AB 109 revocationsParole
PRCS
1170(h)
1170(h), 44,
7%
PRCS, 396,
60%
Parole, 220,
33%
Page 44 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 18
Office of the Public Defender
Table 2: Budget Allocation for the PD
PD Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits: Clean Slate/Client Support $ 397,269
Salaries & Benefits: ACER Program $ 872,787
Salaries & Benefits: Reentry Coordinator $ 267,971
Salaries & Benefits: Failure to Appear (FTA) Program $ 172,575
Total $ 1,710,602
The main role of the Public Defender (“PD”) within AB 109 implementation is to provide legal
representation, assistance, and services for indigent persons accused of crimes in the County. Before the
adjudication process begins, the County’s AB 109 funds enable the Office of the Public Defender to provide
legal assistant and attorney staffing for the Arraignment Court Early Representation (“ACER”) and legal
assistant staffing for the Pre-trial Services (“PTS”) programs. Both the ACER and PTS programs are
designed to reduce the County’s custodial populations; by ensuring the presence of attorneys at
defendants’ initial court appearances, ACER 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. PTS supports reduced Pre-trial detention by providing judges
with greater information with which to make bail and Pre-trial release decisions, and by providing Pre-
trial monitoring of individuals who are deemed appropriate for release.
The Office also provides a suite of post-conviction Clean Slate services including a Clean Slate attorney
and advocates who will file petitions requesting various forms of record clearance relief including
expungement, reduction of felonies to misdemeanors, certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early
termination from supervision, and arrest record sealing. The program expenditures above reflect a 20
percent increase over the FY 16/17 budget.
In addition, the County AB 109 funds support a social worker in the Office of the Public Defender who
provides social service assessments and referrals for clients needing additional supports and prepares
social history reports for court consideration in sentencing and case negotiations. As presented in Figure
6, during FY 2017/18, while not all individuals referred to a social worker were assessed, all defendants
who were assessed for social service needs (n=172) were referred to community-based services intended
to help address identified needs.
Page 45 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 19
Figure 6: Number of individuals served by Public Defender Social Worker
The ACER collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender and the District Attorney’s Office has
resulted in thousands of defendants receiving representation at arraignment and does appear to facilitate
both pre-trial releases and early case resolution. As Figure 7 shows, more than 5,000 defendants were
represented at arraignment though the ACER program. Over the course of the year, the percentage of
defendants who were released on their own recognizance at arraignment increased from 23% to 34%.
This represents an increase of almost 50% over the course of the fiscal year.
Figure 7: Number and percentage of clients released on OR
A smaller but still sizeable percentage of criminal cases were also disposed of through ACER, shown in
Figure 8. Across the year, 181 cases resolved at arraignment, comprising between 2% and 5% of all
cases handled by an ACER attorney.
75
47
40
26
63
43 40
26
63
43 40
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsReferred to
Social Worker
Assessed by
Social Worker
Referred to
community
services
1394
1101
1252 1407
329 301 401 490
23%
27%
32%34%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsDefendants
represented at
arraignment
ACER
defendants
released on OR
% ACER OR
releases
Page 46 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 20
Figure 8: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions
In addition to these services, the Office of the Public Defender dedicated significant effort to Clean State
services. As Figure 9 shows, the Office of the Public Defender filed 4,599 Clean Slate petitions throughout
the year. During this time, 2,941 Clean Slate petitions were granted. This represents a granted rate of
64% overall and quarterly rates of 51%, 80%, 52%, and 75%, respectively. The overall denial rate was 36%
(n=1658) with quarterly denial rates of 49%, 20%, 48%, and 25%, respectively.
Figure 9: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied
Stand Together Contra Costa
Table 3: Budget Allocation for Stand Together
Stand Together Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits: CCEB $ 491.843
Salaries & Benefits: Public Defender $ 82,300
Total $ 574,143
A public-private initiative managed by the Office of the Public Defender in partnership with nonprofit
organizations and community members, Stand Together Contra Costa's pilot phase began in January 1,
2018 and runs through June 30, 2020. The mission of Stand Together Contra Costa is to ensure that all
people in Contra Costa County, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, are afforded the rights
established by the United States Constitution and are protected from actions or policies that result in
disparate, discriminatory, or unlawful treatment. The project provides no-cost rapid-response support,
31 26
58 66
2%2%
5%5%
0
50
100
150
200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesACER
dispositions
% of cases
disposed
through
ACER
1305
1171 1156
967
672
939
604
726633
232
552
241
0
500
1000
1500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of PetitionsPetitions
filed
Petitions
granted
Petitions
denied
Page 47 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 21
civil deportation defense legal services and clinics, immigrant rights education and training, and direct -
service support for immigrant individuals and families in Contra Costa County. Catholic Charities of the
East Bay (“CCEB”) serves as the project’s primary community-based partner and as lead of a coalition of
seven nonprofit agencies including: CCEB, Bay Area Community Resources, Centro Legal, International
Institute of the Bay Area, Jewish Family & Community Services, Oakland Community Organizations, and
Monument Impact.
Pre-trial Services
Table 4: Budget Allocation for PTS
PTS Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits: Probation $ 748,632
Salaries & Benefits: Public Defender $ 190,401
Operating Costs $ 77,762
Total $ 1,016,795
PTS is a collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender, the District Attorney, Probation, and the
Court aimed at reducing the Pre-trial custodial population through the use of evidence based alternatives
to money bail. The program budget above reflects an approximate 8 percent increase over FY 16/17.
All eligible individuals scheduled for arraignment are screened by paralegals. Qualifying clients are then
assessed for risk utilizing a validated assessment tool. In general, there are five categories of risk: low,
below average, average, above average, and high.
The numbers of PTS clients assessed for risk and their resulting risk level by quarter are shown in Figure
10 below. Over the course of the year, the number of clients assessed increased 69% from 144 in Q1 to
243 in Q4. In addition, the percentage of PTS clients assessed at high risk doubled from 7% in Q1 to 14%
in Q4. While the percentage increase in those assessed at above average risk was not as large as shown
among those assessed at high risk, the number of those assessed at above average risk almost doubled
over the course of the year, from 47 to 92, reflecting an increase of 5%, from 33% in Q1 to 35% in Q4.
These increasing rates of high risk clients are mirrored with decreasing rates of lower risk clients. The
percentage of clients assessed at below average risk reduced from 25% in Q1 to 15% by Q4.
Page 48 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 22
Figure 10: PTS clients assessed for Pre-trial risk
Figure 11 below displays the count of individuals under pre-trial monitoring by quarter along with the
count of successful completions. As shown, the number of clients being monitored and completing PTS
has grown substantially over the course of the fiscal year. Here, a 65% increase in the number of PTS
clients monitored from Q1 to Q4 can be seen with a 39% increase in the number of successful
completions. These differential rates in the growth in clients being monitored compared to successful
completions suggests a substantial growth in the program and caseloads.
Figure 11: PTS clients being monitored and completed
Figure 12 displays the distribution of assessed risk levels in FY 2017/18. As shown, the majority of clients
(66%) scored above average or high risk during the year. Here, 674 clients were assessed at above average
or high risk compared to the 341 clients who were assessed at average or below risk. As expected, clients
who were assessed to be above average or high risk were much less likely to be released onto Pre-trial
monitoring (32% and 18%, respectively) compared to clients who were average risk and below (49%, 41%
and 44%, respectively).
10 8 22 34
47 47 80 92
51 47 69 81
36 28 36 36
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
High Above average Average Below average
160 144
227
264
31 18 37 43
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Count of Individuals# clients monitored # successful completions
Page 49 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 23
Figure 12: Assessed Pre-trial risk levels
Figure 13 demonstrates that over the course of the year and for each risk group, the Court released a
growing proportion of clients to PTS. The percentage of clients assessed at low risk who started pre-trial
supervision increased 11% over the year, from 8% in Q1 to 19% in Q4. Across the other risk groups, the
percentage of clients who started pre-trial supervision increased from 5% to 8% from Q1 to Q4. For
example, among those assessed as average risk, the percentage of clients who started PTS increased from
8% in Q1 and 7% in Q2 to 18% and 16% in Q’s 3 and 4. Notably, in January 2018, at the start of Q3, the
Humphrey decision was released and clarified the requirement for bail to be affordable and not fashioned
to ensure detention. This decision likely accounts for a high proportion of the growth in individuals who
started PTS between Q2 and Q3.
Figure 13: Percentage of assessed clients starting Pre-trial monitoring, by risk level
As Figure 14 shows, among all individuals under pre-trial monitoring whose case closed during FY 2017/18,
on average, the majority (63%) successfully closed their cases. Here, a successful case closure indicates
that clients appeared at their court dates and were not charged with any new offense while going through
the court process. The percentage of successful case closures by quarter were 60%, 54%, 70% and 65%,
48
99
194
396
278
21 41
96 126
51
0
100
200
300
400
500
Low Below
average
Average Above
average
High n/aNumber of ClientsClients
assessed in
risk category
Clients
starting
pretrial
monitoring
8%
2%
15%
19%
5%5%
19%
12%
8%7%
18%16%
4%6%
13%
9%
2%2%
7%8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage starting pretrial monitoringLow Risk Below Average Risk Average Risk Above Average Risk High Risk
Page 50 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 24
respectively with the largest number of case closures occurring in Q4. Notably, this increase may be
accounted for by the Humphrey decision that we released in Q3.
Figure 14: Pre-trial monitoring case closures
Despite overall success of PTS clients, a sizeable minority of clients (36%) do not successfully complete the
program. As Figure 15 shows, this is usually due to a client’s failure to appear at his/her court date. On
average, 49% (n=43) of unsuccessful pre-trial case closures were due to a failure to appear at court.
Further, rates of failure to appear by quarter were fairly consistent early in the fiscal year with a large
percentage increase in quarter 4 (35%, 35%, 41%, 70%). In addition, on average, 32% of unsuccessful case
closures were accounted for by new arrests and 18% by technical violations.
Figure 15: Unsuccessful Pre-trial monitoring case closures, by type
30 20
40
59
20
17
17
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresUnsuccessful
Successful
7 6 7
23786
7
6 3 4
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of Unsuccessful Completions# Failure to appear # new arrests # technical violations
Page 51 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 25
Office of the Sheriff
Table 5: Budget Allocation for the Office of the Sheriff
Sheriff Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits $ 6,649,947
Inmate Food, Clothing, Household Expenses $ 456,250
Monitoring Costs $ 55,000
IT Support $ 40,000
Behavioral Health Operating Costs $ 80,500
“Jail to Community” Program $ 208,000
Inmate Program Services $ 755,000
Total $ 8,244,697
The primary role in AB 109 implementation of the Office of the Sheriff is to provide safe and secure
housing for all incarcerated individuals, including AB 109 individuals. The Office of the Sheriff operates the
County’s three detention facilities – Marsh Creek Detention Facility (“MCDF”), West County Detention
Facility (“WCDF”), and Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”), plus the Custody Alternative Facility (“CAF”)
which offers electronic home detention. The budget expenditures above reflect a 9.25 percent increase
over FY 16/17.
The MCDF is generally considered a minimum security facility and houses incarcerated individuals who
have been convicted of lesser crime classifications and have already been sentenced. The facility houses
an average incarcerated population of 70, with a maximum of 188. Freque ntly referred to as “the farm”
because of its rural location, the MCDF encompasses approximately 32 acres of a land located at the base
of Mt. Diablo. The WCDF, located in Richmond, is a direct supervision jail designed to operate as a co-
educational, program-oriented facility. The facility houses up to 1,096 inmates within the confines of five
separate housing units; four for males and one for females. The MDF is a maximum security facility and
houses a diverse population of both pre-sentenced and sentenced inmates who do not qualify for less
restrictive environments. Over the course of FY 2017/18, there were 1,018 AB 109-related bookings or
commitments into the County’s detention facilities.
All AB 109 bookings take place at the Martinez Detention Facility, and Figure 16 shows the number of AB
109 bookings during each quarter of the year, with a breakdown by AB 109 classification. As this figure
demonstrates, on average over the year, 3056 parole holds (64%) and 3056 commitments (19%) make up
the vast majority of AB 109 bookings. Further, the percentage of parole holds and commitments has
increased dramatically by quarter with Penal Code (PC) § 3056 parole holds increasing 26% between Q1
and Q4 and 3056 commitments increasing 94% between Q1 and Q4. While the percentage of PC § 1170(h)
commitments increased over the fiscal year by 33%, flash incarcerations decreased over the same period
of time.
Page 52 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 26
Figure 16: AB 109 bookings, by type
Figure 17 presents the distribution of the average daily jail population across all three detention facilities
for the fiscal year. Here, a small proportion of the average daily jail population is classified as AB 109
(7.1%) while the vast majority is accounted for by individuals who are not AB 109 (92.9%).
Figure 17: Average daily jail population
Figure 18 through Figure 20 show the average percentage of AB 109 individuals in each of the County’s
detention facilities, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals in custody who are serving new 1170(h)
sentences versus parole holds or commitments.
On average, the MDF has an average daily AB 109 population that is 7% of the total population. Overall,
parole holds and commitments are greater than 1170(h) commitments with an average of 64% parole
holds and commitments compared to 36% for 1170(h) commitments throughout the fiscal year.
155 142
162
195
32 49 46 62
27 29 29 36
17 9 18 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsParole Holds (PC 3056)Parole Violation Commitments
AB109 Commitments (PC 1170)PRCS Flash Incarcerations
92.90%
7.10%
Non AB 109%AB 109 %
Page 53 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 27
Figure 18: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility
As presented in Figure 19, the WCDF, on average, houses an average daily AB 109 population that is 5%
of the total population. In contrast to the MDF, 1170(h) commitments are more common compared to
parole holds and commitments. Here, 56% of the average daily AB 109 population is accounted for by
1170(h) commitments compared to the 44% accounted for by parole holds and commitments.
Figure 19: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility
Figure 20, below, presents a more varied average daily AB 109 population in the MCDF compared to the
MDF or WCDF. Here, the MCDF houses an average daily AB 109 population that is 12.5%, over the
course of the fiscal year. Further, there a few parole holds and commitments at the MCDF with the vast
majority of the population accounted for by 1170(h) commitments.
27 30 24 30
15
18
21
18
7%7%7%7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationParole holds & commitments 1170(h) commitments
AB 109 % of total population
13 15 17 22
22 19 21
24
5%
4%
5%
6%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationParole holds & commitments 1170(h) commitments
AB 109 % of total population
Page 54 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 28
Figure 20: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility
While parolees make up a larger percentage of the AB 109 incarcerated population overall, on average,
1170(h) individuals spend much more time in custody than the parole population (who can be committed
to County jail for up to six months for a parole violation). This point is illustrated in Figure 21. Notably,
despite the fact that AB 109 allows for much longer sentences in local custody than was previously
possible, AB 109 individuals serve, on average, much less than a year in jail, as presented below. Here,
over the course of the year, 1170(h) individuals served an average of 181 custodial days or just under 6
months while parolees (committed), parolees (holds/dropped) and others served an average of 45 and 16
custodial days, respectively.
Figure 21: Average custodial days served by AB 109 clients, by classification3
The Jail to Community Program operates out of all three of the detention facilities. Figure 22 below
reflects the number of individuals, on average, who participated in weekly mentoring and support
3 Quarterly averages are based on first day of custodial sentence. In 2017/18 Q3 two of 22 individuals served are
serving sentences over 1,000 days, inflating that quarter’s average. Additionally, several individuals on 3056 holds
have other charges preventing parole or the courts from dropping their hold. This makes each quarter’s average
time served for 3056 holds/dropped appear larger than is typical.
1 1 0 1
7 6
5
6
15%
12%
10%
13%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Average daily populationParole holds & commitments 1170(h) commitments
AB 109 % of total population
176 161 153
234
42 47 44 47
16 18 13 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of days1170(h)
Parole
(sentenced)
Parole (holds/
dropped)
Page 55 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 29
meetings at each of the detention facilities by quarter. It is worth noting that the number of
participants who attended weekly meetings is limited by the size of the meeting room in each facility.
Figure 22: Jail to Community Program
Probation Department
Table 6: Budget Allocation for Probation
Probation Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits $ 2,591,428
Operating Costs $ 169,098
Total $ 2,760,526
The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109
clients, including PRCS and 1170(h) individuals with mandatory supervision as part of their sentences,
upon their return from custody to the community. As part of this process, AB 109 DPOs assess their clients
for both criminogenic risk factors and for general reentry needs, and then refer interested clients to a
range of supportive services. The Probation Department budget above reflects a decrease of
approximately 1 percent over the FY 16/17 budget.
A total of 445 individuals were released onto AB 109 Supervision during FY 2017/18. Between these new
supervision clients and continuing supervision clients, 1,120 AB 109 clients were supervised by the County
Probation Department during the same time period.
As Figure 23 and 24 show, PRCS clients represent a higher proportion of both new supervisees and the
overall AB 109 probation supervision population, in contrast to early State projections that estimated a
reduction in new PRCS clients overtime. As per the Governor’s proposed budget for the FY 18-19, this
increase has been attributed to court ordered measures and Proposition 57. Figure 23 below presents
the number of AB 109 clients that were newly released onto AB 109 supervision during the fiscal year by
quarter. On average, PRCS supervisees represent 62% of the new supervisees while 1170(h) clients
213 196 192 172
16 15 31 29344040 42
11 11 11 12696 5
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of participants# enrolled
# completed program requirements
# men attended WCDF weekly meetings (on average)
# men attended MCDF weekly meetings (on average)
# men attended MDF weekly meetings (on average)
Classroom Capacities:
WCDF =40
MCDF =20
MDF =12
Page 56 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 30
represent 38% of the total. Here, the proportion of new supervisees under PRCS per quarter is 65%, 57%,
69% and 61%, respectively, while the proportion of new supervisees under 1170(h) per quarter is 35%,
43%, 31% and 39%, respectively.
Figure 23: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification
Figure 24 below graphically presents the percentage of the total AB 109 population by classification.
Here we see that 40% of the total population is under 1170(h) supervision while 60% is under PRCS
supervision.
Figure 24: Total AB 109 individuals under supervision
Historically, PRCS clients have made up a higher proportion of the average daily number of AB 109 clients
under County supervision. As presented in Figure 25 below, this fiscal year is consistent with the historical
pattern where the average daily number of AB 109 PRCS clients is greater than the average daily number
of 1170(h) clients. However, it is worth noting that compared to FY 16/17, the average daily PRCS
population has decreased from 429 to 388 while the average daily 1170(h) population has increased from
357 to 414. Thus, this pattern is attenuating over time.
64
76 70 68
35
57
31
44
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsPRCS 1170(h)
PRCS
667
60%
1170(h)
453
40%
Page 57 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 31
Figure 25: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification
To determine each AB 109 client’s appropriate level of supervision intensity upon entering County
supervision, a DPO conducts an interview drawing on the Correctional Assessment and Intervention
System (“CAIS”) risk assessment tool, an evidence-based risk assessment tool, to determine each client’s
risk for recidivism and associated risk factors. Figure 26 indicates the distribution of recidivism risk for all
AB 109 clients given an initial CAIS risk assessment during FY 2017/18. Here, among the 923 AB 109 clients
that received an initial assessment, 43% were assessed as high risk while 32% and 25% received
assessments of moderate and low risk, respectively.
Figure 26: Initial CAIS risk levels
The majority of AB 109 Probation clients were assessed to have a variety of overlapping needs that are
associated with a risk for future involvement in criminal activities. As shown in Figure 27, the most
common risk factor among AB 109 Probation clients is alcohol and/or drug use at 69%, followed closely
by criminal orientation at 68%. Almost half, or 49%, of the AB 109 supervision population had needs to
improve their vocational skills and almost one-third (31%) have emotional risk factors. Social inadequacy,
family history and interpersonal manipulation were assessed as risk factors in 22-26% of the population.
364 379 361 355
418 439 446 449
0
100
200
300
400
500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average DailyPopulation1170(h)
PRCS
High
393
43%
Moderate
294
32%
Low
236
25%
Page 58 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 32
Figure 27: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs
Detention Health Services
Table 7: Budget Allocation for DHS
DHS Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits, Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD $ 187,537
Salaries & Benefits, LVN, WCD $ 294,711
Salaries & Benefits: RN, MCD $ 494,004
Salaries & Benefits: MHCS, WCD/MCD $ 121,532
Total $ 1,097,784
Detention Health Services Department (“DHS”) provides health care to all incarcerated individuals –
including AB 109 individuals – housed within the County. DHS provides in-custody access to nurses,
doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and psychiatrists who provide medical and mental health care
for all AB 109 individuals in custody. Further, basic health screenings to all new individuals in custody,
including AB 109 individuals, are also provided. The DHS program expenditure above reflects a 4%
increase over the FY 16/17 budget.
Figure 28 displays the number of AB 109 individuals who were provided with health screenings at intake
across each quarter of FY 17/18. A total of 1,086 individuals received intake screenings throughout the
fiscal year.
69%
68%
31%
24%
49%
26%
22%
6%
8%
5%
2%
2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse
Criminal Orientation
Emotional Factors
Interpersonal Manipulation
Vocational Skills
Family History
Social Inadequacy
Relationships
Isolated Situational
Basic Needs
Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
Physical Safety
Page 59 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 33
Figure 28: DHS intake screenings for AB 109 inmates
In addition to these screenings, DHS provides an array of health-related services to all individuals
incarcerated in the County’s detention facilities, including physical, behavioral, and dental care.
Unfortunately, at this time, disaggregated data that speaks to the proportion of AB 109 inmates with
physical or dental care conditions is not available.
Figure 29, below, shows that on average 25% of the incarcerated population has been identified with a
mental health condition. These findings are consistent with other estimates of mental health conditions
in incarcerated populations.
Figure 29: Percentage of In-Custody Population with a Mental Health Condition
Figure 30 presents the distribution of sick calls (e.g., in-person appointments) provided for AB 109
individuals in FY 2017/18. Given the rates of mental health conditions in the in-custody population, as
shown in Figure 30, it is not surprising that psychiatrist, mental health clinician and nursing calls are so
common. Over the course of the year, of 3806 HS sick calls, 48% were specifically for a mental health
provider while 7%, 21% and 25% were for dental, physician, and nursing providers, respectively.
298
248 285 255
0
250
500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntake
Screenings
25.6 28.8 30.7
18.4
0
10
20
30
40
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage
Page 60 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 34
Figure 30: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates
Behavioral Health Services
Table 8: Funding Allocation for BHS
BHS Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits $ 996,180
Operating Costs $ 68,952
Contracts $ 1,292,088
Vehicle & Maintenance $ 22,448
Total $ 2,379,668
The BHS Division combines Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (“AODS”), the Homeless Program, Forensic
Mental Health Services, and Public Benefits into an integrated system of care. BHS works with clients,
families, and community-based organizations to provide services to the AB 109 population. While BHS
provided services for the reentry population prior to the start of AB 109, PSR resulted in an increased
focus on and funding for services to this population. The BHS program expenditure above reflects a 6%
increase over the FY 16/17 budget.
The sections below present the number of AB 109 individuals receiving services from each BHS service
program over the course of the FY 17/18.
Alcohol and Other Drugs
The AODS program of BHS operates a community-based continuum of substance abuse treatment
services to meet the level of care needs for each AB 109 client referred. During FY 17/18, over 400 AB 109
referrals were made for AODS treatment services. As shown in Figure 31, a total of 78 individuals received
outpatient AODS services throughout the fiscal year. Of those, on average, 12 new outpatient admissions
154
261 268 269
221
206 176 18962
68 48 7186
96 116 115
299
275 236 244
93
91
79
83
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Inmate Sick CallsMental
Health RN
Mental
Health
Clinician
Psychiatrist
Dental
MD
Nursing
Page 61 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 35
were enrolled each quarter and approximately 1 client per quarter successfully completed the AODS
outpatient treatment.
Figure 31: Outpatient AODS Treatment Services
AODS also provides residential substance abuse treatment to clients on AB 109 supervision. As shown in
Figure 32, AODS provided residential treatment services to 99 AB 109 clients. New admissions to
residential treatment account for 68% of those receiving services while 24 clients successfully completed
residential services over the course of the year, for an average of 24% per quarter.
Figure 32: Residential AODS Treatment Services
Homeless Program
In FY 2017/18, the County’s Homeless Program, provided by the Health, Housing and Homeless Division,
served 11 AB 109 individuals in the first quarter, 17 in the second, 20 in the third, and 19 in the fourth, as
shown in Figure 33, for a total of 67 individuals receiving homeless services.
21
28
15 14
1 1 2 1
13
16
9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Count of AB 109 ParticipantsTotal AB 109 Clients Receiving Services Successful Completions New Admissions
27
23 25 24
8 6 5 5
18 16 18 16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Count of AB 109 ParticipantsTotal Receiving Services Successful Completions New Admissions
Page 62 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 36
Figure 33: Count of Individuals provided Homeless Services
The total number of emergency shelter bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population are shown below in
Figure 34. Both the Brookside and Concord shelters provide shelter and case management services to
assist residents with ending their homelessness. Further, both facilities operate 24 hour a day and have
the capacity to serve over 160 men and women. Services include meals, laundry facilities, mail, and
telephones. If involved in case management, residents may stay for up to 120 days. Overall, 2,391 bed-
nights were utilized throughout the county during the fiscal year, with 66% of bed nights provided by the
Concord shelter and 34% at the Brookside shelter.
Figure 34: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population
Mental Health Division
Forensic Mental Health collaborates with Probation to support successful community reintegration of
individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance related disorders. Services include assessment,
groups and community case management. As indicated in Figure 35, Probation referred 185 clients to
Forensic Mental Health services, of whom 110 or 59% were AB 109 referrals. Of the clients referred to
the Mental Health Division, 88 received mental health screenings from which 69 or 78% accepted
outpatient services. Among the AB 109 referrals, 63% accepted services.
11
17
20 19
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Count of individuals112 143
353
208247
420
513
395
0
100
200
300
400
500
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4# of bed-nightsBed nights, Brookside Bed nights, Concord
Page 63 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 37
Figure 35: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services
Public Benefits
BHS also assists AB 109 clients with applying for public benefits, including Medi-Cal, General Assistance,
CalFresh, and Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (“SSDI/SSI”). Medi-Cal
provides medical, dental, and vision insurance to low-income individuals and their families while General
Assistance (GA) provides temporary, short-term, employment focused cash grants to unemployed
persons with no other means of support. GA also provides continued aid for disabled or unemployable
persons while they apply for and secure SSI. The CalFresh program, formerly known as Food Stamps and
federally known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), provides electronic funds for
low-income individuals and families that can be used to buy most foods. Finally, SSDI/SSI are federal
programs that provide cash assistance to persons with disabilities. SSDI is based on an individual’s work
history and earnings record while SSI is based on financial need. Any of these public benefit programs
may assist AB 109 clients returning to the community.
Figure 36 displays the number of AB 109 clients assisted with applications for Medi-Cal in FY 17/18, and
the number of applications approved by the State. Over the course of the year, 248 Medi-Cal intakes
were completed and 189 approvals were received. This amounts to, on average, an approval rate of 76%.
Figure 36: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals
55
48
34
48
40
28
18
24
35
20 17 16
23 19
12 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Count of individualsTotal Probation Referrals AB 109 Referrals Screenings Services Opened
50
63
72
63
36 37
53
63
0
20
40
60
80
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntakes
Approvals
Page 64 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 38
In contrast, other than Medi-Cal applications, almost no AB 109 clients are enrolled in other benefits, such
as General Assistance, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI. Table 8 displays the number of AB 109 client intakes and
approvals for public benefits. While 35 intakes for SSDI/SSI were completed, no approvals were received.
Table 9: AB 109 client GA, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI intakes and approvals
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals
GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CalFresh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SSDI/SSI 13 0 17 0 4 0 1 0
Workforce Development Board
Table 10: Budget Allocation for the WDB
WDB Program Expenditure FY 2017-18
Salaries & Benefits $ 204,000
Travel $ 4,000
Total $ 208,000
The role of the Workforce Development Board (“WDB”) is to strengthen local workforce development
efforts by bringing together leaders from public, private, and non-profit sectors to align a variety of
resources and organizations to help meet the needs of businesses and job seekers. The budget allocation
above reflects a 4 percent increase over the FY 16/17 budget.
To date, the WDB’s primary role in AB 109 implementation has been to broker opportunities for the AB
109 reentry population and to coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of and are able
to effectively access services and resources available for the AB 109 reentry population. To that end, the
WDB has hosted several Fair Chance Hiring Summits throughout the County and identified 300 employer
partnerships that are appropriate for the AB 109 population; they have also conducted a number of on-
site recruitments and career fairs that the AB 109 reentry clients, as well as other reentry individuals, can
attend. Unfortunately, the WDB does not currently track the number of clients who have utilized their
services.
The WDB was successful in leveraging their AB109 allocation for a $400,000 AB2060 Supervised
Population grant and served 51 reentrants over a 2-year period with this funding (2016-2018). The WDB
will also be receiving approximately $460,000 over the next 2 years (2019-2021) in Prison to Employment
State funds and will be leveraging this to support their work with the AB109 community.
Page 65 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 39
Community Based Service Providers
Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.)
Contra Costa County’s reentry approach is centered on developing an integrated and supportive service
network comprised of AB 109-contracted community-based organizations, public agencies and the
broader community for the AB 109 reentry population to utilize. The network works together to help
create a pathway for the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals back
into the community. AB 109-contracted CBOs play a large role in the reentry infrastructure, providing a
range of services from housing assistance and employment services to mentorship and family
reunification. When working successfully, the County’s reentry services are part of a continuum that
begins at the point an individual enters the justice system and continues through their successful
reintegration.
Drawing on the County’s 2018-2023 Reentry System Strategic Plan, County and community stakeholders
agreed to the following set of guiding principles:
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 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.
Page 66 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 40
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.
While these principles have not been explicitly tied to AB 109, they are nonetheless founding principles
upon which much of the County’s AB 109 work has been built.
Countywide
Across the county, AB 109 contracted community-based organizations served 1,374 justice involved
individuals during FY 17-18. As presented in Figures 37 and 38, individuals, primarily men, were served
across all regions of the county with the greatest service utilization in West and East County.
Figure 37: Individuals Served by Region across the County
Figure 38: Distribution of Men and Women Served
East 485
(38%)
Central 289 (23%)
West 494
(39%)
West Central East
Men
1095
(81%)
Women
253
(19%)
Men Women
Page 67 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 41
Almost half of the 1,374 justice involved individuals served were on AB 109 probation or felony probation.
As shown in Figure 39 below, twenty percent of the population (n=280) were on AB 109 probation with
the majority of individuals on felony probation (n=396, 29%). A smaller proportion of individuals (n=201,
15%) were on informal court probation; 6 percent (n=88) were on parole and 8 percent (n=111) were
awaiting trial. It is unclear how 10 percent of those served (n=131) were involved in the criminal justice
system.
Figure 39: Criminal Justice Involvement
The unmet need for housing, presented in Figure 40, continues to be a barrier for community reentrants
with just over one quarter of individuals reporting stable housing at service intake. One-third of
individuals identified as being outright homeless with an additional 20 percent at risk for homelessness.
Figure 40: Housing Status at Service Intake with Community Based Organizations
280
396
140
111
201
14
88
13
124
7
20%
29%
10%
8%
15%
1%
6%
1%
9%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
% of ClientsCount of ClientsCount %n = 1374
380
268
474
252
28%
20%
34%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Stably housed At risk for
homelessness
Homeless Unk % of individualsCount of individualscount %n = 1374
Page 68 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 42
Among those served, on average, individuals completed two goals each during the fiscal year. As
expected, employment was the most common goal followed by mentoring and support, and finance.
Notably, as shown in Figure 41, the count and percentage of completed housing related goals is very
low.
Figure 41: Completed Goals by Domain
Overview of AB 109 Community Partnerships
During FY 15/16, Contra Costa County launched the Reentry Network, currently staffed and managed by
HealthRIGHT 360, in East and Central County to coordinate support and access to services through “No
Wrong Door” sites that are collectively aimed at helping returning residents reintegrate back into the
community after periods of incarceration. In addition, the County established the Reentry Success Center
in FY 14/15, presently staffed and managed in Richmond by Rubicon Programs, to serve as a collective
impact backbone agency that provides individuals with a “one-stop” center and access to a variety of free,
integrated, and effective County and community-based reentry services. Further, through the pre-release
planning pilot, developed to improve the transition of individuals from custody to community services,
the County’s Office of Education makes referrals to post-release AB 109 contracted service providers
including the Reentry Network, the Reentry Success Center and the diverse array of providers listed in
Table 10 below among others. These programs provide a gateway to community based service provision
for individuals returning to their community.
Table 11 describes the number of referrals each AB 109-contracted CBO received during FY 2017/18, as
well as the total number of enrollments and successful service completions. It is worth noting that prior
to FY 14/15, CBOs were contracted to provide services to AB 109 clients only. This changed in FY 15/16,
and AB 109-funded CBOs now provide services to any reentry clients in need of those services.
152
14 5
1601
38
329
135 53 156
342
15%
0%0%
57%
1%
12%
5%2%6%
12%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Percentage completedCount of completedCount %n=2826
Page 69 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 43
Table 11: Community-based service referrals, enrollments, and completions
Organization Total Referrals Total Enrollments Total Completions
AB 109 Other AB 109 Other AB 109 Other
Bay Area Legal Aid 77 -- 77 -- 62 --
Center for Human
Development
32 33 9 13 2 3
Fast Eddie’s Auto
Service
69 -- 32 -- 26 --
Goodwill Industries 67 138 67 138 30 48
Men and Women of
Purpose
48 87 39 41 24 26
Mz. Shirliz 4 30 8 5
Reach Fellowship 424 -- 37 -- 7 --
Rubicon5 527 -- 238 -- 19 --
SHELTER Inc. 317 65 100 30 25 6
Below are brief descriptions of the services that each of the AB 109-contracted CBO service providers offer
the County’s population.
Bay Area Legal Aid
Budget Allocation for Bay Area Legal Aid $ 150,000
Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) provides legal services for reentry clients and educates them about their
rights and responsibilities. The legal services BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing,
public benefits, health care, financial and debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The
program provides post-release legal check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that can be
remediated, educates clients about early termination of probation, and assists with fines. Attorneys are
also able to meet individually with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release.
Center for Human Development
Budget Allocation for the Center for Human Development $ 90,000
The Center for Human Development (“CHD”) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(“CFRP”) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing
reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing community
support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release
presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CHD
4 The number here is a rough estimate due to insufficient quarterly reporting data.
5 Please see the section on Rubicon for an explanation of their enrollments and completions.
Page 70 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 44
also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens at
partner agencies and other locations throughout the County.
Fast Eddie’s Auto Services
Budget Allocation for Fast Eddie’s Auto Services $ 75,000
Fast Eddie’s provides workforce development skills and automotive technical training for AB 109
individuals referred to the program. They have contracted with the County to provide employment
support and employment placement opportunities for AB 109 clients.
Goodwill Industries
Budget Allocation for Goodwill Industries $ 900,000
The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (“Goodwill”) facilitates the
County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement
services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at
local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for
competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers.
Men and Women of Purpose
Budget Allocation for Men and Women of Purpose $ 110,000
Men and Women of Purpose (“MWP”) provides employment and education liaison services for the County
jail facilities, for which the program facilitates employment and education workshops every month at the
County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP
also provides pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the organization’s evidence-
based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly
mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery.
Mz. Shirliz
Budget Allocation for Mz. Shirliz $ 150,000
Mz. Shirliz Transitional provides sober living environment housing services and housing placement
services to residents returning to the community from custody. A sober living environment means safe,
clean, residential environments that promote individual recovery through positive peer group interactions
among house residents and staff. Sober living housing is alcohol and drug-free and allows residents to
continue to develop their individual recovery plans and to become self-supporting. The residential
environment must co-exist in a respectful, lawful, and non-threatening manner with residential
communities in the County.
Page 71 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 45
Reach Fellowship
Budget Allocation for Reach Fellowship International $ 50,000
Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (“Reach”) provides weekly
workshops in West County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one
case management. Reach provides employment and education liaison services to female returning
citizens in fulfillment of the County’s Reentry into the Community Program and also acts as a lead
information specialist for County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. Finally, Reach also conducts
workshops to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to work with
Mentor/Navigators to assist incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork required
for those opportunities, and to screen participants for employment and educational preparedness.
Rubicon
Budget Allocation for Rubicon $ 1,100,000
Rubicon provides employment support and placement services, integrated with other supports, to AB 109
participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program includes pre-release engagement, job
readiness workshops, educational and vocational training, transitional employment, individualized career
coaching, legal services, financial stability services, and domestic violence prevention and anger
management. In order to provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with a number of other
organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB 109 providers, and
other community-based organizations.
Given the breadth of Rubicon’s program, the counts of total referrals, enrollments and completions
presented in Table 11 is not comparable to the other CBO programs. Here, the count of Rubicon referrals
speaks to all individuals referred to Rubicon including those who are seeking not only specific employment
services but also other services such as educational services or vocational training. As the primary
objective of their program is employment, the Total Enrollments count found in Table 11 speaks to the
number of individuals enrolled in their employment specific program, called Foundations Workshop, and
thus excludes other program participants. Further, the Total Completions refers to the number of
individuals who have been engaged and followed by Rubicon for a period of 3 years. As most of the CBO
programs are not this lengthy, the numbers reported by Rubicon would appear to be low when compared
to other organizations. For this reason, completions should not be compared across organizations.
As it relates to successful employment outcomes, it is worth noting that during the FY, there was a 91%
completion rate for the Foundations Workshop. Further, of those who completed Foundations, 80%
secured unsubsidized employment. In addition, among those who obtained employment following
completion of Foundations, an 89% retention rate was found after 30 days of employment. Consistent
with other reentry populations, the employment retention rate dropped to 57% after 90 days.
Unfortunately, no information is available on the average hourly rate. However, we plan to report this
data in future annual reports.
Page 72 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 46
SHELTER Inc.
Budget Allocation for SHELTER, Inc. $ 980,000
SHELTER, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109
Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. SHELTER, Inc.
provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. The first phase in the process is an
option to move into a transitional housing that is provided through a Sober Living Environment (SLE).
While placed in the SLE, they will receive intensive case management to assist them work through their
barriers to housing. The second phase in the process is to work with a Housing Resource Specialist (HRS)
that will provide tenant education and housing leads. Participants receive financial assistance to help
them in the process of obtaining permanent housing. They will continue to receive case management to
complete the 12 months provided as part of the program.
Page 73 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 47
AB 109 Population Outcomes
Over the course of FY 2017/18 there were a total of 1,120 AB 109 clients under supervision at some point
in time. Of these AB 109 clients, 161 individuals successfully completed the terms of their Probation during
the fiscal year. The following sections demonstrate the number of AB 109 clients who violated the terms
of their supervision and served flash incarcerations or had their probation revoked, as well as the number
of clients with new criminal charges filed against them or new criminal convictions during the fiscal year.
Violations
Probation officers use graduated sanctions with AB 109 clients. For instance, when clients have dirty drug
tests, they are typically referred to inpatient or outpatient treatment rather than having their supervision
term revoked and returned to custody. This allows them to receive treatment without further justice
involvement. AB 109 Probation Officers may also use flash incarcerations of up to ten days in county jail
for PRCS clients. This serves as an intermediate sanction where individuals must serve a short period of
time in county jail, but do not have further criminal charges filed against them. Figure 42 shows that the
number of flash incarcerations imposed on PRCS clients ranged from 10 to 21 per quarter.
Figure 42: PRCS flash incarcerations
Revocations of supervision were more common among PRCS clients compared to 1170(h) clients. As
shown in Figures 43 and 44, 22% (193) of PRCS clients had their probation revoked over the course of FY
2017/18 while 14% (71) of the 1170(h) population experienced a revocation.
Figure 43: Percentage and number of 1170(h) clients revoked
16 16
21
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Count of Flash IncarcerationsNo Revocation
453
86%
Revocation
71
14%
Page 74 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 48
Figure 44: Percentage and number of PRCS clients revoked
New Charges and Convictions
Figure 45 below shows the number of AB 109 individuals with new charges filed against them during FY
2017/18, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals who were convicted of a new criminal offense during
FY 2017/18. Because the court does not have a record of individuals currently under AB 109 supervision,
Figure 45 includes all individuals who have ever been supervised or sentenced under AB 109, including
those not currently under County supervision, who had new charges filed or new criminal convictions
during FY 2017/18.
The percentage of the AB 109 population with new charges or criminal convictions during FY 2017/18 is
not calculated because the court does not have a record of all individuals under AB 109 supervision. As a
result, there is no way to calculate this percentage without tracking individuals across data systems.
Overall, there were 205 new charges filed with more than half (58%) filed among PRCS clients. Thirty-one
percent of new charges were filed among parolees with 11% filed among 1170(h)s. As similar pattern can
be seen among new convictions with the highest rate of new convictions in the PRCS population and the
lowest among the 1170(h) population.
Figure 45: New charges or new criminal convictions, by AB 109 classification type
No Revocation
667
78%
Revocation
193
22%
22 15
120
94
63
43
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
New Charges New ConvictionsNumber of Individulas 1170(h)PRCS Parole
Page 75 of 80
Contra Costa County
Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 2017/18
June 2019 | 49
Looking Ahead to Fiscal Year 2018/19
Contra Costa County has responded to Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the County
to provide supervision and services to the AB 109 population, while building a collaborative reentry
infrastructure to support the reentry population’s successful reintegration into the community. The
County has followed best practice models in establishing access to services through the West County
Reentry Success Center’s “one-stop” model and the Central & East Network Reentry System’s “no wrong
door” approach. The launch of the Office of Reentry and Justice (“ORJ”) in January 2017 is evidence that
the County sees its Public Safety Realignment, reentry, and justice work as a high priority.
The Reentry Strategic Plan identified a number of reentry system-wide strengths and accomplishments as
well as areas for continued improvement. One priority need area of particular importance identified by
the Local Planning Group surrounds the effective use and coordination of data for on-going program
evaluation and continuous quality improvement. Data collection, sharing, and review are at the
foundation of a data-informed reentry system. Further, 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 since the
implementation of AB 109, there is still more work to be done. More specifically, issues of confidentiality
have inhibited data sharing and access. In an effort to bridge this gap and enhance the use and
coordination of data to inform decision-making, the ORJ will hire a Research and Evaluation Manager and
Probation will hire a research analyst during the up-coming fiscal year. With research staff housed at both
ORJ and Probation, the County will be better situated to develop and implement a monitoring and
evaluation plan to drive decisions about the reentry system while also protecting the confidentiality of
individual data.
The Youth Justice Initiative (“YJI”), a multi-year pilot study funded by a Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”)
Byrne Grant will be completed in FY 18/19. This pilot seeks to improve outcomes for youth at risk for, or
already involved in, the juvenile justice system by bringing together a multidisciplinary team of criminal
justice agencies, community partners, and advocates to address juvenile justice in Contra Costa County.
The pilot provides integrated prevention and intervention activities at key points along the spectrum from
school to detention and reentry and applies innovative practices with an aim to shift culture and staff
interaction with youth. Anticipated outcomes include improved school engagement, increased intrinsic
resiliency, prevention of juvenile justice involvement, and reductions in recidivism.
The Requests for Proposals (RFP) process from responders to provide housing assistance, employment,
mentoring and family reunification services to residents returning to communities in the County after a
term of incarceration will begin in Winter/Spring 18/19. This effort will be led by the ORJ and will result
in new or continuing contracts with CBOs to provide services for a three-year term during the period of
July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022.
Page 76 of 80
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/01/2019
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: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 335-1096
Referral History:
On February 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee
(PPC) 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).
At the April 2018 meeting of the PPC, staff was directed to return at a future meeting date with
information regarding the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) and the Delinquency Prevention
Commission (DPC).
At its October 1, 2018 meeting, the PPC directed staff to prepare an action of the Board of
Supervisors (BOS) to combine the functions of the DPC and the JJCC, and increase the statutory
membership of the JJCC to include:
Chief Probation Officer,
District Attorney's Office representative,
Public Defender's Office representative,
Sheriff's Office representative,
Board of Supervisors representative,
Employment and Human Services Department representative,
Behavioral Health Division representative,
County Alcohol and Other Drugs Services representative,
City Police Department Representative,
County Office of Education or a school district representative,
County Public Health representative, and
Eight community-based seats, including a minimum of two representing youth-serving
community-based organizations and two youth-aged community representatives (14-21
years old).
At its December 4 and December 18, 2018 meetings, the Board of Supervisors, by Ordinance
2018-30, dissolved the Delinquency Prevention Commission and, by Resolution 2018/597, added
seats and duties to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council increasing its size to 19 members by
Page 77 of 80
seats and duties to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council increasing its size to 19 members by
adding one (1) representative from the County Public Health Department; three (3) additional
at-large community representatives; and two (2) at-large youth representatives. With the
dissolution of the DPC, the reconfigured JJCC assumed the obligations and duties previously
assigned to the DPC.
The matter was then referred back to the PPC on March 11, 2019 to accept a report on the
County's JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan. The PPC directed an 8-week recruitment and
selection process for the vacant JJCC seats with the following timeline:
April 1, 2019: Issue Press Release advertising vacant seats
May 24, 2019: Application Deadline
June 3, 2019: PPC Interviews
June 18, 2019: Board of Supervisors' consideration of PPC nominees
The Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) issued a press release regarding the vacancies and
distributed it through both the Office of Communications and Media and the ORJ’s email
networks. As of close of business on May 24, 2019, a total of twenty-three (23) applications were
received. On May 28, 2019, after the deadline had passed, two additional applications were
received, and two more applications were received on May 30, 2019. The PPC considered all 27
applicants. Of the 27 applications received, five applicants indicated they were either still in high
school or college and thus eligible for the Youth Representative seat. All applicants were
subsequently notified about and invited to participate in the interview process; a conference line
was made available for those who were not able to attend in person.
At the June 3, 2019 PPC meeting, public interviews were conducted with 21 applicants attending
the meeting either in person or via teleconference. After the interviews, the PPC recommended
the following individuals be appointed to the JJCC by the Board of Supervisors, which occurred
at the Board's June 18, 2019 meeting:
First
Name
Last Name District City Designation
Jonathan Bean
III
Antioch At-Large
Community
Representative
LeDamien Flowers
I
Richmond At-Large
Community
Representative
Stephanie Medley
I
Richmond At-Large
Community
Representative
Tamisha Torres-Walker
III
Antioch At-Large
Community
Representative
D'Ana Clark I Richmond At-Large Youth
Representative
Journey Horacek-Lee III Antioch At-Large Youth
Representative
Page 78 of 80
At the conclusion of the interview process, the PPC directed staff to return to the Committee the
matter of the two "Nonprofit Community-based Organization" seats.
Referral Update:
At their June 18, 2019 Board of Supervisors meeting, the BOS appointed the individuals in
Attachment A to serve on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) with their two-year
terms effective July 1, 2019.
Recruitment Process
There are two seats vacant for representatives of youth-serving community-based organizations.
Staff recommends either of the the following recruitment schedules to fill these final vacancies on
the JJCC:
8-Week Application Period:
July 22, 2019: ORJ issues press release and conducts outreach
Sept.13, 2019: Application Deadline
Oct. 7, 2019: PPC Meeting Interviews
Oct. 22, 2019: Board of Supervisors' consideration of PPC nominations
4-Week Application Period:
July 22: ORJ issues press release and conducts outreach
August 16: Application Deadline
September 2: PPC Meeting - Interviews
September 17: Board of Supervisors' consideration of PPC nominations
These appointments, once made by the BOS, will be effective through June 30, 2021. In deciding
on a recruitment process, the Committee may also wish to determine if it would like to reconsider
applicants from the June 3, 2019 applicant pool who were not selected but would be eligible to
fill the current vacancies.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for the two youth-serving
community-based organizations representatives’ seats on the Contra Costa County Juvenile
Justice Coordinating Council.
Attachments
Attachment A - JJCC Membership as of July 1, 2019
Page 79 of 80
Contra Costa County
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Membership
Seat Incumbent Representing
Chief Probation Officer, as Chair Todd Billeci Probation Department
District Attorney's Office Jean Skilling District Attorney's Office
Public Defender's Office Karen Moghtader Public Defender's Office
Sheriff's Department David Hartman Sheriff's Office
Board of Supervisors Sonia Bustamante Board of Supervisors - District I
Department of Social Services Todd Lenz Employment and Human Services Department - Children and Family Services
Department of Mental Health Dan Batiuchok Behavior Health - Health Services Department
Community-based Drug and Alcohol Program Fatima Matal Sol County Alcohol and Other Drugs
City Police Department Aaron Roth Martinez Police Department
County Office of Education or a School District Lynn Mackey Contra Costa Office of Education
Public Health Public Health - Health Services Department
At-large Community Representative #1
At-large Community Representative #2
At-large Community Representative #3
At-large Community Representative #4
Nonprofit Community-based Organization #1
Nonprofit Community-based Organization #2
At-large Youth Representative #1
At-large Youth Representative #2
Attachment A
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Page 80 of 80