Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02052008 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ........o Contra FROM: JOHN CULLEN, County Administrato g `s Costa WARREN E. RUPF, Sheriff-Coroner a o CountyADATE: JANUARY 31, 2008 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON STATE CORRECTIONS REFORM INITIATIVE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS I. RECALL that the County Administrator and the Sheriff last made reports to the Board in April and May 2007 on the status of corrections reform legislation and related state budget impacts, and reported that the state planned to solicit proposals for county-sited re-entry facilities and for local detention facility expansion. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that a growing state population means a growing prison population, necessitating an expansion in prison and local jail capacity and the implementation of strategies to reduce recidivism. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE that the state is under growing pressure to du its priso population or be forced to release certain offenders back to their communities befo their priso sentences have been fulfilled. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑ YES SIGNATU ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF B ARD OMMITTEE ❑APPROVE ❑ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED [ OTHER [� ` moo( VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AlCORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT A./, ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: FEBRUARY 5, 2008 Contact: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: SHERIFF-CORONER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR By: O Deputy Update on State Corrections Reform January 31,2 County Administrator's Office Pagee 2 2 4. RECALL that the Board, in April 2007, authorized the County Administrator and the Sheriff to enter into negotiations with the state to construct a joint use re-entry facility to be operated by the Sheriff and from which the state would rent a fixed block of beds for its own re-entry bed needs. 5. CONCEDE that despite early overtures, the State seems to be disinterested in collaborating with the County to host one or more County-operated,joint use re-entry facilities at existing local jail sites that would help to alleviate state prison crowding and address current and future needs for local jail beds. 6. ACKNOWLEDGE, however, that the State would like to site a state-constructed re-entry facility in this county and will permit the County Sheriff to operate such a facility should the Board of Supervisors agree to site such a facility in this county. 7. UNDERSTAND that the key conditions of a grant award for jail construction funds are to site a state re-entry facility within the county, to match jail construction grants by 25%, and to commit to operate the new facility within three years. 8. RECOGNIZE that state funds for jail construction funding are scarcely ever made available— perhaps every 15 —20 years. 9. CONSIDER then and PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the Board's interest in pursuing local jail construction grant funds while acknowledging the local commitments required to secure such funding. 10. RECOGNIZE that the opportunity to pursue local jail construction grant funds will expire on March 18, 2008. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts related to staff recommendations in this report. However, exercise of certain options presented in this report may require the commitment of significant county funds and staff resources over the next several years. BACKGROUND On April 25, 2007, the Legislature passed AB 900 (Solorio/Aghazarian), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (the Act), a bipartisan prison reform measure designed to address the twin issues of state prison system overcrowding and recidivism problems. The Act seeks to head off federal court action, including the possible imposition of a prison population cap and the potential for a federal receivership. The Act contains infrastructure funding for approximately 13,000 jail beds in local detention facilities, in addition to resources for 40,000 state beds. The Act pertains to the adult corrections system only; the juvenile justice system was addressed under a separate juvenile justice realignment initiative, which is not discussed in this report. The Sheriff and County Administrator last reported to your Board in April and May 2007 regarding the evolution of state corrections reform legislation and what it might mean for this county. In the April report, Update on State Corrections Reform January 31,2008 County Administrator's Office Page 3 the Sheriff presented information and data regarding the current adult jail facilities and capacity, detention alternatives used by the Sheriff to help manage jail population,the composition of inmates requiring protective or other special custody needs, strategies under consideration by the state to respond to the threat of federal court action, and planning efforts under way in this county to prepare for whatever might lie ahead. Staff identified a list of strategies under consideration by the state to avoid dire consequences of federally ordered early prison release. Following is a brief recap of those strategies and their current status: Tactic Current Status Export inmates out of state State has contracted to transfer up to 7,772 inmates to private out-of-state facilities and has so far transferred 2,441 inmates Early release of inmates Governor's 2008/09 Proposed Budget relies on the early release of 22,000 inmates and the summary parole (no supervision) of 19,000 inmates Refuse new commitments Not implemented. Increase minimum sentence to three years Not implemented; this would have resulted in an immediate increase in County jail population by 600 inmates Community re-entry facility AB 900 provides funding to construct 16,000 re- entry beds through state-operated facilities to be sited in counties throughout the state on a voluntary basis. Last April, your Board took the following positions regarding the Act: 1. COMMITED 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. 2. SUPPORTED proposals that do not rely on existing County rated bed capacity to meet the state's needs for additional beds. 3. SUPPORTED a stipulation that County participation in the State corrections reform plan will be optional, not mandatory. Implementation of the Act has been fluid and some of the early messages provided by the CDCR have changed over time. One of the state's purported reasons for establishing community re-entry facilities was to take advantage of local know-how in effectively reducing recidivism. In response to that message and with your Board's endorsement, Sheriff Rupf proposed to CDCR to site a pair of 500-bed joint use re-entry facilities to be constructed by the state at existing County jail sites and operated by the County Sheriff. The two facilities were to have provided an additional 500 re-entry beds and 200 local jail beds to the statewide detention capacity. In preparation for a joint project with the state, the Sheriff secured an outside consultant to prepare a Needs Assessment Study, which is a Correctional Standards Authority requirement prior to beginning construction on any new jail beds. The Sheriff also sent, on behalf of the County and with the Board's consent, a letter of intent to explore with the State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Update on State Corrections Reform January 31,2008 County Administrator's Office Page 4 (CDCR) the development of a community re-entry facility in this county. The Sheriff has participated in meetings with CDCR since September 2007 and has received a written commitment from CDCR Secretary James Tilton that he will be permitted to operate a state-constructed re-entry facility should the County decide to site one here. Secretary Tilton makes no mention of collaboration with the County on a joint-use facility. With the concept of a joint-use facility effectively off the table, the Board needs to consider and very quickly decide whether or not it wishes to pursue the other opportunity offered by the Act—that is, local jail construction grant funding. A summary of the jail construction grant element of the act is provided below. However,the pivotal points to consider regarding this decision are: ■ Imminent application deadline of March 18, 2008 ■ Projected county bed space need(based on the Needs Assessment Study) and the added potential impact of the Governor's 2008/09 state budget reduction proposal to "early release" 22,000 inmates statewide ■ 25% Local match commitment(10% cash plus 15%in-kind) ■ Grant award condition to site a state-operated community re-entry facility in this county ■ County commitment to fully staff and operate such a facility within 90 days of completion of construction ■ Limited prospect of affordable future financing opportunities Should the Board wish to pursue local jail construction grant funding, we recommend that staff be directed to take the following next steps: 1. DIRECT the County Administrator to report back to the Board in one week with a report on possible sites for a community re-entry facility. 2. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with Crout & Sida, Criminal Justice Consultants, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $42,000 to develop the project scope and prepare cost estimates to meet required elements of the grant application, for the period February 11 through June 30, 2008. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to assemble a project team to include the Sheriff and staff from the General Services Department to develop the application. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board no later than March 11 with a recommended project scope and financing plan, and with the required Board resolution and certifications required by the grant application process. Need for Local Jail Beds The County, in 2006, engaged a criminal justice consultant to complete a Jail Needs Assessment Study. The study, completed in March 2007, concluded that the County appears to have an adequate number of beds for the projected inmate population through the year 2010 irrespective of inmate classification. However, the current custody profile demonstrates that while there are an average of 648 maximum-security inmates on any given day,there are only 53 maximum-security beds available system-wide. This means that on an average day,there are 595 maximum security inmates that are not housed in maximum-security beds. Thus,the study identified an immediate need for 600 additional maximum security beds and Update on State Corrections Reform January 31,2008 County Administrator's Office Page 5 concluded that the County jail system will need to expand by 1,100 beds over the next 20 years due wholly to the current insufficiency of, and projected need for, maximum security beds. The 65-page study is available upon request. Jail Construction Grant Funding Detail On May 3, 2007, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (or AB 900) became law. Among its provisions, the State is authorized to enter into agreements with participating counties for acquisition, design, and contraction of local jail facilities. Up to $1.2 billion is authorized statewide by the legislation for county jail construction. The state construction grant program will proceed in two phases: $750 million for Phase I and $470 million for Phase I1. Phase I does not have to be completed until 2017 and Phase II cannot be initiated until specific performance benchmarks are achieved. Those benchmarks are that a minimum of 4,000 local jail beds and 2,000 state re-entry beds from Phase I funding are under construction or sited. 11K state has strongly suggested that counties that have any intention to secure construction grant funds should apply during Phase I because the Phase I funding list may be used for Phase II funding determinations. The deadline for Phase I applications is March 18, 2008 and requires a Board of Supervisors resolution certifying that the County will fulfill the grant program requirements and obligations. For large counties such as Contra Costa, the maximum amount of funds that can be requested is 75%of total project costs, not to exceed a maximum state funding amount of$100 million. Project costs eligible for state funding are limited to on-site facility construction, and fixed furnishings and equipment. Participating counties must provide a 25%total project match, 10%of which must be a cash match and 15% of which may be an in-kind match. For example, if a project is estimated to cost $80 million, the maximum amount funded by the state would be $60 million and the county would have to provide a minimum$20 million match ($8 million in cash or cash-eligible expenses and $12 million in in-kind). Costs for(non-County employee) construction management, architectural programming and design, and environmental preparation may be applied towards satisfying the cash match requirement. Costs for land, needs assessments, project-related county administration,transition planning,and fiscal auditing services may be applied towards satisfying the in-kind match requirement. The state will evaluate proposals based on an array of factors totaling 1325 points, but more than half of the total available points relate to three factors: project need (250 points), net gain in beds(200 points), and assisting in the siting of a state re-entry facility(300 points). With regard to the highest rated factor—siting a state re-entry facility—the state requires a county to enter into a Siting Agreement with CDCR within 90 days of a conditional award notification for jail construction grant funds. The Siting Agreement will require naming a specific site agreeable to CDCR. If a county is unable to enter into a Siting Agreement with the 90-day timeframe, the county's project will be returned to the CSA Board for review. The Act(AB 900) requires counties to fully staff and operate new or expanded facilities within 90 days of construction completion. Staffing and operations costs are not eligible for state funding. It should be noted that due to the lease revenue bond funding mechanism used by the state to finance the jail construction grant program, ownership interest of the property used for the new jail construction will be Update on State Corrections Reform January 31,2008 County Administrator's Office Page 6 vested with the state until the bonds are retired (35 years or longer), after which time ownership of the property would revert to the county. State Corrections Reform ■ Seeks to address overcrowding and recidivism Seeks to head off an involuntary state prison cap and federal receivership State Corrections Reform ■ Adds infrastructure funding for 13,000 Update jail beds and 40,000 state re-entry beds ■ Creates State Rehabilitation Strike Team to develop and implement anti-recidivism programs i Early Tactical Plan and Current Status CgQent9tatus Board Actions of Last April Export inmates out of state Temporarily transferring up to 7,772 inmates to pnva a ou-o- e aci i es COMMITED to collaborating with the state in . !Early release of inmates Proposed in Governor's 2008/09 exploring creative solutions to address the Budget combined needs of the state and County for detention programs and facilities . Refuse new commitments Not implemented ■ SUPPORTED proposals that do not rely on . Increase minimum sentence existing County rated bed capacity to meet the to three years Not implemented state's needs for additional beds. Community re-entry facility 16,000 beds funded through AB 900 ■ SUPPORTED a stipulation that County through state-operated facilities to be participation in the State corrections reform plan sited in counties throughout the state will be optional,not mandatory. j on a voluntary basis. Preparatory Actions by Local Needs and Impacts staff __ _ - -- ------- • ---- Completed Needs Assessment Study, a ■ Needs Assessment Stud Correctional Standards Authority y identified an requirement prior to beginning construction immediate need for at least 600 maximum on any new jail beds security beds to address current population ■ Established a Letter of Intent with CDCR to mix and segregation-by-classification explore the development of a Community limitations Re-entry Facility ■ State actions to early release 22,000 ■ Attended relevant meetings and seminars inmates and place another 19,000 inmates regarding the State crisis to keep current on any potential changes in direction on summary parole may increase that need 1 Addendum to D.2 February 5, 2008 On this day the Board of Supervisors considered accepting status report on the state corrections reform and actions to be taken to address impacts on the County. John Cullen, County Administrator, Commander Joe Caruso, Office of the Sheriff, and Julie Enea, Senior Deputy County Administrator provided the Board of Supervisors a review of the issues of re-entry,jail expansion, and the County' need for jail beds. Mr. Cullen advised the Board that on April 25, 2007, the Legislature passed AB 900 (Solorio/Aghazarian), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (the Act), a bipartisan reform measure to address issues of state prison overcrowding and recidivism problems. He outlined the State Correctional Reform Initiative and asked the Board of Supervisors for direction on next steps. He also advised that the state has issued written information to counties about the application for re-entry facilities and information about the application process for jail construction and/or expansion bond funds. Commander Joe Caruso and Julie Enea presented a Powerpoint on State Corrections Reform Update (see attached. Ms. Enea asked the Board to decide on whether or not to site a state re- entry facility in Contra Costa County, to compete for local jail construction funds or to help the state with mental health and crisis care services for the state parolee and ex-offender population. She also advised the Board to be aware that the opportunity to pursue local jail construction grant funds will expire on March 18, 2008. She requested the Board to direct the County Administrator to identify sites for a community re-entry facility; approve up to $42,000 for a consultant who would assist staff in preparing a grant application and estimating the ongoing cost of additional jail beds; direct the County Administrator to assemble a project team to develop a grant application and financing plan for the local match requirement; and to return to the Board on March 11 with a scope and financing plan. Chair Glover said there would be major impacts if the County does not seek funding for potential sites for the state prison. Supervisor Piepho asked if the County should be aware of the juvenile population that needs to be addressed. Ms. Enea responded that separate legislation addressed the juvenile justice realignment and that those issues were being address on a separate track than the adult justice system. Supervisor Piepho asked how many employees would be required for this project and expressed concern about the recruitment issues in Public Safety. Commander Caruso said that additional jail beds would allow for inmates to be separated by classification, as compared to the current situation in which incompatible groups are housed in the same building. He said that the added beds would not be staff intensive and suggested that lower security beds not needed by the County could be rented out to State parole or other agencies seeking additional bed capacity. Commander Caruso said that high-security and maximum-security beds are needed to permit segregation of incompatible populations. Referring to page 4 (about engaging Crout and Sida, Criminal Justice Consultants, Inc., in $42,000 to develop a project scope), Supervisor Piepho asked what the cost difference is between the concept and financial investment. Mr. Cullen said that the financial investment at this point is the amount that would be spent on existing staff time to have someone write the proposal, and noted there is no actual financial commitment yet. He reiterated if the County wins an award for the jail construction, there would be a twenty five percent (25%) local match requirement (ten percent cash plus fifteen percent in-kind). Supervisor Piepho asked if the funds would come from a Bond or General Fund process or a combination of all. Mr. Cullen responded all the above. Supervisor Gioia asked if the County would get state dollars to run the extra beds, and asked what would be the estimate for this. Ms. Enea responded that the state will provide no funding for the ongoing operation of the additional beds. Commander Caruso stated that the operations cost estimate would depend on the number of beds the County would add, and that the project scope had not yet been defined. Supervisor Gioia asked what the alternatives would be if the County took no action. Commander Caruso responded that it was likely that the County would be forced to do something before long because the County will eventually run out of jail bed space. Ms. Enea suggested that another alternative would be to rent the beds out to State parole or other jurisdictions that are under a population cap and need additional jail bed capacity. Supervisor Gioia asked if the state would give the County money to build a facility if capacity is not increased. He suggested staff should present the different scenarios for the Board on the costs to be incurred by the County. He also questioned who would pay for the cost of a new re- entry facility. Supervisor Gioia said to figure out where to place such a prison would be very controversial. He said that while adding jail beds to the West County facility would be paid for by the state, funding would not cover costs such as paying deputies to work at the jail, and pointed out those costs were not included in the report. Commander Caruso said the state would pay for both the construction and operational costs of a state re-entry facility. The re-entry facility would be staffed by state employees. Supervisor Gioia asked what would prevent a city from saying they would like to have a re-entry facility in their city? Ms. Enea said that nothing would prevent a city from doing this, but the Board of Supervisors would have to approve this. Mr. Cullen suggested getting started on this project during the next few weeks with the help of a consultant to prepare estimates on how much the ongoing operations at an expanded jail would cost. Supervisor Bonilla said it would be important for the community to be involved. She said she would not like to get too far into the application right now and find out the community is opposed to this idea. Supervisor Uilkema said she supports the idea of local jail construction. However, she is opposed to the state re-entry facility in this County. She expressed concern about the community impacts a prison would bring. She said she would be willing to look at this but was skeptical. She pointed out the reason a consultant should be hired is to have accurate and uniform data and accurate and uniform sites, and when the sites are proposed there would be community involvement. She urged the Board to move towards getting some uniform analysis on the facts. Supervisor Piepho said that part of what needs to be recognized is the County's current bed capacity constraints, and asked if the County should commit to a re-entry facility. Ms. Enea said that the state requires counties to assemble a task force that involves the affected community. One of the functions of the task force is community outreach. She pointed out that the County does not have much time to do community outreach before the March 18 application deadline. Sheriff Rupf arrives. Supervisor Gioia said there would be a greater risk if someone from prison is returned to the community without satisfactory re-entry services and there is a greater chance of crime and violence in that community than someone escaping from the Martinez Detention facility, due to lack of high security. He said if the state is willing to pay and the facility is sited properly, it would be a good thing. He said that (the City of) Richmond set up an office of Neighbor, Safety and Violence Prevention and their office is working with the County and other agencies to come up with violence prevention plans. He advised that this issue should be explored with Richmond as soon as possible. Supervisor Gioia stated there should be discussions with the cities to see if it aligns with the objective of re-entry services. Sheriff Rupf said the report before the Board is driven by a lack of clear and timely information from the state, and requested the Board to identify potential sites for transitional facility. He suggested a consultant should be hired to look at the sites. He said that it would make good sense to build a 500-bed prison next to existing jails such as the one in West County or the Marsh Creek Jail near Clayton. He pointed out that the best model would be for the state to allow the County to operate a re-entry program for state inmates with the existing County programs and have the state pay the County per transitional inmate. He said the potential value for the County is to offer the state a site, with the County picking up three hundred points in the competition for local bed construction funds. He acknowledged that the Board was not being asked at this time to make any commitment beyond the dollars suggested for a consultant,which would keep the County at the table. Supervisor Gioia asked Sheriff Rupf how the County could absorb the added constant cost for added beds. Sheriff Rupf responded that options should be kept open for solutions to problems that might exist. Supervisor Gioia asked when the County would start to incur increased operational costs and on what scale. He asked, if the County does nothing, what would happen? Sheriff Rupf responded that if jails are allowed to be overcrowded, and the pressure is allowed to increase for staff and clients, a remarkable increase in violent acts would be seen. He said in terms of the projections and findings of the needs assessment, the County needs more maximum-security beds to allow more flexibility in all the County's facilities. He asked the Board to decide if they would like to stay at the table and hold open the opportunity of taking state grant money. Supervisor Bonilla asked what the interests were from statewide Counties in taking advantage of the process. Sheriff Rupf reported that Los Angeles County has more staff than this County and does not wish to take part in the process. He said most of the counties share the same frustration, as the state does not have a consistent model of moving forward. Supervisor Bonilla requested the Sheriff for his input on when the County could walk away if the County did not get enough grant money. Sheriff Rupf said he was motivated for the County to move forward on the transitional housing issue because it would keep the County in the game with regards to the monies that would build beds. He said when an inmate is released, he/she is someone that is ill prepared. He said the inmates would be better off if they were provided with transitional programs, and said this would be a first step to major transition. Supervisor Bonilla asked staff to report to the Board other solutions to the County's need for maximum-security beds. Sheriff Rupf said that the County's need has been driven by high- security beds and he was not aware of any other program or potential value left on the table from a lack of interest. Supervisor Piepho asked what the acreage size was for the re-entry facility. Ms. Enea responded four to fifteen acres. Sheriff Rupf pointed out a selection group would meet and look at all the proposals, which will occur in the second quarter of 2008. Supervisor Piepho clarified with Sheriff Rupf, if the Board approves the recommendations 1-4 on(stated on page 4), and the County receives 300 points, and then the state decides to put the re-entry facility somewhere else, would the County still get the local funding for the jail? Sheriff Rupf concurred. Supervisor Gioia noted that the decision made today is to keep all choices open and on the table, and the Board is not saying that the County would like to build new beds. By an unanimous vote with none absent the Board of Supervisor took the following action: ■ Accepted the report with Recommendations 1-10(as spelled out on Board Order) (Pages 1-2); ■ Approved the following directions to the County Administrator 1-4 (as spelled out on Board Order) (Page 4).