Sent Friday, March 21:
The Honorable Carolyn V. Cavecche, Mayor
City of Orange
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Dear Mayor Cavecche:
First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before your Honorable City Council on March 11, 2008 regarding the County of Orange’s application for State funding of up to $100 million for the purpose of constructing additional jail facilities at the James A. Musick facility. Additionally, I am in receipt of the City of Orange draft Resolution No. 10274 which articulates the City’s opposition to our proposal to operate reentry programs for State inmates at Theo Lacy. The purpose of this letter is clarify our proposal for State reentry programs, repeat my offer to work with the City of Orange as the County moves forward through the application process, and to offer comments on the draft Resolution.
Historically, the County has struggled to keep pace with the rising demand for jail beds. From 1996 through 2000, an average of about 18,000 inmates were released early from jail, each year, due to the lack of jail beds. Addressing the shortage of jail beds has been a multi-pronged approach. The most obvious approach was expanding the Theo Lacy facility to its maximum capacity as defined by the revised MOU between the City of Orange and the County that was approved by the Board on March 24, 1998. In addition, the County’s criminal justice system conducts a wide variety of alternatives to incarceration that have shifted low level offenders to out-of-custody programs such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, home confinement, and community work programs. However, even with the efforts of the past, the Orange County jail system is overcrowded and expected to need an additional 3,217 rated beds by the year 2011. The opportunity to compete for up to $100 million for jail construction at Musick is something I believe is critical to the County being able to add jail beds to help keep Orange County a safe place to live, work, and play.
Another approach to reducing jail overcrowding upon which Orange County has been focusing is providing programs and classes to inmates while incarcerated. These programs help them become productive members of society when they are released. These reentry programs
March 21, 2008
Page 2
include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, vocational training, job placement, general education courses, anger management, parenting, and domestic violence programs. These programs are designed to reduce crime in Orange County, reduce the number of innocent victims of crime, and save taxpayer dollars by reducing the number of inmates incarcerated, prosecuted, and defended.
The State has a critical problem of prison overcrowding. Part of their comprehensive plan is to provide reentry programs to State inmates in the counties where they originated and where they will ultimately be released. The State reentry programs are the same programs that we already provide to our County inmates. As a result, they would provide the same benefits to Orange County: reduce crime, reduce victims of crimes, reduce the amount of future jail expansion, and reduce the cost of the entire criminal justice system.
As you know, the State will allocate jail construction funds on a competitive basis with priority being given to counties that provide a site for State reentry programs. Because of the benefits these programs provide to Orange County residents, we were hopeful that the State would allow Counties to develop proposals that would expedite implementation of the programs in existing facilities. However, when the State issued the request for proposals, they indicated they would only consider acquiring land upon which they would build a State owned and State operated facility. At that point in time, Musick appeared to be the only practical option due to the availability of land; however, that option would delay implementation at least 3-5 years until new facilities could be designed and constructed. It was also our understanding that a component of the State’s program would include a Work Furlough program in which inmates would be housed at the facility, be released during the day to go to work, and then return to the facility for evening classes and would stay incarcerated overnight.
On February 15, 2008 we received conflicting information indicating the State might consider approving programs operated by local agencies in existing facilities owned by local agencies. Since the Central Jail Complex does not have sufficient classroom space, Theo Lacy is the preferred location if existing facilities are allowed. On February 21, 2008 my staff and Supervisor Bill Campbell met with you, your City Manager, your Police Chief, and others from your Police Department. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the application process and to understand concerns that the City of Orange would have if the State reentry program is conducted at Theo Lacy. I understand that the issue was not discussed in public by the entire City Council and we did not assume that the discussions reflected “official” City policy. However, the discussions were extremely valuable to help us understand certain concerns. On
March 21, 2008
Page 3
February 22, 2008, I attended the State Reentry Advisory Committee meeting in San Diego to clarify whether or not the State would consider a County-run program in County-owned facilities. Based on concerns we heard in our February 21st meeting and the clarification we received at the Committee meeting, we have developed our proposal that includes the following key points:
1. Number of Beds: We propose to use 292 existing beds at Theo Lacy for State reentry. No new beds will be added to the facility. In order to free-up 292 beds for State inmates, we will work with the State to expedite the transfer of newly sentenced inmates to State facilities and we will expand our Community Work Program.
2. There will be no Work Furlough program in which inmates would leave the facility. All State inmates will remain within the secured facilities at Theo Lacy.
3. The State has described potential candidates for reentry programs as non-violent inmates who volunteer for the opportunity to better their lives. Moreover, we will not accept maximum security inmates from the State. The State inmates participating in these programs will be housed in an open dormitory which is not designed for maximum security inmates.
4. The programs and security functions will be run by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in a contractual relationship with the State.
There are a couple points that are important to understand.
1. Currently, there are over 800 inmates at Theo Lacy who have been through the State prison system or are waiting to be transferred to State prison. So, the presence of State reentry inmates will be consistent with our current jail population.
2.The current County reentry programs are virtually the same as the State reentry programs. Providing these programs will not deviate from what we currently do.
I am aware of the cooperative nature in which jail issues between the County and the City have been resolved in the past. I am also committed to keeping the prior commitments as detailed in the revised MOU from 1998. I have been advised by County Counsel that the proposed State reentry program does not violate the terms of the MOU; however, if the City sees it differently I am more than happy to discuss that further.
March 20, 2008
Page 4
Over the next month, we will further define the operating details of our proposal. During that time, I welcome input from the City of Orange. It is my hope that we can work together to achieve a successful application for $100 million for jail expansion, successfully implement State reentry programs to help reduce crime and improve the safety of all Orange County residents, and achieve all of that without impacting the residents of the City of Orange.
As mentioned earlier, I am in receipt of a draft Resolution expressing the City’s opposition to State reentry programs. I hope this letter clarifies our proposal for State reentry programs. Attachment I is a list of comments related to the City’s draft Resolution (Attachment II) that I hope your Council will consider. Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before your Council and I look forward to working together on this issue.
Sincerely,
Jack Anderson, Assistant Sheriff
Acting as the Sheriff-Coroner
Comments on Draft Resolution No. 10274
1.Page 1, the first “WHEREAS” indicates the County supports State reentry programs to qualify for State funding. Perhaps more importantly, these programs will reduce crime throughout Orange County, reduce the number of innocent crime victims, and reduce future costs to the criminal justice system in Orange County.
2.Page 1, the first “WHEREAS” indicates Musick is in the City of Lake Forest. Actually, Musick is located in an unincorporated area adjacent to the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest.
3.Page 3, the first “WHEREAS” indicates the County and Sheriff have not provided much detail on the Reentry Program and that the Theo Lacy EIR does not describe such an operation. On March 11, 2008, Acting Sheriff Anderson addressed the Orange City Council and addressed questions from the Council. The memo to which these comments are attached provides written description of the proposal and invites the City of Orange to provide input as the County continues to define the program. At this time, it appears the only facility modification would be to add modular classrooms. The Theo Lacy EIR describes a building that was never built but would have included inmate housing space and program classrooms. While the County is not going to add beds, it appears the EIR did describe additional classroom space. This issue will be further analyzed.
4.Page 3, Section 1 and Section 2 indicate the City finds the reentry program violates both the Stipulation and Judgment and the MOU First Amendment. It would be helpful if the City would articulate how.
5.Page 3, Section 3 indicates the County interprets the Stipulation and Judgment to mean “even minor modifications to the Theo Lacy operations and facilities require the approval of the City.” That is not the interpretation of the County. While we do not believe the proposed reentry programs require City approval, we do want to work with the City to identify and address the City’s concerns.
6.Page 3, Section 4 (1) indicates AB 900 provides that the programs be run by State Corrections employees rather than County employees. The County has been informed that the State will consider programs that are run by County employees. Accordingly, our proposal is for the County to run the programs.
7.Page 3, Section 4 (4) indicates there is the potential for a work furlough program. Our proposal does not include work furlough. All State inmates will remain incarcerated.
8.Page 3, Section 4 (5) indicates the addition of modular facilities may be required. This has not yet been determined. If modular classrooms are needed, CEQA documentation would be required. There is no intention of adding any other type of modular facilities.
9.Page 4, Section 5, indicates prisoners at Theo Lacy are typically low level offenders and that reentry programs would change the nature of the prison population. Theo Lacy has all classifications of inmates (minimum, medium, and maximum). There are over 800 inmates at Theo Lacy who have been to State prison on previous charges or who have been recently sentenced and are waiting to be transported to State prison. The proposed reentry programs, which the City is opposing, are intended to reduce the number of State inmates who commit new crimes upon their release. These programs could eventually reduce the number of inmates at Theo Lacy who have previously been through the State prison system.
10.Page 4, Section 5, the last sentence appears to exaggerate changes that could occur by releasing State inmates from Theo Lacy. There is very little that will change. The State inmates will be minimum or medium security as defined by the Sheriff Department’s classification system and will be released after they receive reentry programs that are similar to the programs we provide to County inmates.
11.Page 4, Section 7, directs the City Attorney to implement any legal means to ensure that the County abides by the Stipulation and Judgment and the MOU First Amendment. It is the Acting Sheriff’s intention to abide by both documents. We are advised by County Counsel that the proposed reentry program is allowable under both documents.