HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04221986 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: 4 PHIL BATCHELOR Contra
CountyCosta
Administrator
DATE: April 17, 1986 / County
SUBJECT: STATUS OF WEST COUNTY. JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT
AND OTHER CORRECTIONAL AND DETENTION ISSUES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept this report from County Administrator on status, of West County Justice Center
project and other correctional and detention issues.
2. Support Proposition 52 on the June 1986 ballot for issuance of $495 million in bonds
for further construction of jail beds in California. (Recommended by Correctional
and Detention Services Advisory Commission.)
3. Request development by CSAC of Proposition 52 allocation policy that provides funds
to cover Propositions 2 and 16 shortfall before other funds are allocated and so
inform Senator Robert Presley (author of SB 146 - Proposition 52), Contra Costa
County legislators, and the State Board of Corrections.
4. Accept report from Alcoholism Advisory Board on incarceration and treatment of
convicted drunk drivers and request Sheriff-Coroner and Director of Health Services
to develop in more detail a program for convicted drunk drivers housed at the Marsh
Creek Detention Facility, to be submitted during the upcoming budget hearings.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONIBACKGROUND:
Your Board, at its March 11, 1986 meeting, discussed various issues relative to the
overcrowded condition that exists at the County's Detention Facility in Martinez, and
asked for a status report on the, proposed West County Detention Center and related issues.
The following report is presented for your Board's information.
STATUS REPORT
1. WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER (WCJC)
A number of activities related to the WCJC are occurring simultaneously:
a. WCJC Pre-Design Program
Your Board contracted with Design Partnership to prepare a pre-design program
for the WCJC. The process to prepare this document included meetings with over
100 citizens and staff involved in every function of the proposed facility as
well as related criminal justice personnel.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATORRECOMMENDA IO BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 22 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
Also, REFERRED proposed legislation AB 3827 (Molina) to the County Administrator
for review and report; and REFERRED proposal for a minimum security facility for
incarceration of drunk driving offenders to the County Administrator for review.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -- III ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
Alcoholisn Advisory Board OF SUPERVISORS} ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: CADSAC -' E.t� a.�, 199 C.
ATTESTED
CAO — Justice System Programs] PhilatChe�lOf,� �
Sheriff—Coroner Clerk Of the Board of
Community Development Dept. Supervisorsand County Administrator
Director, Health Services Dept.
Director, Personnel Dent.
M382/7-89 BY DEPUTY
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
The draft pre-design document has been completed and is currently being revised
to bring the total project cost within the $48.6 million budget allocation.
The total project cost calculated for the Proposition 2 submittal for State jail
bond funds in 1982 did not include several costs which have had to be added due
to the change in facility location from the Proposition 2 location in Central
County. These costs are for:
(1) Inflation;
(2) Additional space requirements. The program concept has remained the same,
but additional space was added to accommodate the need for a booking unit
and intake housing for West County law enforcement agencies;
(3) Site acquisition costs. Not required for original Proposition 2 proposed
facility.
The program is being revised based on the priority of maintaining the total
number of 560 beds. The total project cost will be reduced to $48.6 million.
The document will be completed and submitted to the Board by June 1986 and will
include construction costs and staffing requirements.
b. Environmental Impact Report
An Administrative Draft of the EIR has been completed and reviewed by staff.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be ready for distribution in
the early part of May 1986. At that point, a mandatory 45-day public review
process will begin, during which a public hearing on the DEIR before the
Planning Commission will be held (mid-June 1986). After the public hearing,
written responses will be prepared to the environmental comments received on the
DEIR and the DEIR will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for certification
(mid-July). If certified, the EIR and findings will be transmitted to your
Board for a decision on the project (August 1986).
C. Architecture Services
A contract with Dworsky-Design Partnership for architectural services for the
WCJC has been approved by the Board of Supervisors, and design services will
begin after the pre-design document is accepted by your Board.
d. Project Management/Construction Management Services
The County Administrator's Office, with the approval of the Board of
Supervisors, has begun negotiating with O'Brien-Kreitzberg for project
management/construction management services. A proposed contract is scheduled
to be sent to your Board for approval on May 6, 1986.
e. Citizens Advisory Group for West County Justice Center
The Board of Supervisors, on April 1, 1986, established the Citizens Advisory
Group for the WCJC. The membership is currently being developed. A letter has
been sent to all agencies and groups identified for inclusion on the Advisory
Group requesting nominations, which will be submitted to your Board for
confirmation.
2
Status of WCJC & other Correctional Issues
f. Second Update of Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan
The County Administrator's Office in cooperation with the Sheriff-Coroner and
the Community Development Department have collected a data sample of all persons
booked during the entire month.of February 1985. This group of inmates were
followed until released and the data is currently being analyzed as part of the
second update of the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan. The analysis
will include an updated prisoner profile summary for the entire detention
system, including age and sex profile by charge, type of release by charge and
level of offense, length of stay by level of offense, type of release, and
charge.. This analysis will be available by July 1986.
Data from this sample have already been used to update the County detention
system population projections.
The population projections presented here are those the County used in its Adult
Correctional Facilities Master Plan and the Proposition 2 application. The
method uses incarceration rate (IR) and average length of stay (ALS) to project
future County detention system populations.
The population projection process involved the following steps:
(1) A four-week sample period was selected, February 1985.
(2) Date and time of booking were noted for all persons booked during the
sample period, excluding discretionary contract prisoners.
(3) Data on date and time of release (up to one year from booking) were
collected for each prisoner.
(4) Length of stay (ALS) in hours for each prisoner was calculated and averaged
for all prisoners (x (Mean) = 323 hours).
(5) The incarceration rate (per 100,000 population) for the 1985 sample was
calculated according to the following formula:
Bookings for four weeks/4 x 52 weeks/year = IR = 3,425
1985 County population (in 100,000's)
(6) A linear regression was performed using six points (IR's) covering the
years 1978-85. The following formula describes the best fitting line
through those points:
y = -18674.9 + 259.4 (x)
(IR) year
The line derived by this method is shown on Figure 1.
(7) Future average daily population (for each year 1986-1991) was calculated as
follows:
ADP = IR per 100,000 population x County population
(in 100,000's) x ALS (hours)/24 (hours/day)
(See Figure 2 and Chart 1)
3
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
Figure l: Detention System Incarceration Rate
6000
z
0
H
H
KG
a
0 5000
P4
0
0
0
0
0
4 0 0 0 — -- _..___.__.___ __._..__..___ __._—_____ �. �_._ ._.___.____ --_--_... —..__. _--- _------__--_—
a
w
a
U ,
w (34 5)
E-1
3 0 0 0
z
0
H (2581)
W (23 8)
2000 (2aD 8)
2 (-17 6) �
H (1649)
1000 ---
78
000 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
YEAR
*Does not include discretionary contract prisoners from
other jurisdictions.
4
Status .of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
Figure 2: Detention System Population Projections
--------
1200
z y
O
. 1000
a
w i (867).
00000
U) 800
' --- -—
>4 (725}
a (726) 655 (Board-Rated Capacity)
H
Q
w
600
u
w
Q
H 400 -
0
00 0
x
P4
2 0 0
198.3 84 85 86 87 88 89 1990
YEAR
*Does not include discretionary contract prisoners from
other jurisdictions
5
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
CHART 1
(Refers to Figure 2)
DETENTION SYSTEM POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year Future System ADP
1986 956
1987 1,038
1988 1,122
1989 1,209
19.9.0 1,297
6
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
The actual average daily population for March 1986 for the detention system was
935. For the first three months of 1986, tale actual ADP was 911. Thus, a
projection of 956 for the calendar year 1986 is probably close to accurate.
As indicated by the population projections, the ADP for the County detention
system in 1990 will be 1,297--254, more inmates than the rated capacity of the
MDF (386), the WFC (97), and the proposed WCJC (560). If the Marsh Creek
Detention Facility is kept operational for some minimum-security inmates, such
as drunk drivers, as proposed later in this report, the projected number of
inmates could be housed by the current facilities and proposed WCJC in 1990.
It is important to keep in mind that these projections assume current law
enforcement policy and practice and an ALS that remains constant at 13.5 days.
If city, county or state enforcement practices or criminal justice policy
changes, the ADP will, in all likelihood, be affected. For example, the
implementation of the Cal-I.D. fingerprint information system in California in
the next several years is expected to increase the number of jail admissions in
California by 8,000 to 10,000. Coordinated local law enforcement, such as drug
suppression efforts, can also increase jail admissions.-
g. Overcrowding
On Monday, April 14, 1986, the detention system had 957 inmates housed in three
facilities. Staff has continued to review and develop or expand alternatives to
incarceration programs.
The Sheriff-Coroner, the CAO and the Municipal Courts recently agreed on a
program to provide Municipal Court judges with own recognizance/bail information
for in-custody defendants at arraignment rather than several days later at a
post-arraignment bail hearing. A Sheriff's Department clerk prepares booking
and criminal history information on the graveyard shift for in-custody
defendants going to be arraigned the following morning. This information
accompanies the defendant to arraignment. If additional information is needed,
the judge can still request a bail study by Probation staff. This program has
been tried by the Mt. Diablo Municipal Court and the Bay Municipal Court. It
should be implemented in all Municipal Courts within the next two weeks.
2. STATUS OF STATE JAIL BOND FUNDS
Propositions 2 and 16 provided over $590 million for county jail construction in the
State of California. The Legislature allocated $40 million more than was available
through the bonds to counties for construction. The State will not obligate bond
money until a county is ready to begin construction. (At the present time, $381
million is encumbered. ) At the earliest, Contra Costa County will not begin
construction of the WCJC until April 1987. In discussions with State Board of
Corrections staff, it appears that Contra Costa will not receive any Proposition 2 or
16 bond money because other counties included in the Legislature's allocation are
further along in their jail construction process.
There will be a new $495 million bond issue on the June ballot--Proposition 52--that
will make available additional money for local jail construction if passed by the
voters ($475 million for adult and $20 million for juvenile facilities). The intent
of the legislators who designed this bond issue was for it to also cover the
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
shortfall in the Proposition 2 and 16 allocations. The Board of Corrections (which
administers the jail bond funds), And the County Supervisors Association of
California (which is developing an allocation formula for the Proposition 52 funds),
have indicated support for using Proposition 52 funds to cover this shortfall.
This County has corresponded with the Board of Corrections and the County Supervisors
Association of California regarding our interest in having the Proposition 2 and 16
allocations honored.
The Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission (CADSAC) has written a
letter to the Board of Supervisors recommending that the Board support Proposition
52.
3. ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED OFFENDERS AND REPORT ON
COUNTY-OWNED MOTEL FOR LOW-RISK INMATES SUCH AS DRUNK DRIVERS
a. Definition of Problem
Data from the sample of all bookings for the month of February 1985 (discussed
earlier in this report) indicate that of the 1,853 persons booked, 509 (27.57)
were booked for drunk driving. (This includes both unsentenced and sentenced
bookings.) Of the 509 DUI bookings, 478 were unsentenced, which accounted for
26.97 of all unsentenced bookings during the month. Twenty-eight (28) wer?
sentenced drunk drivers which accounted for 407 of the sentenced bookings.
Of the unsentenced persons booked for DUI, 787 were cite released when sober,
6.17 were released by the court (including own recognizance) and 57 were
released time served.
The vast majority of unsentenced drunk drivers are first offenders (over 907)2
and if convicted, will serve their sentence in the Sheriff's Department Work
Alternative Program.
Inmates who .have repeated drunk driving convictions are housed by the Sheriff at
Marsh Creek and the Work Furlough Facility. On April 13, 1986, there were 50
convicted drunk drivers at Marsh Creek (and 4 persons convicted for drunk in
public), and at the WFC, there were 37 convicted drunk drivers.
1 This percentage overstates the sentenced drunk driving representation
in the booking profile. In Contra Costa County, if a person is booked
pretrial and remains in custody through trial and the time served in County
jail, that person will always show up in the data sample as an unsentenced
booking. Only persons actually released from custody who then are returned
to custody to serve their sentence show up as sentenced bookings.
2 Percentage based on the number of drunk driving cases filed in 1983
by number of prior convictions. (Source: Law and Justice Systems
Information Project. )
8
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
b. Services Provided to Inmates with Alcohol .Problems
For the person who is picked up for drunk in public, law enforcement agencies
are requested to take these individuals to a detox center. There are detox
services available in Martinez, Pittsburg, Richmond and Concord. If the detox
centers are full or the drunk is violent or there are other aggravating
circumstances, the law enforcement officer will book the person into the MDF.
There were 149 bookings for PC 647f (drunk in public) during February 1985--5.3
per day for a total of 8% of all bookings (2.3 of these bookings per day were
from East County).
Public inebriates and drunk drivers (who are all booked) detox at the MDF and
are released when sober. There is a student intern from Bi-Bett who works in
the MDF detox area five nights a week for four hours a night. The intern
counsels and provides referrals to treatment programs for detainees.
There is also a full-time Substance Abuse Counselor from Health Services who
works with inmates in the detention system. The counselor works with
self-referred inmates regardless of offense. (Inmates housed in the detention
system with alcohol or drug problems are not necessarily arrested for, or
convicted of, alcohol or drug-related crimes.)
In 1985, 848 inmates were referred to the counselor for evaluation, and 531
inmates were seen in an assessment/counseling session (many inmates are released
or change their mind about receiving service). The major thrust of this program
is to place highly-motivated inmates in residential treatment programs which are
viewed as more effective than outpatient services.
Alcoholics Anonymous runs groups at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility on
Tuesday evenings, and at the WFC every Monday evening.
C. Development of Alternative Housing Program for Convicted Drunk Drivers
The majority of multiple conviction drunk drivers do not pose security or
management problems for the detention system. However, the law requires these
individuals to serve their sentence in jail.
The County Administrator's Office, Health Services and Sheriff's Department
staff have been exploring the most cost-effective housing arrangements for this
category of prisoner. It is the recommendation of this group that these inmates
continue to be housed at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. The Alcoholism
Advisory Board, in .a letter to your Board, also recommended an experimental
custody and treatment pilot program for convicted drunk drivers, if funds can be
found.
Drunk drivers could be separated from the general sentenced housing population
at Marsh Creek into one housing unit. If a treatment component were added to
the Marsh Creek facility, there would be less custody supervision required. If
9
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
a civilian alcohol counselor3 worked days at Marsh Creek with this group of
inmates and/or these inmate's were walked over to the Diablo Valley Ranch
(adjacent to Marsh Greek) during the day for treatment, the Sheriff could free a
custody officer during that shift. In addition, the Sheriff could operate this
housing unit like those planned for the WCJC where a custody deputy supervises
two housing units on the midnight shift.
This alternative housing program for drunk drivers is viewed as the most cost
effective strategy for several reasons:
(1) If the Sheriff-Coroner tried to locate a new facility, such as a motel, he
would most likely face neighborhood opposition and a lengthy EIR process.
(2) The cost to lease or purchase a motel would in all likelihood be higher
than new housing units at Marsh Creek.
(3) The operational costs of a facility/motel would definitely be higher than
Marsh Creek. Food service, laundry service and medical service are already
available at Marsh Creek. A separate facility would require at least one
custody deputy on duty 24 hours a day. The proposed program at Marsh Creek
allows for sharing of custody staff.
4. STATUS OF EMPLOYING WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESIDENTS AT THE WCJC
The Sheriff-Coroner has proposed sponsoring an employment training program for West
County residents interested in applying for custody and civilian positions in the
Sheriff's Department. The program would assist trainees in becoming competitive for
these positions. Training would cover how to fill outan application, assistance in
passing physical agility requirements, tutoring for written tests, etc. Variations
of this type of training program have been offered before. The Sheriff-Coroner will
work with the Director of Personnel in developing and implementing this training
program for West County residents.
Also of relevance to the West County Justice Center construction project is the
development by the Affirmative Action Officer and the Personnel Department of an
expanded County minority and women-owned business program. The program, in all
likelihood, will be implemented prior to advertising for bids for construction of the
proposed WCJC.
5. STATUS OF THE STUDY ON CONSOLIDATION OF SOME SHERIFF-CORONER AND MARSHAL FUNCTIONS
The County Administrator's Office is studying the costs and benefits related to
consolidating bailiff, civil process and transportation functions of the
Sheriff-Coroner and Marshal. Several options for consolidation will be presented and
compared with each other and the status quo. As part of this study, reference will
be made to the equipment required by law to be provided to staff carrying out these
various functions. Civilianization of staff for some functions will also be
analyzed. A draft of the study will be circulated to all interested parties,
3 An alcohol counselor would cost approximately $30,000/year including
benefits.
10
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
including the Marshal, Judges, Grand Jury members, Sheriff-Coroner, Bar Association,
etc. , for comment, prior to transmittal to the 'Board. The report is scheduled to be
complete by the end of June 1986.
6. ANALYSIS OF THE INMATE POPULATION RELATIVE TO REASONS FOR INCARCERATION
The inmate population in a county jail turns over quite rapidly. The average length
of stay for county jail inmates Statewide in California for 1985 was 14.9 days
(including both unsentenced and sentenced bookings). Although the jail population
changes constantly, the characteristics of the inmate population at any given time
are likely to be representative of the inmate population at other times. The most
recent population profile was taken on January 29, 1985. The census was taken for
all inmates housed at the MDF on that day.
Data from the census survey indicates that the jail population consists primarily of
young adult males. On that day, 495 (897) of the 558 inmates were males. Of these
males, 441 (897) were between the ages of 18 and 39. For both males and females, the
age concentration of inmates lies in the 20-34 group. Sixty-nine percent (697) of
the male population and 76 percent of females fell into that- age category.
TABLE 1
Age and Sex of Contra Costa County's
Martinez Detention Facility Inmate Population
January 29, 1985
Age Male Female Total
if % # % # %
18-19 37 (7) 4 (1) 41 (7)
20-24 128 (23) 17 (3) 145 (26)
25-29 108 (19) 18 (3) 126 (23)
30-34 104 (19) 13 (2) 117 (21)
35-39 64 (11) 5 (1) 69 (12)
40-44 24 (4) 3 (1) 27 (5)
45-49 13 (2) 1 14 (3)
50-54 5 (1) 1 6 (1)
55-59 6 (1) 1 7 (1)
60+ 4 (1) 0 4 (1)
Unknown 2 (1) 0 2
Total 495 (89) 63 (11) 558 (100)
Source: Contra Costa County She-rift's Department
Survey for Active Inmates in the Martinez
Detention' Facility as of 0500 on 1/29/85.
. 4Board of Corrections, Jail Profile Data Summary, 1985.
11
Status of WCJC & other Correctional Issues
Data reveal that over three-quarters of the inmate population at the MDF were
unsentenced. The vast majority (82%) of both sentenced and unsentenced inmates at
the MDF were charged with felonies. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of charges were for
crimes against property and 31 percent were for crimes against persons. Thirty-four
inmates of these inmates were accused of homicide. The largest number oficrimes for
which inmates were arrested were burglary (n = 131), robbery (n = 55) and theft/car
theft (n = 69). These charges account for. 46 percent of all those incarcerated at
the MDF.
TABLE 2
Characteristics of the Contra Costa County
Detention Facility Inmate Population
January 29, 1985
Stated Residence Charged Crimes
198 (350) West County 460 (82%) Felonies
106 (19%) Central county 96 (17%) Misdemeanors
130 (23%) East County 2 (.4%) Civil/Infractions
124 (22%) out of County
Sentenced Unsentenced CrimeCharge Category
137 (25%) sentenced 220 (39%) Property
421 (75%) Unsentenced 173 (31%) Persons
42 (8%) Drugs
14 (2%) Traffic
40 (7%) DUI
28 (5%) Miscellaneous
41 (8%) Holds
Court Status Court Jurisdiction
21 (4%) Bound over 224 (400) Superior
27 (5%) Arraigned 129 (23%) Bay Municipal
82 (15%) Preliminary Hearing 75 (13%) Mt. Diablo Municipal
146 (26%) Pretrial 71 (13%) Delta Municipal
51 (9%) Plea 15 (3%) Walnut Creek Municipal
56 (10%) Pre-sentenced 6 (1%) Municipal - Unknown
101 (18%) Sentenced 38 (7%) other
21 (4%) Cite/OR/CO/849 Released
30 (5%) Holds
23 (4%) other
12
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
Over one=third of the inmates in the Contra Costa County Detention Facility are in
custody with outstanding holds. The vast majority (737) have holds with felony
charges or convictions. In terms of type of holds, most are state and federal agency
holds (557) Sixteen percent are holds from other California counties.
TABLE 3
Summary of Contra Costa County
Detention Facility Inmate Population With Holds
January 29, 1985
Holds
146 (737) with felony charges or convictions
38 (197) with misdemeanor charges or convictions
15 (87) with no local criminal charges pending
Type of Holds
109 (557) from state and federal agencies (misdemeanor and felony)
31 (167) from other California counties
18 (97) local holds (no bail)
25 (137) misdemeanor and other miscellaneous holds (outside and local)
15 (87) no local criminal charges pending
Data was also collected on classification problems. Out of the 558 inmates, 103
(187) had classification/custody problems. This count does not include those inmates
with no bail, holds or additional charges. Most inmates identified as
classification/custody problems had some type of mental health problems (367).
Escape risks and protective custody were the. next most prevalent
custody/classification problems (157 each).
13
r
Status of WCJC & other Correctional Issues
TABLE 4
Summary of Contra Costa County
Detention Facility Classification/Custody Problems
January 29, 1985
Problem/Issues Number Percent
Mental healthl. 40 36
Escape risks 17 15
Drugs2 5 5
Protective custody 17 15
Work Furlough rejections 2 2
Clayton Rehabilitation Center 11 10
rejections
Disciplinary segregation 8 7
Discipline 4 4
Medical 4 4
Miscellaneous 2 2
Total 110 100
iThere is a duplicate count: 2 mental health inmates are also
protective custody; 2 are escape risks; 1 is a reject from
work furlough; and 1 is a reject from Rehabilitation Center.
2There is a duplicate count: 1 drug is also listed under reject
from the Rehabilitation Center (because he was using drugs) .
14
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
7. STATUS OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO REFORM DRUNK DRIVING LAWS
Assembly member Gloria Molina introduced a bill (AB 3827) in February 1986 designed
to reform current drunk driving laws. This bill would allow a court, as an
alternative to the specified imprisonment now required by law for repeated drunk
driving, to sentence a multiple offender to participation in a community residential
alcohol treatment program. The Municipal Court judges in Contra Costa County, as
well as the DUI Task Force have been supportive, in principal, of developing
legislation that provides judges increased flexibility in drunk driving sentencing
options. Such legislation might relieve jail crowding in some facilities. For
example, there are currently (April 13, 1986) 50 convicted drunk drivers serving
their sentences at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility out of a total 257 population
(19%), and about 37 drunk drivers at the Work Furlough Center out of a population of
100 (37%).
Health service professionals indicate that residential treatment may provide more
effective punishment to appropriate convicted drunk drivers. In a residential
facility, the drunk driver must confront their problem and receive treatment to
prevent subsequent repeat offenses. Judges would like the option of using a
combination of jail and residential treatment.
The Alcoholism Advisory Board has written a letter to your Board recommending support
of AB 3827.
Discussions with the County's lobbyist regarding AB 3827 indicate that lobbying by
Statewide groups such as MADD and the District Attorneys Association against this
type of legislation might prevent its passing.
8. PROPOSAL TO UTILIZE WORK ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM FOR LITTER CONTROL ALONG STATE HIGHWAYS
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The Work Alternative Program (WAP) currently distributes over 44 workers per day to
agencies and municipalities throughout Contra Costa County--including over eleven
cities and agencies such as Little League, Diablo Valley, Los Medanos, and Contra
Costa Colleges, Friends Outside, Antioch Fairgrounds, etc. Program personnel believe
distributing workers to all geographic areas of the County is preferable to assigning
all workers to one agency or geographical area. (Alameda County, on the other hand,
assigns almost all work alternative personnel to Cal Trans to serve on litter crews
along State highways. ) At this time, the WAP has more requests for assistance than
they can meet. The program has recently expanded to include inmates who have been
sentenced up to 30 days in jail. The previous maximum eligible sentence was 15 days.
Interviews are also being conducted at Work Furlough to accommodate West County
residents.
In 1984, when Contra Costa County attempted to negotiate with Cal 'Trans to place
workers on litter crews, Cal Trans required the sending agency (the Sheriff) to
supply custody supervision. The Sheriff has never provided supervision of their work
crews. Instead, they require the requesting agency to supply the supervision. The
Chief of Detention in Contra Costa County recently re-contacted Cal Trans staff
regarding their desire for work crews from Contra Costa County. Cal Trans staff
indicated that they have changed their policies and will now provide work crew
supervision and transportation.
15
Status of WCJC & Other Correctional Issues
Also, in the earlier Cal Trans contract reviewed by the Sheriff and County Counsel,
it was stated that the County had to administer all claims. County Counsel advised
against having the County administer claims. Due to the supervision requirement and
the claims issue, the Sheriff did not enter into an agreement with Cal Trans.
However, due to the recent changes in Cal Trans policies, the Sheriff is determining
whether some accommodation can be reached regarding supplying some County workers to
the State agency.
9. MANAGEMENT OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM
Although the detention system is 'significantly overcrowded, the Sheriff's Department
continues to receive acclaim for management of the jail facilities. In fact, a 1985
publication by the Her Majesty's Stationery Office, New Directions in Prison Design,
on the American new generation facilities includes the Contra Costa Martinez
Detention Facility among eight sites visited in the United States. The purpose of
the study, conducted by the Home Office Working Party, was to examine the claims of
new generation jail staff that this design helped foster improved surveillance and
encouraged control through the development of good interpersonal relationships. The
report's conclusions support the aims of these systems to provide safe, humane
institutions which offer inmates the opportunity for change and improvement through
their own efforts and through the services provided. The relaxed atmosphere coupled
with a clear sense of purpose and commitment helped to foster a sense of personal
safety among both inmates and staff. The study group continued to state that these
designs did not represent more costly solutions than existing designs in staffing and
maintenance costs and in practice would be more economical.
16
Contra
CostaStaff services:
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY
CORRECTIONAL AND DETENTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
A$"R%L SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION Martinez California 1945B13dg..8th Floor
GEORGE ROEMER,Executive Director
(415)372-4855
April 17, 1986 '
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Board Members:
The Legislature has allocated $36.6 million to Contra Costa County for
construction of the proposed West County Detention Center. As specified in
the legislation, these funds were to come from the sale of bonds by the
State of California under Propositions 2 and 16. We have been informed
that there may not be sufficient funds under these prior bond issues for
Contra Costa County. The reason for this is that the Legislature allocated
more funds than will probably be available.
To remedy this situation and to provide further funds for county jail
construction, Proposition 52 has been put on the June 1986 ballot, which
provides $495 million in new bond funds for county jail construction. Of
this amount, $20 million would be set aside for juvenile facilities.
We suggest that the County Board of Supervisors support the passage of
Proposition 52, since it is very likely that this would have to be the
source of the $36.6 million we need for our new facility.
Sincerely,
�. _
CLEMITT SWAGERTY, Chair '
CS:GR:pk
THE CORRECTIONAL AND DETENTION SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO ADVISE ON CURRENT AND PROPOSED ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES,PROGRAMS,ALTERNA-
TIVES TO INCARCERATION,PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD,ETC.ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
MADE BY THE COMMISSION OR ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS DO NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE
COUNTY OR ANY OF ITS OFFICERS.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ALCOHOLISM ADVISORY BOARD
2500 ALHAMBRA AVENUE
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
Phone(415)372.4395
April 10, 1986
Supervisor Tom Powers, Chairperson
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Powers and Honorable Members of the Board:
We are responding to your request for our recommendations regarding the use and
funding of a minimum security type of facility to be used for incarcerating
individuals who have been convicted of multiple offenses of driving under the
influence (MODUI) . The requirements of incarceration. of this class of offenders
has resulted from changes in State law and from the appellate decision in the
case of Peo2le of California vs. Hinton. We understand that you are also
interested in any recommendations that might help you to address the serious
problem of driving under the influence.
We first wish to commend you for your willingness to take active measures to
combat the very serious problems of drunk driving. Our County is unique because
of your support and interest in alcohol-related issues.
Based on your request, we would like to make the following recommendations:
1 . We recommend the use of a different type of facility other than the tradi-
tional jail for persons arrested and convicted for MODUI. Such a facility
would require very minimal security because these individuals are quite dif-
ferent from violent offenders such as rapists, armed robbers and so
forth. They are low-security risks and pose no danger to society except
when driving while intoxicated. The facility should incorporate a struc-
tured alcoholism intervention program to deal with these offenders'
underlying problem, namely, alcoholism. Until these individuals can control
their alcoholism, the citizens of this. county will continue to be exposed to
the danger of drunk drivers and extensive public funds will contine to be
spent on apprehending, prosecuting, and incarcerating this class of offen-
ders. The operation and security of the facility should be under the juris-
diction of the Sheriff as required by law. He should be required to
contract. through channels with the Health Services Department Alcoholism
Program for the delivery of alcoholism services. The Alcoholism Program
A-353 Chief should be in charge of designing the alcoholism program to be used in
the facility. Adequate funding should be provided for both operations and
` t I
Board of Supervisors
April 10, 1986
page 2
program. We wish to caution you that the extremely favorable results of
our current .alcoholism programs may not necessarily be replicated at the
proposed facility because treating alcoholism requires a complete change of
lifestyle difficult to achieve in a jail setting.
2. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors sponsor and lobby for legislation
to fund the proposed jail and program on a demonstration model basis. We
are making this suggestion because we feel that this is an innovative
program and because the County is incurring increased law enforcement costs
as a result of the previously mentioned changes in State law and the above-
mentioned court decision. We believe that if the State passes laws which
cannot be implemented without additional resources, the State should either
provide the funds, or the State should provide the counties with the means
to obtain these funds, such as in this case, the power to levy a local
liquor tax or some similar taxing authority.
3. We recommend that the County actively support AB 3827 by Assemblywoman
Molina. This legislation would restore to the courts power to impose alter-
nate sentences when individuals are arrested and convicted of MODUI. This
decision, in effect, would allow courts to first use the threat of jail to
motivate individuals to enter an alcohol intervention program at their own
expense. It further would require courts to sentence an individual to jail
should they fail such a program. We feel this would be much more- effective
in addressing the issue of public safety because it deals with the underlying
problem of MODUI offenders which is alcoholism. It would also place the
financial cost of treatment on the individuals who need that treatment. Our
County's criminal justice system and alcoholism programs have a firmly
established record showing the effectiveness of alcoholism treatment as a
method for reducing drunk driving and promoting the public's safety as a
result. Prior to the recent introduction of AB 3827, the municipal court
judges, the County DUI Task Force, and the Alcoholism Advisory Board have
all recommended support for this type of legislation. In addition to
dealing more effectively with the public safety aspects of drunk driving,
the passage of this legislation would be far less expensive to implement
than the minimum security facility proposed in our first recommendation.
We urge you to carefully consider these recommendations and hope that you will
adopt each of them. We firmly believe that the health and safety of the citizens
of Contra Costa County will be best promoted by taking the appropriate measures
to -require and provide alcoholism treatment for individuals who are repeatedly
convicted of driving while intoxicated.
Statistics are available to you through the Health Services Department which
conclusively demonstrate that incarceration without treatment does not prevent
or reduce further repeat offenses by drunk drivers.
Board of Supervisors
April 10, 1986
page 3
In contrast, multiple offenders who successfully complete alcohol treatment
programs have a very low rate of recidivism.
Alcoholism is a vicious disease, and it needs to be understood that alcoholics
are suffering from an addictive disease. Until they are assisted in confronting
and dealing with their disease, alcoholic repeat drunk drivers will continue to
drive while intoxicated not withstanding the certainty of prosecution and jail
sentences when apprehended.
Sincerely yours
WOW
William F. Tay
.Chairperson
pr
cc: P. Batchelor
M. Finucane
R. Rainey
G. Roemer
S. McCullough
J. Nava
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1985-M REGULAR SESSION
" ASSEMBLY .BILL No. 3827
Introduced by Assembly Member Molina
February 21, 1986
An act to amend Section 40000.15 of, and to add Section
23197 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to driving offenses. .
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3827, as introduced,. Molina. .Driving offenses:
punishment.
(1) Under existing law,persons convicted-of repeat alcohol
or drug related driving offenses are required to be, among
other penalties, imprisoned for specified periods.
This bill would authorize a court, as an alternative to the
specified imprisonment, to sentence such a person to
participation in a community alcohol treatment program,
with the person's consent.
The bill would make failure to complete the program a
misdemeanor, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required
by this act for a specified reason.
? t. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
Tile people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. Section 23197 is added to the Vehicle
2 Code, to read:
' 99 60
AB 3827 —2-
1 23197. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
2 law, a person convicted *of a violation of Section 23152
3 punishable under Section 23165, 23170, or 23175 or a
4 person convicted of a violation of Section 23153
5 punishable under Section 23185 or 23190 may be
6 sentenced by the court, with the consent of the
7 defendant, to participation in a community alcohol
8 treatment program in lieu of the imprisonment
9 otherwise required in this article.
10 (b) Any failure of the person, to complete a
11 rehabilitation program imposed pursuant to this section
12 as an alternative sentence is a misdemeanor and shall be
13 punished by imprisonment for not more than one year in
14 the county jail.
15 SEC. 2. Section 40000,15 of the Veliicjp Code is
16 amended to read:
17 40000.15. A violation of any of the following provisions
18 shall constitute a misdemeanor, and not an infraction:
19 Sections 23103 and 23104, relating to reckless driving.
20 Section 23109, relating to speed contests or exhibitions.
21 Section 23110, subdivision (a), relating to throwing at
22 vehicles.
23 Section 23152 or 23197, relating to driving under. the
24 influence.
25 Subdivision (b) of Section 23222, relating to possession
26 of marijuana.
27 Section 23253, relating to officers on vehicular
28 crossings.
29 Section 23332, relating to trespassing.
30 Section 27150.1, relating to sale of exhaust systems.
31 Section 28050, relating to true mileage driven.
32 Section 28050.5, relating to nonfunctional odometers.
33 Section 28051, relating to resetting odometer.
34 Section 28051.5, relating to device to reset odometer.
35 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act
36 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
37 Constitution because the only costs which may be
38 incurred by a local agency or school district will be
39 incurred because this . act creates a new crime or
40 infraction,changes the definition of a crime or infraction,
99 90
-3 — AB 3827
1 changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or
2 eliminates a crime or infraction.
O
r .
99 90
•
DUI TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Chairperson, Municipal Court Judges District Attorney
HONORABLE JOHN MINNEY. 935-6373 GARY T. YANCEY 372-4512
Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court 725 Court Street
640 Ygnacio Valley Road Martinez, CA 94553
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Sheriff Countzq Probation Officer
RICHARD RAINEY .372-2402 GERALD BUCK 372-2735
651 Pine Street 651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
California Highway Patrol Pres., Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
CAPTAIN RON OLIVER 372-4980 DEL,ORES MC KEE, President 427-6233
California Highway Patrol Contra Costa -Chapter
5001 Blum Road MADD
Martinez, CA 94553 P. O. Box 473
Antioch, CA 94509
Public Defender Alcohol Advisory Board
PATRICK MURPHY 372-2481 DON MAC PHEE 229-0854
610 Court Street 1140 Panoramic Drive
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Friends Outside Alcohol Contractors - Bi-Beit Corp.
STUART LAY:' 228-0644 SUSAN CINELLI 798-7250
, Director, Friends outside . . Bi-Bett Corporation
1127 Escabar. Street P. 0. Box 5487
Martinez, CA 94553 l Concord, CA 94524
Alcoholism Program Chief Director of Justice SaLstem Programs'
JERRY NAVA 671-4321 GEORGE ROEMER 372-4855 .
Health Services Dept. County Administrator's Office
2366-A Stanwell Circle 651 Pine Street, 8th .Floor.
Concord, CA 94520 Martinez, CA 94553
Assistant Health ,Services Director
AIDAIMH Division
STUART MC CULLOUGH 372-4416
Health Services Dept.
20 Allen Street
i ,. Martinez, .CA 94553
3/6/85