2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Ab 109/ab 117 Realignment: is Santa Clara County Ready for Prison

Conclusions 8

• CL1 Page 15
  The County, through the CCP, has developed a well thought out and progressive approach to AB 109, based on a strategy of treatment versus reincarceration.
• CL2 Page 15
  The County has missed the opportunity to proactively communicate its work and progress to the community at large. This leaves county residents vulnerable to misinformation.
• CL3 Page 15
  The County has not defined the metrics it will use to measure success. State-funded incentive payments will be measured by metrics detailed in the penal code.
• CL4 Page 15
  The County’s CCP is a cross-functional team made up of the right stakeholders who are collaborating effectively on AB 109 implementation.
• CL5 Page 16
  The CCP recommended and the BOS approved a Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) located in a convenient, central county location, for both AB 109 releases and others being released from county jail.
• CL6 Page 16
  The Sheriff argues that Elmwood Correctional Facility was not designed to house longer-term inmates and needs funds for facility upgrades.
• CL7 Page 16
  The County’s approach to implementing AB 109 is progressive, evidence-based and focused on treatment versus reincarceration. It is currently limited to just those individuals that fit the AB 109 N/N/Ns criteria.
• CL8 Page 14
  The Grand Jury concludes media claims that painted a vision of how AB 109 would create unsafe communities have thus far not materialized. The County’s approach is unique, humanitarian and has been widely recognized as one to be noted for its groundbreaking potential. The approach each county undertakes to implement AB109 is unique. The County’s approach is focused on treatment versus reincarceration and is based on evidence that this strategy works to reduce crime. The County CCP’s efforts at implementing AB 109 are based on an assumption that rehabilitation is a responsibility shared by all stakeholders on the CCP. The County’s approach is building a stronger partnership among county providers seeking to ensure all parties share in the need for a consistency of message and consistency of how the N/N/Ns individuals are treated. The Grand Jury found the County’s CCP planning efforts to be inclusive of agencies that have a direct role in controlling the outcomes. It is thorough in its approach and is progressive in looking to implement supervision, counseling and treatment alternatives to reincarceration. The CCP serves a valuable role in coordinating the stakeholder functions, which should further ensure success. The CCP can serve a continued role in gathering data, evaluating progress and adjusting the plan, funding, and personnel recommendations to ensure the client needs are served over agencies’ desires to augment budgets. With the success of the County’s approach to AB 109, the treatment versus reincarceration approach could be expanded to more individuals than just the AB 109 N/N/Ns. Long term, if the County’s approach to AB 109 proves effective, one could anticipate a decrease in jail population. Additionally, the jail can expand its rehabilitative role, which is consistent with the Sheriff’s assertion in the Implementation Plan that the DOC needs to play a larger role in re-entry planning.22 Although the amount of future funding to be received is not yet known, AB 109 is a funded mandate and the counties have little choice but to implement this legislation. However, the County can augment future funding by aligning with and reporting on incentive metrics. It should be noted that all interviewees stated AB 109 is the most significant change to the state’s criminal justice system in decades. Implemented effectively, the County’s strategy is expected to contribute to reducing the state’s prison population and to reducing crime, consequently leading to safer communities. 22 Implementation Plan, pg. 30. 14 Findings and Recommendations Finding 1: The County, through the CCP, has developed a well thought out and progressive approach to AB 109, based on a strategy of treatment versus reincarceration. Recommendation 1: None Finding 2: The County has missed the opportunity to proactively communicate its work and progress to the community at large. This leaves county residents vulnerable to misinformation. Recommendation 2: The County should proactively and regularly communicate its approach to AB 109 and its progress, through community outreach or the media to communicate its successes, to educate the public, and debunk misunderstandings. Finding 3: The County has not defined the metrics it will use to measure success. State-funded incentive payments will be measured by metrics detailed in the penal code. Recommendation 3: The County should ensure the County Probation Officer is developing a means of gathering the data and reporting on the metrics outlined in the penal code, as well as developing the metrics to evaluate the success of the CCP Plan as a whole. Finding 4: The County’s CCP is a cross-functional team made up of the right stakeholders who are collaborating effectively on AB 109 implementation. Recommendation 4: The County should consider establishing a long-term role for the CCP to ensure the gains made by their collaboration continue. 15 Finding 5: The CCP recommended and the BOS approved a Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) located in a convenient, central county location, for both AB 109 releases and others being released from county jail. Recommendation 5A: The County should ensure the RRC continues to be fully staffed with the County agencies and CBO representatives needed for effective re-entry, including the addition of case managers to aid in out-of-custody rehabilitation planning. Recommendation 5B: The County should communicate broadly, with a clear and consistent message to in- custody and out-of-custody clients, that the RRC is open for business and what resources are available there. Finding 6: The Sheriff argues that Elmwood Correctional Facility was not designed to house longer-term inmates and needs funds for facility upgrades. Recommendation 6: The County should continue to monitor the AB 109 length of stays to determine whether long-term facilities upgrades are needed. Finding 7: The County’s approach to implementing AB 109 is progressive, evidence-based and focused on treatment versus reincarceration. It is currently limited to just those individuals that fit the AB 109 N/N/Ns criteria. Recommendation 7: The County should consider expanding its AB 109 approach to support other individuals being released from jail. 16 Appendix A: Santa Clara County 2011 State Realignment Spending Plan Allocation, September 2011 17 Appendix B: Santa Clara County 2011 State Realignment Spending Plan Allocation, April 2012 18 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 29th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 19

No Responses Found 3

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.