Sheriff Carona: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I apologize for running a little bit late. I think the question you asked was about AB 900 and the Board's participation in that. This is really just a place holder today, the opportunity for the county to make a decision as to whether or not you'd like to participate in AB 900. I serve on two committees for the California State Sheriffs. One of those, the AB 900 construction side of it, the second is CROB, which is the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. Both of them looking at the same issues given the prison overcrowding what are we going to do with the number of individuals who are in our prisons.
There's an anticipation with the three-judge panel that is reviewing the overcrowding situation in state prisons, that they may put a cap on the state prisons. They may force the counties to either hold prisoners or to take prisoners on the reentry side of it. We have been in discussions. We, my staff and I, have been in discussions with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations for some time now. AB 900 was co-authored by a number of individuals both Democratic and Republican.
Here in Orange County, Assemblymember Solorio and Assemblymember Spitzer were co-authors of this. The objective that the Governor put forward is to put 53,000 new beds in the State of California. A portion of those will be placed in counties around the state of California at the local level recognizing that everybody who goes to state prison comes through a county jail on their way to state prison. And we're holding a number of those individuals as people are released back into the community.
There's a reentry portion of those state prisoners and of course we, the counties, are responsible for that--the Sheriff's Department and Probation. We think that the program has some merit. It's a long way from being a perfect model. But we believe it's prudent for this county to opt into AB 900. If we are one of the counties that are at least willing to participate in those discussions, we'll get an enhancement in the amount of money that comes to us from 50% to 75% percent on the State match. We also have some priorities that are given to us.
I think the position that I would offer to you, this is either going to be done to us, or we can be part of the solution. My fear is that there's going to be some directive by the three-judge panel or a decision by the State of California to push these inmates back to the counties of origin with no money, which is not unlike what the State has done a number of times on other issues.
AB 900 has a funding source, and if at some point we're going to be getting these individuals, I think we should be in the position to determine who we're going to take and also bring some money to the table to support the construction, operation, and more importantly, the rehabilitation side of the house for the people who we are bringing into our jails.
Supervisor Campbell: Sheriff, thank you for coming this morning. The write-up was somewhat sketchy because we're trying to respond quickly to this request, but it implied to me that what we were trying to do would be create facilities who would ultimately be released back to Orange County anyway. Is that the way this program is supposed to work, that kind of the folks who are coming out of the system would come back to their local county through one of these--is that the approach or not?
Sheriff Carona: Well, it's one of the approaches. There's been much discussion around this item. The original thought was that they would increase the length of time that an individual could stay at a county jail from one year to three years and thereby forcing the counties to take a lot of the individuals who would be going on to state prison and holding those individuals in our local jails.
I can tell you at the 90% level California State Sheriffs oppose that position. What we argued for, what I argued for, on behalf of Orange County, is that we look at the reentry side of it. If we're going to take individuals from the state prisons, that we take those individuals who are going to be released back into our communities, in any event, the last year or 18 months of their sentence. The members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department who were involved in the correctional rehabilitation side of the house do a phenomenal job.
We've been able to reduce recidivism through education, through vocational training, through drug rehabilitation. Those are the individuals we believe we should be taking because we can program in such a way that when they are released back into Orange County, they have a higher probability of success, lowering the recidivism rate not only for the local population but the state prison. So it could go either way, but that's the position we're taking.
Supervisor Campbell: And your position would be since you'd be at the table to be able to bargain on this, you'd be able to get it shifted, so the ranks would match up to that; is that what you're saying?
Sheriff Carona: Yes, sir.
Supervisor Bates: Sheriff, when I was a member of the legislature, I did visit some reentry facilities and other areas, and my understanding was of those, they were nonviolent offenders or property crimes, substance abuse. Is that what we're looking at in terms of those who are released in that last 18 months to a year of their sentences, when they're in state prison--that kind of offender or that level offender?
Sheriff Carona: Back to Supervisor Campbell's question, right now you have kind of a blank chalkboard and everybody's trying to fill in the pieces. If we're not at the table, we're not going to be able to have the input. My sense is that that's exactly where we want to go. And I believe that's where those of us, all 58 County Sheriffs are standing. But they could clearly spin the other direction. The State's looking at putting as many people back in the communities as possible to relieve their overcrowding. I think it would be a bad idea for both the state and for the local governments for them to take the high-risk offenders and dump them back into their communities. Right now we don't have an answer to your question. By approving us coming in today AB 900 we'll have a seat at the table, I think we can push that agenda.
Supervisor Bates: Thank you.
Supervisor Moorlach: Thank you, Sheriff Carona, for coming out. I thought this was something important enough for you to share, and I appreciate your elaborate explanation. I just have one small question. Do you have a vision for where this might be cited. Do you have any locations or ideas?
Sheriff Carona: Of course you're going to have as part of your other discussions this morning with James A. Musick facility that is an area that we are planning to build out to 4400 minimum, medium-security beds. And now shifting to Supervisor Bates' question, depending upon what type of beds we have available, those are the types of prisoners we could take, and if we're looking at minimum medium-security it really kind of takes away--takes out of play--those individuals that are high-risk offenders that will be coming back in. That is also the facility that we do the vast majority of our vocational, educational, drug rehab programs, and part of the master planning for the James A. Musick facility is to increase that overall component. So it would be the perfect facility to use for individuals who are low-risk offenders go through the programming as they reenter back into the community. That's not to say, though, that we couldn't use any of the other facilities that we have, Theo Lacy or the Central Jail Complex. But at this point in time the one that would be most likely as a point of offering would be the James A. Musick facility for all the reasons I mentioned.
Supervisor Campbell: As you mentioned the contract for the design of the James A. Musick facility is on our is on our agenda today, and it's sized at a certain size now. Would this agreement suggest that it should be an additional 500 beds be done on the design, or would this be included within the design as it is now, or how does this relate to that activity?
Sheriff Carona: It would be part of the master planning process that would come back to this board. The way we see it right now, the first traunch of beds that we’re looking at building are 2,000 but roughly 2200 beds, I believe, to replace the existing 1200 that were a series of tents, and you all toured it. The tents and the old logging camps that were put on there in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as a temporary fit for a jail overcrowding that we're still operating today and then adding an additional 1,000 beds that we need for the overcrowding that we currently experience.
Part of the negotiations with the department of California department of corrections and rehabilitations is that if they're going to give us 500 hundred inmates, that they take 500 inmates that are currently in our jails. Remember, we're holding a lot of folks that have already been remanded of the custody of the State of California, but they have no beds to put them in. And so we'd like to see that either one-for-one swap or two-for-one swap. So we don't see this as adding an additional 500 beds. We see that within the confines of 2200 to 4400 that we're going to be building at these facilities.