The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06131995 - SD1 il . � . SSD . 1 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 .�.. Contra Phil Batchelor, County Administrator c FROM: Costa June 5/ 1995 County�', J cT DATE: SUBJECT: STATE FUNDING FOR PROBATION CAMPS SPECIFIC.REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of retaining in the 1995-96 State Budget $33 million for the subvention and support of Probation camps and AUTHORIZE the County' s Legislative Representative in Sacramento to work with the Chief Probation Officers ' Association to attempt to secure this funding in the final State Budget. BACKGROUND: In the 1993-94 fiscal year, the State provided a budget allocation of $33 million to the California Youth Authority budget to fund the Juvenile Offender Local Prevention and Corrections Act, which provided a subsidy for local Probation ranches and camps, such as the Orrin Allen Boys ' Ranch [ formerly the Byron Boys ' Ranch] . Contra Costa County received about $675,000 to assist with the cost of the Ranch. In 1994-95 this funding was eliminated from the State Budget. The Assembly has placed this funding back in their version of the State Budget -for the 1995-96 fiscal year. The Senate does not have this funding in their version of the budget, meaning it will be an issue for the Budget Conference Committee to resolve. Restoration of this funding in the 1995-96 fiscal year budget will provide Contra Costa County something in excess of $600,000 again to assist in keeping the Boys ' Ranch open. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 1 3, 1 ()9_9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED 1A 1,3 ' S Contact: PHIL CHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY -2- The County Probation Officer, Jerry Buck, has been very active in Sacramento in trying to get this funding restored again this year. He has requested the Board' s support for this funding, as has the California State Association of Counties . This office concurs with this recommendation and urges the Board to support the restoration of this $33 million in vital funding for Probation ranches and camps . cc: County Administrator Juvenile Court Judge County Probation Officer Public Employees, Local 1 Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn Bank of California Center 770 L Street, Suite 960 Sacramento, CA 95814 S Probation DepartmentContra Gerald S. Buck County Probation Officer Administrative Offices Costa 50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 County ` Martinez,California 94553-8500 (510)313-4180 (510)313-4191 FAX To: Claude Van Marter, " . a Date: 5/26/95 ' Asst . County Administrator From: Gerald S . Buck, Subject: State Subvention C my Probation Officer for Probation Camps r I, along with other Chief Probation Officers and Probation Labor Coalitions, have been lobbying toward the goal of the State placing $33 million into the budget of the California Youth Authority as it was in 1993/94 for the subvention and support of Probation camps . So far on the Assembly side there has been success . The Floor has included $33 million in the CYA budget for this purpose.. Even though no one is proposing our Ranch may face closure, this subvention would be very beneficial to the Probation Department by its offset to General Fund costs of the Ranch and thereby reduce the need to cut other services and positions in 1995/96 . Can you please get our Board to support and lobby for inclusion of this $33 million in the State' s final adopted budget bill? In FY 1995/96 our Ranch will require expenditure of $850, 362 of County net funds . If the State subsidizes as it did in 1993/94, we will receive $675, 100, reducing the County cost and Department County net cost in that amount . GSB:ds Attachment CC: Jacque Salvador George Roemer j 12/campsub.wp CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED MAY 3 0 9% OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE REPLY TO MEMBER: SACRAMENTO ADDRESS BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW ❑ ROOM 3086.STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEE SACRAMENTO 95814 TELEPHONE:(916)445-6083 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COMMITTEE PriFttP ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT CENTRAL COUNTY COMMITTEE 1001 GALAXY WAY REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE ❑ SUITE 210 ❑ �C tltf��ltt`/j�■ TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE E CONCORD 94520 JOINT RULES COMMITTEE TELEPHONE: 689-1973 SELECT ON THE 0EAT OUNTY NE INDUSTRY 42 W.THIRD STREET ANTIOCH 94509 CHAIRMAN: TELEPHONE:(510)7543011 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NO.4 DANIEL E. BOATWRIGH.T ON LEGISLATIVE.EXECUTIVE. REPRESENTING: PUBLIC SAFETY.AND SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT CHAIRMAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRISON °' �tl�f'• CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS <" COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS •' >.f F,'�;"" SELECT COMMITTEE ON 1 "' !• STATE PROCUREMENT AND EXPENDITURE PRACTICES r`•''�371>tl �'� SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRISON ` ~ "� 1• May 18, 1995 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITEE ON SPORTS Gerry Buck County Probation Officer 50 Douglas Drive, Suite 201 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Gerryl I As a f1ollow-up to my earlier letter, I just wanted to let you know that Senate Budget Subcommittee #4, which I chair, did act yesterday to make sure that the probation camp issue will be an item consTildered before the Conference Committee. Once the members of the Conference Committee are named, I would encourage you to let each of them know of your views on the need to provide funding for this program. Thank you again for taking the time to share this information with me. Sincerely, D IL E. BOATWRIGHT DEB/Srm MA'Y-17-1995 15:18 FROM PROBATION ADMINISTRATION TO CAO P.01 Posmr Fax We 7671 -71 ► � l"��a�wsoa To 1[o3ft �^* L'tC Ko Cb1QRpt. COPROCFVURE011iMiT•FFF mrm kk Fak# PIIU(19$ r V REWj4UEM0 7A%Aj"COMMMIME 7C T l &.i TRM5PQRTASSO1SSCi3�t r7= .. CAST 03UMY •_..�•••. �... �M�{}y �[� "CrRJ9lIlUM n A' SE41�LTC9GFfM VM rfW � a,.ow TKRcssrRe�T Nomem 84M +tEs(Ysf 754-300 �1 A A, t c�r+� T�a� SUC166T >MMfl�NQ 4 REPR SERTFW: YdY#�� !G. g1lA a 33 ��"�� C"UMML&Mm ExRC irem 6 P?W WNA7CfflAL 015`�C'F PUsuc 50;ES7.A/YO CHAIRMAN 0MU M.6tNlRNMCNT JOINTF4 q0"AND OPER4T1MU ,ss,f:K ctyMMl` rEE ON BUSINESS Amn PROFESSIONS 9ElX=MMMPI7Ee0N ,s'r. 85AxTE PRCWREMF71-fAND `•^' - "' 81(PS VTUREPRi4C1"= SVISCOW"T"ON?"Mom ~+ +v QCNStRWWN AHGOPERA'l*W May 15, 1995 947BdOhihttTEE ON$PgRTg Gerry' sink �- ; FqR County Probation Officer Probation Department 50 Douglas Drive, Suite 201GGS;; 0-OUN TY Martinez, CA 94553 P 81A T.,OND L_P T. Dear Gerry: Thank, you for your recent letter urging my support for a, proposed $33 million augmentation for the California Youth Authority budget for the operation of the Local Probation Juvenile Camps. I am well aware of the value of the camps, but as l have advised Alan Clarke, of the Chief Probation officers of California. Budget Subcommittee #4 has a policy of not augmenting asbudgets this year. Apparently negotiations are ,already underway to place this augmentation in the Assembly's version of the budget. if those efforts are successful, this matter will go before the Conference Committee. At that point the Chief Probation officers of California will have the opportunity to have the $33 million augmentation included in the final version of budget that will be submitted to the Governor. Z have also suggested to Alan Clarke that this item should be considered in the larger context of Senator Lockyer's State-Local Corrections Partnership Act of 1995 and am in the process of facilitating a meeting between Alan, staff to the Joint Committee on Prison Construction and Operations and Senator Lockyer's stuff. MRY-17-1995 15:19 FROM PROBATION ADMINISTRATION TO CAO P.02 May 15, 1995 Page 2 1 appreciate you taking the time to write and share your support for the augmentation with me. Please be assured that, I will keep your views in mind should this funding be included in the final version of the budget that will be submitted to both houses. Sincerely, we%. �F-T' E�- B(0)�TWRIGHT DEB/tS MAY-17-1995 15:19 FROM PROBATIOi*I ADMINISTRATION TO CAO P.03 r trtbadn Dpartmrt# Contra CVUcalm „t„ s.ftRaboW m AftlftMva Oft3ces &*-% ;0 DmOw Drive;Suite 2D! County t FAV* �.CWffb nie SM3.8= (Syph 313-,"w (MM WS-01" FAX May 4, 1995 _ Senator Ilan Boatwright Capitol Building 03086 Sacramento, CA 95814 R-9: CYA Budget/Funds for Probation Camps Dear Dan, As you know, the Legislature provided a budget allocation of $33 million to the California Youth Authority budget to fund the Zuvenile Offender Local Prevention and Corrections Act, 1993-94 (AS 799 - Sections 1820-1820 .55 WIC) . No funds were allocated for 1994-95, but Los Angeles was provided $14 million in State funds to assure it could continue to operate its camps. The validity of the State vested interest in keeping Probation camps operative has not changed. If local budget demands result in camp closures, there will definitely be an impact upon the State' s costs via additional commitments to CYA. Currently the Chief Probation officers of California, along with Los Angeles, orange County and ethers are engaged in discussions . with Assembly ways and Means staff and others about funding this Probation Camp Partnership in FY 1995-96 . We' re heard that some in Sacramento wonder why more counties are not raising this issue right now. This can be explained by the county' s budget time. table. County Probation Departments do not yet know how they will fare in their budgets locally. County budgets usually are not finalized until summer and after State budget impacts are better known. This could account for many Probation Departments being unable to assess the vulnerability of.."their ranches at this time. Using our situation, for example, we have been asked to identify a budget cut: of $2 .7 million in County funded services. This is 10.7 of our Overall 'budget and 16.9% of our County expenditures . At this time we do not know whether this cut will be imposed and, " if it is, what services might be impact=ed. Our lunch budget is $1, 759,758, which includes $942, 378 of County cost, so you can see how it could become in -jeopardy. I've enclosed some current additional information relative to our budget status for your information. MAY-17-1995 15:20 FROM PROBATION ADMINISTRATION TO CRO P.04 s Senator Dan Boatwright May 4, 1995 Page 2 We need your support to reinstate funding by the State for Probation Camps, including our Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (nee Byron Boys' Ranch) in order to insure its continuing oVeration. Our ranch serves over 400 youth per year and without it many would be committed to CYA. Sincerely, COMM PROBATION OFFICER GSB:ds Enclosures cc: C. Van Marter Jacque Salvador Alan Clarke Judge Lois Haight MAY-17-1995 15:20 FROM PROBATION ADMINISTRATION TO CAO P.05 I MAY 1% Vasa t %*%LAI IVE BULLETiN Number Ii 13, Juvenile Camps experienced budget reductions over the last several years, may be forced to dose local On May 17, the Assembly Budget juvenile camps without the assistance of the Subcommittee No .4 on State Administration will funding provided through this program. The i Wider whether to include funding for the juvenile closure of these camps and ranches could camps and ranches in the budget Counties may result in a large increase in population of the recall that two years ago, $33 million was provided in Youth Authority or group homes, increasing the budget to assist counties in keeping juvenile general fund costs substantially, ramps and ranches open. However, last year, this funding was reduced with funding only being provided Last year, some members of the Legislature {or Los ANWas and So€ano counties. This, in part were reluctant to support the $33 million in was due to the active lobbying of the Los Angeles state funding for the Juvenile Offender Local county Probation Officers Association and the support Prevention and Cofrections Program based on of the Los Angeles legislative delegation. Support an assumption that county probation from other county delegations was limftd, mainly dePartments were WeMng significant funding because the members of the delegations did not hear from the federal government. Such an from their counties that the funding was important. assumption should not be made for this. or Again this year CSAC, the Chief Probation future years_ As you are aware,the Congress Officers Association. the Los Angeles County is considering passage of significant Probations Officers Assopation. Los Angeles County reductions and the packaging of block grants and several law enforcement and labor organizations for entitlement programs. If the reductions and ' are pursdng funding for juvenile camps and ranches. the block grants are approved, the federal if is absolutely necessary,however,for counties to get funding previously earmarked for probation their legislative delegations involved in supporting this programs (Title IVA) will likely be used for funding for their county. CSAC has written the other health and welfare programs. following letter to the subcommittee In support of the furding, Juvenile camps and ranches are a valuable treatment and corrections aftemative. CSAC The California State Association of Counties requests your support in providing the funding (C$AC)would like to request your support for to keep these facilities open. the restoration of$33 million in funding far the Juvenile Offender Local Prevention and All counties that could benefit from this funding Corrections Program- should write to their legislative delegation immediately, with a cagy of the letter to CSAC. These letters will be The Juvenile Offender Local prevention and used to help argue far funding for your county_ Corrections Program was established in 1993 (CSAC Stat Carolyn McIntyre) to coordinate state and local efforts in teaching discipline and providing treatment and education to juvenile offenders in local camps and ranches. Juvenile camps are one of the 14, Rule $10iChild Dependency most effective options in addressing the needs Of the juvenile offenders. They are far ices On April 25, the Trial Court budget costly than group home placement or the Commission(TCB+C)approved the submission of the Youth Authority. Sixty percent of the persons proposer! Rule 810 change to eliminate court treated in juvenile camps do not re-enter the appointed counsel in child dependency proceedings juvenile justice system. Counties. having from the definition of court operations, to the full 9 TOTAL P.05