Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05012007 - D.1 E Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `� S i_.off FROM: JOHN CULLEN, County Administrator Costa DATE: APRIL 18, 2007 County T'q COIJIz'� SUBJECT: UPDATE ON GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER'S CORRECTIONS REFORM INITIATIVE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT this status report and the presentations from the Sheriff-Coroner and County Probation Officer on the Governor's corrections reform initiative. 2. COMMIT to collaborating with the state in exploring creative solutions to address the combined needs of the state and County for detention programs and facilities, including the concepts of a County-run community re-entry facility and regional juvenile facility for girls. 3. SEEK amendments as appropriate, based on anticipated modifications to the Governor's original proposal for adult corrections reform,to•.address counties' key areas of concern as defined in this report, e.g., funding mechanism, staffing, security, service delivery/capacity, match requirements, additional incentives, facility siting issues, feasibility of implementation schedule/timing,practical application, and other general process questions. 4. SUPPORT a stipulation that County participation in the State corrections reform plan will be optional, not mandatory. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑ YES SIGNATURE:9�r �_ [-tECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMM JATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ❑KPPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO ON , I APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED HER [� VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND �C UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: APRIL 24, 2007 Contact: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: SHERIFF-CORONER COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /� By: (0 Deputy REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: q/It4//,q speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be My comments Zill be: "P General incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For s ❑ Name: Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of- Address: £Address: City: C, Phone: L71VU/ U� I am speaking for: ❑ Myself Organization: �❑ I do not want to speak but would like to L leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this,form) Update on State Corrections Reform April 18,2007 County Administrator's Office Page 2 5. SUPPORT proposals that do not rely on existing County rated bed capacity to meet the state's needs for additional beds. 6. DIRECT staff to further evaluate the viability and fiscal feasibility of the juvenile population realignment proposal. 7. REQUEST the Sheriff-Coroner and County Probation Officer,through their respective statewide associations,to assure that questions of fiscal and operational feasibility are addressed. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the Governor's corrections reform initiative cannot accurately be estimated at this time due to the fluidity of the proposals. As the proposals currently stand, counties' participation in' the reform proposals related to adult facilities and programs will be optional—counties will be able to choose whether or not to participate and so may have some control over cost impacts. However, cost impacts for juvenile housing are anticipated based on the proposal to change the acceptance criteria for housing offenders at the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Based on the current number of County DJJ commitments that would be excluded from the DJJ under the newly proposed commitment criteria, the annual cost impact to the County might be as much as $4.6 million. County representatives have indicated a desire that any funding for the Governor's plan not be subject to the annual state budget process and instead be set aside as an earmark. BACKGROUND California's 174,000 prison population lives in facilities designed for 100,000, and overcrowding has forced more than 17,000 inmates into gymnasium and classroom housing, a dangerous alternative that puts both offenders and guards in danger. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation(CDCR) estimates that it needs 50,000 new state prison beds over the next 15 years. Additionally, 20 county jails are currently under court-ordered population caps and 12 more have self-imposed caps. In 2005 alone, 233,388 individuals avoided incarceration or were released early from jail sentences due solely to a lack of jail space. California needs to build 40,000 new jails beds by 2050 just to address population growth. In June 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger convened a special session to try to address the twin issues of state prison system overcrowding and recidivism. Although no legislative action resulted from the,special session, the Administration and the CDCR continued during the interim to devise a comprehensive plan to avoid a collapse of the state corrections system, which is expected to be at absolute maximum capacity by June 2007. Under close scrutiny by the federal courts as a result of a result of a number of suits, the Department may face one of two potential—and equally undesirable—outcomes: CDCR could (1) be directed by the federal court to empty its prisons of a significant population to relieve the unmanageable overcrowding or(2) simply refuse new commitments, meaning that inmates would be backed up in county jail systems. With this rather dire set of circumstances as a backdrop, in January 2007, the Governor included in his 2007/08 budget proposal a comprehensive corrections reform plan that contemplated a significant investment in jail and prison expansion with a concomitant shift in responsibility for certain adult and juvenile offender populations. As introduced,the Governor proposed $10.6 billion in bond financing and Update on State Corrections Reform April 18,2007 County Administrator's Office Page 3 $0.3 billion from the State General Fund to expand California's prison and jail capacity by a total of 78,000 beds. Details included: • Local jails and juvenile facilities: $5.5 billion($4.4 billion in lease revenue bonds, $1.1 billion in local matching funds). The proposal would fund 45,000 local beds and 5,000 juvenile beds. • State prisons: $4.4 billion($3.3 billion in lease revenue bonds, $800 million contract authority, $300 million State General Fund). The proposal would`fund 16,238 new state prison beds on existing sites; 5,000-7,000 beds in new secure re-entry facilities; build a new training facility; and construct a modernized Death Row at San Quentin. While the Governor's original plan contained bold proposals to initiate corrections reforms, it also contained elements that elicited broad concerns from counties including: ■ A proposal to raise the amount of time a defendant can be sentenced to county jail from one to three years (currently, sentences of more than one year are served in state prison), resulting in potentially 600 additional adult inmates in this County ■ Shift of certain state prison inmates to local facilities effective July 1, 2008 ■ Curtailment of housing female juvenile offenders and certain non-violent male offenders at the DJJ effective July 1, 2007, ■ Reimbursement to counties of$94,000 per juvenile shifted from state to county population(this is not deemed to be sufficient for the level of rehabilitative programs and services for this population) ■ Non-specific block grant funding methodology for juvenile population shift ■ No specific plan for the future housing of female juvenile offenders ■ No specific plan for jail construction or funding, either for adult or juvenile facilities ■ Stability of funding for ongoing housing and program costs Through regular consultation with the state regarding these concerns, the California State Sheriffs' Association(CSSA) and Chief Probation Officers of California(CPOC) developed alternative proposals to address their mutual needs for additional jail capacity and treatment/rehabilitation programs. While no formal announcement has been made,the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is reporting that the Governor's Office and legislative leadership are close to unveiling a reformulated corrections proposal specifically for the adult population. All indications are that the Governor's revised proposal will parallel the substitute proposal offered by the CSSA. Of particular significance is the anticipated move away from the very problematic proposal regarding three-year commitments of state prisoners in county jails, but instead, offering an emphasis on re-entry or transitional facilities and programs,to be provided at a county's option. CSAC is reporting that the Governor's modified proposal may likely include the following elements: Bed capacity: ■ 16,000 infill beds (replacement of"bad"or unusable beds in existing state facilities) ■ 7,500 prison health beds for state inmates ■ 16,000 re-entry beds for state inmates (in collaboration with counties who choose to opt into the program) 0 16,000 local jail beds (25% local match required); flexible population, not tied to state beds Update on State Corrections Reform April 18,2007 County Administrator's Office Page 4 ■ Commitment to continue funding law enforcement subventions ■ $5.5 billion(4.4 billion in lease revenue bonds matched by local funding of$1.1 million) for county adult and juvenile beds ■ $4.4 billion for state prison beds ■ $1 billion for medical facilities Population containment strategies: ■ $41.1 million for anti-recidivism (re-entry)programs such as drug treatment,job training and housing assistance ■ $50 million for adult probation services targeted specifically for the 18-25 year old population Regarding the juvenile population, the DJJ has issued a Request for Proposals to counties to provide secure residential treatment for girls committed to the DJJ. Representatives from the County Probation Department will be attending a conference to learn more about the proposal. The proposed adult re-entry programs represent a promising means for addressing recidivism;by providing a continuum of care that facilitates early risk assessment,prevention, and transition of inmates back into the community through appropriate treatment, life skills training,job placement, and other services and supports. These programs promote a permanent shift in the way nonviolent felony offenders are managed, treated and released into their respective communities. Examples of program elements that have been demonstrated to improve offenders' chances for a successful reintegration into their communities upon release from custody include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Early risks and needs assessment that incorporates assessments of the need for treatment of alcohol and other drug abuse, and the degree of need for literacy, vocational and mental health services; ■ In-custody treatment that is appropriate to each individual's needs; ■ After care and relapse prevention services to maintain a"clean and sober" lifestyle; ■ Strong linkages to treatment,vocational training, and support services in the community; ■ Pre-arranged housing and employment(or vocational training) for offenders before release into their communities of residence; ■ Preparation of the community and offenders' families to receive and support each offender's new law-respecting and productive lifestyle before release through counseling and public education that recognize and address the inter-generational impact and cycles of criminal justice system involvement. ■ Long-term mentorship and support from faith-based and other community and cultural support organizations that will last a lifetime, not just the duration of the parole period; and ■ Community-based treatment options and sanctions. Notwithstanding the above elements, there are a number of policy, fiscal, and operational details that need further fleshing out. A re-entry facility will present certain challenges and produce substantial impacts for any community within which it is sited. Therefore, counties should advocate that in order for a re-entry Update on State Corrections Reform April 18,2007 County Administrator's Office Page 5 facility to be placed within local communities, the following criteria must be met(reference Recommendation No. 4): ■ Responsibilities. The transfer of prison inmates eligible for re-entry programs shall be a shift in custodial or operational responsibility only and not a shift in financial responsibility. ■ Securily. The facility shall provide for security that is appropriate to the level of inmates housed in the re-entry facilities is absolutely essential. ■ Siting of new facilities. The placement of correctional facilities is controversial. The''state must be sensitive to community response to re-entry facilities. Counties and other affected municipalities must be involved as active participants in planning and decision-making processes regarding site selection. ■ Impact mitigation. The state must statutorily agree to ongoing mitigation for local impacts ranging from traffic and wastewater to increased workloads in the justice system that would result from these new facilities. ■ Multi-agency planning process. The state must engage with counties, cities, and community agencies in a planning process for program delivery within the re-entry facility and for after care within the community. This planning process must include a strategy for financing after care and other locally-provided programs. ■ Impact on local treatment capacity. To prevent adverse impacts upon existing alcohol and drug and mental health treatment programs for primarily non-criminal justice system participants, treatment capacity must be increased to accommodate criminal justice participants. In addition, treatment capacity must be separately developed and funded. The Governor's plan is still fluid and more revisions are anticipated in the Governor's May revised budget based on continuing negotiations with counties and within the Legislature. There are still many points of contention within the Legislature and pressure is mounting as the clock ticks on judicial threats to implement a population cap on the overcrowded corrections system. Three federal judges plan to hold hearings on a cap in June and action must betaken quickly to avert judicial intervention. In the remaining window of opportunity to influence and impact the final corrections reform plan, it is important for Contra Costa County officials to present a unified and consistent policy position regarding the County's role in implementing any aspect of the state plan. ADDENDUM TO D.I. APRIL 24, 2007 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a report and adopting preliminary recommendations regarding the Governor's proposal to reform the State corrections system. Sheriff Warren Rupf presented the Board with recommendations that outlined parameters for future negotiations and discussion on the state's prison population and overcrowding that has forced 17,000 inmates into gymnasiums and classroom housing. He said Lieutenant Steve Simpkins would provide a Powerpoint presentation [printout accompanies addendum] to describe the current situation of the actions the State may take in response to the overcrowding crisis. Lieutenant Steve Simpkins described the current situation of the fiscal impacts of the Governor's correctional reform, and said the federal court will issue a decision on June 5, 2007 on directions the state will take. Supervisor Piepho asked about moving prisoners from federal court to state court, as mentioned on page 3 of the PowerPoint(second slide"State Proposals and Impact"), asking if there was any further challenge by the Governor in the Superior Court. Lieutenant Simpkins responded the action of sending inmates to other states has been stopped. Supervisor Gioia asked Lieutenant Simpkins to explain what is anticipated in Contra Costa County and how Re-entry facilities would work with the security level. Sheriff Rupf told the Board these were state proposals and said the important line of defense against what was proposed originally by the Governor was the three-year minimum threshold where instead of receiving inmates who have been sentenced to one year or more,the state was considering moving that minimum from one year to three years. He said be believes the proposal of changing the state prison minimum sentence from one year to three years is off the Governor's table. He stated each individual County will opt in or opt out and if Contra Costa County opts in it would have to be a funded state construction project excluding the 25% in the budget proposal. Sheriff Rupf informed the Board existing beds would have to be refurbished at Marsh Creek Detention Facility. Supervisor Gioia asked what proposals have been put forward on the population containment strategy. He said there should be some discussion on the recidivism programs. Sheriff Rupf said in his view the focus is to protect the beds Martinez Detention facility has for individuals sentenced to their custody. He said the reality is X number of inmates will.be remanded to the County's custody, and if the state does something that increases that number the County would have to pay. Supervisor Uilkema made reference to slide 4 and asked what was the geographic location for the Reentry facility? Sheriff Rupf responded the Board beds would have to be renovated in the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. Lionel Chatman, Director of Probation Services, presented a PowerPoint presentation on state actions that could impact the local Probation Department. Supervisor Gioia said that rather than having a discussion on the number of beds that need to be built and a separate discussion on resources,he would prefer to link the two and have the discussion on comprehensively consider a massive increase of the number of beds statewide. Mr. Chatman said several discussions are going on and said that $50 million would be added to the prison budget for rehabilitation, drug treatment and vocational education programs,out of which the County's share would be $1.5 million. Supervisor Gioia said $1.5 million was not enough. Mr. Chatman said$1.5 million would bring services to his Department to provide intensive supervision by keeping juveniles out of jail with community based organizations and vocational programs. He noted this population is at the Martinez Detention Facility that go out and re- offend and do not get the supervision that is provided locally. Supervisor Piepho asked if it was top-down on beds and bottom-up in community resource and services to address the needs within the communities for recidivism and repeat offenders, or is it simply a topdown beds discussion. Mr. Chatman responded the state will not accept nonviolent felons, and said that the Courts can commit offenders to Department of Juvenile Justice but to be housed in Martinez Detention Facility. He told the Board the Court wants these kids to remain local in their communities close to their families as opposed to turning the responsibilities to the state. Supervisor Gioia asked if there were other funds identified for the recidivism other than$41 million, and asked where the other funding is for that. Mr. Chatman said the state is asking the Contra Costa County Probation Department to take over this responsibility but because there was a lawsuit filed against the Department of Juvenile Justice for not providing certain services, the money is tied into what services are going to be required for the Probation Department to provide the kids if they take on this responsibility. He explained Probation Department would require additional funds to provide the treatment the Court has thought necessary for rehabilitation of these juveniles. Supervisor Gioia asked if the $41.1 million is to go towards the adult population and asked Mr. Chatman is this is a sufficient amount of money for that program. Mr. Rupf said the money on the table is going to grow or shrink depending on what takes place between the Governor and the State legislature. He said.he does not believe there is enough money anywhere and said he separates the juvenile issues from the adult as it would appear the state wants to get out of the juvenile business. Mr. Rupf explained the money on the adult side will not be distributed for each person but will be negotiated between those counties that opt in. He said the logic for that is transition housing would provide transitional programs that would have a direct positive impact on recidivism. He said until there is a better model the County could be out of competition if they just go after the dollars. Supervisor Uilkema said she supports the Sheriff's Department's plan for the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. Referring to page 4 of the report, she said she is worried about where it talks about new facilities, the continuum of care and siting facilities within communities. She noted her district's constituents would not welcome this idea and asked them not to spend a lot of time trying to site correctional facilities. However, she said if this is compulsory she would like that issue of siting correctional facilities within local communities to come back to the Board so the Board can decide whether they are receptive collectively. Supervisor Glover said this is an issue being addressed at California State Association of Counties (CSAC)that has not been a part of this Board's discussion and said he appreciates the fact this has been brought up by the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer. He said as policy makers there would be responsibility in making some determination. He said the issues being presented by the County need to be represented by the Board to set a policy. He stated he would like to make sure there is no planning effort that would move forward or go before any state body that is not being reviewed by the Board. Supervisor Gioia said he supports Supervisor Uilkema's comments on not having new correctional facilities but said he would put it in a different category than looking for alternatives for imprisonment for Contra Costa residents. Referring to substance abuse and alcohol, Supervisor Gioia expressed the need to figure out collectively with the full Board where to place the inmates, and not send Contra Costa residents out of Contra Costa County to another jurisdiction. He said the Board needs to have an open mind to get people into various programs and keep them from going into jail and recognized difficulties to site them,but said the County needs to accept responsibility. The Chair asked for the public to comment and the following person spoke: Roland Katz, Public Employees Union Local One, said the number of beds and inmates is not keeping up with population growth, He told the Board this is beyond debate and that over the last quarter of a century there has been a public policy in the state embraced by the voters to send . people to jail for longer periods of time, but pointed out it has been a sin for elected officials to say the words "increase tax." Mr. Katz said under-funding levees prior to Hurricane Katrina resulted in more people dead than had the issue been addressed. He said public service has been under-funded in this state for the last 25 years. He said state incarceration is a state issue to be paid for by state taxes, and said he hopes on a state policy level questions should be asked about how to address this. He said the Sheriff might have 500 people placed in his custody because of change in the state law where he must go to the Board and say, "How do we make sure this does not come out of County funds or other County programs?" Supervisor Bonilla said discussions needs to continue and expressed her concern about the July deadline for the juvenile situation and requested Probation staff come back to the Board with information on their plans. Mr. Chatman said he would not call them juveniles but citizens of the juvenile law, detained in a juvenile institution at the state level as young adults. He said they would not be coming to Contra Costa County unless the Board and the County Administrator's office discuss an opt-in approach. He said he has not made any opting in and is trying to figure out what is going on at state level, and added that he will come back to the Board with an update. He said he is not concerned about taking the population back but said he was more concerned about what is going to be done with the kids that are not eligible to be sent to the state. John Cullen, County Administrator, noted that today's board item looks to receive the Board's direction on the seven recommendations of the Board Order, so that the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer could represent the County's interest. He said given the June and July deadline on possible changes of state polices he suggested returning to the full Board within 30 days. He included three recommendations: (1) for the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer to return to the full Board to brief them on the latest updates and to get the Board's direction and guidance on future commitments; (2) any site issues that come out of these discussion with the state for new facilities to be brought back to the Board for full discussion; and(3) to incorporate as policy guidance the opportunity for more discussion on attention to prevention and keeping the inmate population from growing as these discussions continue. Supervisor Glover said as the County enters statewide deliberation with the issues that might impact the County he would represent the County on those issues to CSAC so Contra Costa's voice is heard. Supervisor Bonilla asked to add to the last comment Mr. Cullen made on the prevention of recidivison and on successful reentry program part of that position, saying one of the huge problem is repeat offenders. Supervisor Piepho asked if there was a way for Counties to work collaboratively with other agencies impacted by the same rules and regulations. Sheriff Rupf said there is always potential benefit in working in collaborative fashion with other jurisdictions. By an unanimous vote with all Supervisors present, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: o ACCEPTED recommendation 1- 7 stated on Board Order; o ADDED the following recommendations to those on the Board Order: (8) REQUESTED the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer return to the full Board to report on changes to the issues pertaining to reform to the State corrections system, and to request the Board's direction and guidance for future commitments; (9) REQUESTED the Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer bring back to the Board any site issues that come out of these discussion with the state for new facilities, and (10) REQUESTED staff incorporate as a policyguidance the opportunity for more discussion on attention to prevention and keeping the inmate population from growing as these discussions continue. i I I' } Juvenile Issue: • The Division of Juvenile Justice(DJJ) would no longer house female offenders in its institutions and would stop intake of certain non-violent male offenders. • Responsibility would shift to the Counties. • 5 female and 32 male offenders could be returned to Contra Costa County. The state has released a Request for Proposals to contract with DJJ for the provision of housing and programs for in jurisdictions. Contra Costa County has existing infrastructure which,if refurbished, could house DJJ offenders from CCC as well as other jurisdictions. 1 P The annual cost of housing a juvenile in secured detention in Contra Costa County is$115,000 per offender for FY 06/07. To provide for a DJJ commitment in FY 07/08 the cost would be$135,000 per offender. This cost does not include —Mental Health services —Substance Abuse services —Vocational and other programs,as required by DJJ The state is currently proposing$94,000 per offender. The Governor's budget of January '07 proposes approximately$440 million for 5,000 new juvenile beds statewide. —Contra Costa County could construct or remodel an adequate bed capacity. —County match of 25% (may be in kind). —May be used for upgrading of existing County facilities for the housing of DJJ commitments. UN 3 . �' The Governor's preliminary Correction Reform proposal indicates that non-violent male offenders and all female offenders currently housed by DJJ would be returned to the counties on July 1,2007. Chief Prob Probation Officers of California (CPOC)and California State Association of Counties(CS are having discussions with the State regarding the timing and the x x4}m fmancing of this transfer of responsibility. 2 t 3.3 za In addition... In adult probation the Governor's budget dedicates$50 million to support adult supervision services. —Modeled after the successful Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act(JJCPA) program. —Targeting 18-25 year olds —Expected to grow to$100 million in FY08/09. 3 h State of California Prisons are Overcrowded—Why Should Contra Costa County Care? Contra Costa County —Current Situation: ♦Martinez Detention Facility —Maximum Security-Opened in 1981 —Constant need of maintenance —Average life of detention facility is 25 years ♦ West County Detention Facility —Medium Security-Opened in 1991 —Constant need of maintenance ♦ Marsh Creek Detention Facility —Honor Farm-Opened in 1937 —Remodeled 20 years ago&portable buildings added x Contra Costa County —Current Situation: Average daily population on the rise to include: •74 special needs inmates with severe medical& mental health requirements • 103 Protective Custody inmates •227 known gang members,of which 55 are not compatible with other inmates • 175 inmates with homicide charges,a 90% increase since 2002 s 1 Contra Costa.County —How We Have Survived: Never under a Federal Cap Quick Movement of"Parole Hold Onlys"to Prison Aggressive Citation Release Policy Petitioned Court 7 times since 2003 for early releases Creative use of Work Alternative Programs and Electronic Home Detention 20 Counties in California under Federal Cap In 2005 232,388 inmates across California released early or avoided incarceration through citation release 4 Camra cm Cw Oyao«son rxara Na)NTNLT DETENTION REPORT =n4x2W6 � Cum.a•temn ay..y.� 6riaruenm �w.,.Rrwu�.1 =xuvK¢Go+a%'neFaaR., 25iz ✓R Rdtt t 2,t3t �lG•nvs fa'W;F I riaP:4TI `6H4 RR!OwMy0WW:1Y Gmm:f ar6i6aS Rtlll;f_-__CmMY01nn �—�pip2YpPM�� � P�rRy3 Mrtir_.Gwrau.F.m�. b3"GNI' 655 NMS� Mtt�,� , :}Aral:tieekthsrcion Fs'iw f8R Q•- tRR aw fAs'25'R' AiW Statewide there are 74,686 available beds in county jails The average daily population is 79,639 MCDF Bed space reflects inoperable dorms -WCDF Bed space reflects available f atilk beds only s State of California-Current Situation As We Understand It: Approximately 171,634 in a space designed for 126,000. ♦Federal Court to issue decision on June 51' based on progress report from the State ♦Options for the State: -Do nothing —Export Inmates Out of State —Early release of inmates —Refuse new commitments(Federal Cap) —Increase minimum sentence to 3 years —Community Re-entry Facility 6 z State Proposals & Impact ♦ Do Nothing ***Some action WILL be taken by the State*** ♦Move Inmates Out of State —Declared Illegal by Sacramento Superior Court ♦Early Release —Community concerns ♦Federal Cap —Our population would increase sharply 71 State Proposals & Impact ♦Increase minimum State Prison sentence to 3 years —30%(60,000 inmates)of CDCR's population is sentenced to less than three years —At the current time 1900 inmates in the State Prison population were sentenced by Contra Costa County —The State has told us approximately 600 Contra Costa inmates are being held on sentences of less than three years —Our jail population would instantaneously increase—requiring a new detention facility 8 State Proposals & Impact ♦Community Re-entry Facility: —Inmates to serve final months of sentence in a facility within the county —Requires 25%match from County —Funding split between State&County based on percentage of beds used 9 3 a What are we doing? ♦Completed Needs Assessment Study,a Correctional Standards Authority(formerly Board of Corrections)requirement prior to beginning construction on any new jail beds ♦Established a Letter of Intent with CDCR to explore the development of a Community Re-entry Facility ♦Attending relevant meetings and seminars regarding the State crisis to keep current on any potential changes in direction �o Our Plan: ♦Formalize partnership with the State —State to build combination facility —Sheriff to run facility —State to rent beds,occupied or not —Proactively move forward with plans for the construction of affordable jail beds in partnership with the State How will this turn out? ♦New jail beds ARE needed ♦New jail beds WILL be constructed in Contra Costa County 4 xT� �MEN ��Y,. Juvenile Issue: • The Division of Juvenile Justice(DJJ) would no longer house female offenders in its institutions and would stop intake of certain non-violent male offenders. • Responsibility would shift to the Counties. • 5 female and 32 male offenders could be returned to Contra Costa County. The state has released a Request for Proposals to contract with DJJ for the provision of housing and programs for multiple jurisdictions. Contra Costa County has existing infrastructure which, if refurbished, could house DJJ offenders from CCC as well as other jurisdictions. 1 } The annual cost of housing a juvenile in Se detention in Contra Costa County is$115,000 per offender for FY 06/07. To provide for a DJJ commitment in FY 07/08 the cost would be$135,000 per offender. This cost does not include —Mental Health services —Substance Abuse services —Vocational and other programs,as required by DJJ The state is currently proposing$94,000 per offender. The Governor's budget of January '07 proposes approximately$440 million for 5,000 new juvenile beds statewide. —Contra Costa County could construct or remodel an adequate bed capacity. —County match of 25% (may be in kind). —May be used for upgrading of existing County facilities for the housing of DJJ commitments. l �s The Governor's preliminary Correction Reform proposal indicates that non-violent male offenders and all female offenders currently housed by DJJ would be returned to the counties on July 1,2007. Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC)and California State Association of Counties(CSAC)are having discussions with the State regarding the timing and the r financing of this transfer of responsibility. 2 s- 11"M In addition... In adult probation the Governor's budget dedicates$50 million to support adult supervision services. —Modeled after the successful Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act(JJCPA) program. —Targeting 18-25 year olds —Expected to grow to$100 million in FY08/09. 3