Why Realignment? - Coleman/Plata –prison overcrowding lawsuit - State budget - Recidivism rate from CDCR - Research Realignment does not result in early release of any currently sentenced felons. Realignment does not transfer custody of any prisoner from State Prison directly to County Jail. Rather, it changes jurisdiction of specified populations from state to local control, by changing sentencing and supervision requirements By Chief Probation Officers of California http://www.inmatecountyjail.com

1. AB 109/117
Public Safety Realignment

2. AB 109
January, 2011 -Proposed in Governor’s budget
April -Passed by legislature, signed by Governor
June -Funding and clarifying legislation in
AB 117, AB 118 with passage of State
Budget
October 1 - -Public safety Realignment became operative
November 1 -Board approved Sonoma County Interim
Realignment Plan
July, 2012 -Board approved Sonoma County Year 2 Realignment Plan

3. Why Realignment
Coleman/Plata –prison overcrowding lawsuit
State budget
Recidivism rate from CDCR
Research

4. Misconceptions
Realignment does not result in early release of any currently
sentenced felons.
Realignment does not transfer custody of any prisoner from
State Prison directly to County Jail.
Rather, it changes jurisdiction of specified populations from
state to local control, by changing sentencing and supervision
requirements

5. AB 109 Overview
Shifted responsibility of specific felons to county control
Established Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS)
Established new sentencing scheme
Tasked Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) with
planning for, and implementation of local plans

6. Non-non-non Offenders
These offenders are serving their sentences locally, sentenced
under PC 1170(h).
Typically, sentence structured as some combination of local jail
time, with period under Mandatory Supervision by Probation.
Current or prior offense must be:
Non-violent
Non-serious
Non-sex
Unless excluded by one of 70+ specified crimes

7. Post Release
Community Supervision
(PRCS)
Probation supervises these offenders upon release from
prison:
– Current Non-violent offenders
– Current Non-serious offenders
– Some Sex offenders
– Does include offenders with a serious/violent offense in criminal
history (as long as it’s not current offense).
– Does not include 3rd strikers

8. Local Impacts
CDCR estimates of ADP for Sonoma County, at full
implementation:
- PRCS - 164 supervised by Probation
- PRCS - 21 in County Jail on violation
- Non-non-non - 230 additional in the local system
(some in County Jail; some on Mandatory Supervision,
supervised by Probation)

9. Local Impacts - Unknowns
-How many PRCS offenders will we receive?
-What will their needs and risk be?
-How will system charge, sentence non-non-nons?
-How many will be sentenced?
-How will they be sentenced?
Custody? Mandatory Supervision? Split?
-How will new laws impact Felony Probation?
-Impact of #s, credits, programming on County Jail ADP?

10. Realignment Challenge
Realignment provides limited funding for each County.
How will local system react?
Can we impact this?
How must our criminal justice system function to handle
many more offenders wisely, safely, and without losing
money?

11. Realignment Funding
Total funding at state level
Calculated from state’s experience/model
Distribution among 58 counties
CSAC created formula for FY 2011/2012
Local Plan
Community Corrections Partnership recommends, BOS approves

12. Sonoma County Strengths
Criminal Justice Master Plan
Belief in upstream initiatives
Culture of collaboration

13. Criminal Justice Master Plan
Precipitant: Rising jail population, possible need for increased beds.
Projected cost: $300+ million
Quest for Plan B
Consultant spends year studying CJ system
Series of recommendations, fleshed out over a second year
Criminal Justice Master Plan approved by Board of Supervisors Jan, 2010
Key pieces:
-Use of EBP, assess level of risk, resources follow risk, etc.
-Early Case Resolution Court
-Pre-trial program
-Day Reporting Center
-Community Corrections Center

14. Local Planning Process
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
14-member committee, created by SB 678 in 2009, predating
Realignment
Realignment builds on SB 678, and defines CCP Executive
committee (voting members)

15. Community Corrections Partnership
Exec Comm Steve Freitas, Sheriff
Jill Ravitch, District Attorney
Jose Guillen, Court Executive Officer, as designee of Presiding Judge
Kathleen Pozzi, Interim Public Defender
Michael Kennedy, Director of Mental Health/AODS
Tom Schwedhelm, Chief of Police, Santa Rosa
Robert Ochs, Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Efren Carrillo, Board of Supervisors
Veronica Ferguson, CAO
Rene Chouteau, Superior Court Presiding Judge
Karen Fies, Director, Employment and Training, Human Services
Michael Gossman, CAO Analyst
Marlus Stewart , Director, DAAC
Gina Burk, Victim Witness Director, DA’s Office
Steven Herrington, Superintendent, Sonoma County Schools
Jerry Dunn, Interim Director of Human Services

16. Organizing Principles
Use of detention beds should be minimized, in a manner that
is consistent with public safety, and the integrity of the
criminal justice system;
The system, and decisions, should be risk-based;
Research tested methods should be used, as much as
practicable.

17. Early CCP Decisions
County’s Criminal Justice Master Plan should be foundation
Programming should be provided for in-custody, as well as
out-of-custody offenders
A Day Reporting Center should be a fundamental component
of the Plan
Plan should be considered Interim

18. Sub-Committees
Supervision
Carla Maus, Chair
Sentencing
Judge Dana Simonds, Chair
Detention Alternatives/Programming/Reentry
Michael Kennedy, Sheralynn Freitas, Co-Chairs
Data Management and Evaluation
Kim Gilmore, Chair

19. Plan Development Considerations
• Realignment legislation itself
• CCP’s adopted Organizing Principles
• Sonoma County’s CJMP
• Sub-Committee recommendations
• Projections of local ADP numbers
• Assumptions about offenders’ risk and needs
• Anticipation of how criminal justice system will react
• Recognition that needs exceed resources, requiring
prioritization

20. Realignment Funding
Realignment legislation assumes Counties will manage these
populations differently than the State, through a combination
of jail time, supervision, detention alternatives, and
programming.
In fact, we must manage the new populations differently.
Funding will not be sufficient if we follow the State, i.e.:
-lock up offenders for significant periods
-not address needs and risk
-simply release

21. Interim Realignment Plan, 11/12
Programming $1,109,000
In-custody 282,000
Out-of-custody 827,000
Supervision 1,106,000
Custody 570,000
Detention alternatives mgmt 160,000
Data management 117,000
Criminal Justice Consultant 50,000
Start-up/admin 250,000
Contingencies 257,000
Total: $3,619,000

22. Non-non-non Experience
As of 1/25/12:
• Court sentenced 238 offenders under 1170(h)
• 140, or 59% of these have been split, i.e., part custody, part Mandatory
Supervision
• Length of sentences have varied, with maximum 13.5 years.
• 63 non-non-non offenders have been released and are currently being
supervised on Mandatory Supervision. These numbers will continue to
increase.

23. Jail Experience
As of 1/25/2012:
• Increased Population
– 158 inmates currently serving sentence under 1170(h)
• 52 % assessed as High Risk to re-offend
• 63% with split sentences will be released to Mandatory Supervision
– Parolee increase from Average Daily Population (ADP) of 7 inmates
prior to AB109 to ADP of 32 inmates
– PRCS ADP of 12 inmates
Inmate Search in Sonoma County, CA

24. Jail Experience
• Increased In – Custody Programming
– Target High to Moderate Risk to reoffend based on STRONG assessment
– Enhanced Starting Point program
• High Risk Group started March 2012 with a total enrollment of 57 individuals
• Moderate Risk Group started April 2012 with a total enrollment of 49 individuals
– Introduced MRT (a cognitive based therapy) to curriculum in September 2012:
• High Risk Group with a total enrollment of 24 individuals
• Moderate Risk Group with a total enrollment of 28 individuals
• Detention Alternatives – Electronic Monitoring Program
– Implemented December 1, 2011
– One Correctional Deputy assigned
– 191 inmates enrolled since implementation with 30 participants active as of 12/31/12.
– Approximately 90% enrolled are working, enrolled in school and/or participating in
rehabilitative programs in the community (i.e., AA, NA, Anger Management, etc.)

25. PRCS Experience
As of 12/31/12:
• Supervised by 10 Probation Officers, plus Sheriff’s Deputy, and CHP officer
• 349 PRCS offenders released to Sonoma County
• 267 active in the community
• Of 349 released to Sonoma County, 24 failed to appear for initial report
• 147 were on warrant status
• 80 individuals have committed total of 114 new offenses
• 57 have been revoked
• 109 have been incarcerated with use of flash incarceration
• Risk levels: 72% high-risk to reoffend

26. Day Reporting Center Experience
As of 1/25/12:
• Began operations January 2012 with a target maximum ADP of 100
individuals
• Capacity expanded in September 2012 to raise the maximum ADP to 150
individuals
• Anticipated to take 9-12 months for individuals to complete all 3 phases of
the DRC program
• A total of 308 offenders have enrolled since inception:
– 140 are currently active (approximately 60% are PRCS or 1170h)
– 17 have successfully completed the program

27. Realignment Funding - Year 2
• Total state funding - $842 million (Year 1, approx $350 million)
• CSAC again negotiated formula, expected to be used for years
2 and 3
• Sonoma County projected to receive $9.027 million for FY
2012/2013, plus $150 k planning money.

28. Development of Year 2 Plan/Budget
• CCP recommends continue with Interim Plan and Programs
• Interim plan directs study, and begin Pre-trial, if feasible
• Recommendations for additional funding:
– Data Management and Evaluation Sub-committee
– Detention Alternatives/Programming Sub-committee
– Other departments, via CCP meetings
• Funding predominantly recommended for custody, supervision, detention
alternatives, and programming.
• Carry-over balance of $1,201,744 - recommend use for contingencies
• CCP approved year 2 recommendations on 7-0 vote May 22

29. Custody
• Continue AB 109 funding of 1 unit in NCDF
• Continue AB 109 funding of Electronic Monitoring Program
• Sheriff’s SERT (Specialized Emergency Response Team)
– train 2 new members

30. Supervision
• Continue supervision with POs, assistance of Sheriff, CHP;
-add 50 k for local LE assistance
-add .5 DA Gang Task Force Investigator
• Enhance PO ratio to 35:1 (currently 40:1).
• Add POs incrementally as number of offenders grows

31. Programming - In-custody
• Mental Health $234,632
• “1370” restoration services 374,000
• Starting point 150,000
• Program manager 146,631
• Jail programs 138,412
cognitive behavioral, anger mgmt, non-violent comm,
parenting, employment preparation, etc.
• PO – 1170(h) offender assessment 127,596
Total: $1,171,271

32. Programming - Out-of-custody
• Day reporting center $1,535,000
• Mental Health 214,475
• Substance Abuse Treatment 452,500
• DV programming 27,120
• Housing 45,000
• GED prep 43,000
• Job training and job search assistance 165,489
• Business rep 37,500
• General Assistance 70,000
Total $2,590,084

33. Additional Recommendations
• Pre-Trial $1,012,410
• Detention alternatives 717,407
• Data management 135,000
• Criminal justice consultant 80,000
• County Counsel 15,000
• Administration (department analyst) 137,789
• Contingencies 1,286,941

34. Pre-trial
Criminal Justice Master Plan:
Pre-trial program necessary for County to fully realize benefit of Early Case
Resolution Court
Early Case Resolution Court 2009 CGF
Day Reporting Center 2012 AB 109
Pre-trial program 2013 AB 109
Community Corrections Center ? SB 1022?
Interim Realignment Plan:
Directed Pre-trial study, with anticipated implementation in year 2.

35. Pre-trial
Core system function providing universal front-end screening
Recommendations from Criminal Justice consultants:
-base on evidence-based “risk principle”
-develop locally derived pre-trial risk tool
-develop locally derived matrix - input from CJ stakeholders
-create hybrid program:
-Sheriff classification staff provide assessment
-Probation Officers provide supervision
Benefits:
-facilitates efficient case processing
-supports jail management
-risk-based decision making
-expedited access to available services
-increased effectiveness, by reducing pre-trial failure

36. Contingency Funds
CCP identified several areas that may deserve/need funding in
year 2:
DUI Court
Sheriff LP
Additional unit in NCDF
Recommend use of carry-over funds ($1,201,744)
Recommend total contingency fund of $1,286,941, or 12.3%
of total available funding for year 2.

37. Realignment Plan and CJMP
-Day Reporting Center
-Pre-trial
-Use objective risk-assessment instrument
-Probation to use STRONG assessment in MADF
-Employment assistance
-Target higher-risk offender
-Mental health evaluation and services
-Substance abuse treatment
-Expedite entry into treatment
-Ensure treatment continuity
-Cognitive skills programs
-GED classes
-Build on data collection

38. Proposed Year 2 Realignment Budget
Programming $3,761,355
In-custody 1,171,271
Out-of-custody 2,590,084
Detention alternatives 717,407
Supervision 1,988,052
Custody (including SERT) 1,104,970
Data management 135,200
Pre-trial 1,012,407
Local Law Enforcement support 50,000
DA Gang Task Force Investigator 90,000
Criminal Justice Consultant 80,000
Administration 137,789
County Counsel 15,000
Contingencies 1,286,941
Total: $10,379,121

39. Data Collection
Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) working with:
Administrative Office of Courts
California State Association of Counties
State Sheriff’s Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Developing and implementing first phase baseline and ongoing data
collection instruments

40. Data Collection
State Sheriffs collecting for each county:
PRCS:
Total booked, booked on flash, booked on new charge
Serving jail time for revocation
1170h sentences:
Number sentenced to local custody
Offenders released to sheriff’s alternative custody program
Number from alt custody program returned to custody
State parolees:
Booked on parole violation, new charges, serving local sentence

41. Data Collection
Chief Probation Officers collecting for each county:
PRCS: 1170h sentences:
Released from CDCR jail only
On warrant split sentences
Closures active
Recidivism
Active
New felony probation grants

42. Data Collection
Sonoma County
– Recommend hiring consultant to assist in establishing long-term
evaluation for Sonoma County’s Realignment plan.
• Based on best-practices
• Determine data elements
• Determine evaluation questions
– Hire Business Intelligence Programmer – to build data gathering
process and reports to implement the above plan.
– Inter-department data sharing pilot between Probation, Health, and
Human Services, to match individuals across disparate data sources.

43. This plan:
-Protects public safety
-Is balanced
-Is an upstream approach
-Is consistent with Criminal Justice Master Plan
-Is consistent with Sonoma County’s values
-Fits within anticipated resources