The County of Santa Clara
California

Report
88391
Approved as Amended
Oct 3, 2017 9:30 AM

Consider recommendations relating to implementation of Bail and Release Work Group (BRWG) Final Consensus Report on Optimal Pretrial Justice. (Office of the County Executive)

Information

Department:Office of the County ExecutiveSponsors:
Category:Report

Multiple Recommendations

Possible action:
a. Receive report relating to possible action to implement six BRWG Recommendations, based on further study by the BRWG, and status updates on other BRWG Recommendations for which implementation is currently underway.
b. Direct Administration to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications from nonprofit organizations interested in operating a community bail fund in the County.
c. Direct Administration to issue an RFP to solicit applications from nonprofit organizations interested in providing community-based service to support pretrial defendants in making court appearances and avoiding new offenses.
d. Direct the Department of Correction (DOC), Administration, County Counsel, and request the Office of the District Attorney, to develop and report on rules and regulations for a pilot electronic monitoring program for eligible inmates who have had a bail amount set by the court but have been unable to pay, and direct DOC to report on an annual basis to the Board regarding the rules and regulations.
e. Direct Administration to collect and report bail performance outcomes data, including any data from the bail industry, to the Public Safety and Justice Committee on a biannual basis.
f. Direct Administration to monitor and validate the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment tool for racial bias and to report to the Board on its findings.
g. Direct Administration to report on the feasibility and desirability of in-field supervision based on lessons learned in implementing and evaluating other release options for lower-risk defendants.

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The fiscal implications of recommended actions to implement the BRWG Recommendations 2, 6, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are described below in Table 1.  In the long term, the costs of implementing these Recommendations are expected to be largely or wholly offset by decreased costs associated with reductions in the County’s jail population and recidivism rates.   

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

On October 4, 2016, the BRWG presented to the Board of Supervisors its Final Consensus Report on Optimal Pretrial Justice, containing the results of its two-year-long study of County policies and practices for screening, bail, incarceration, and supervision of criminal defendants during the pretrial phase; policies and practices in other jurisdictions; and best practices and national standards for bail and pretrial justice.  The Final Consensus Report contained 18 Recommendations, which the BRWG asked the Board of Supervisors to approve for referral and further study by relevant County departments and public agency partners.  The Board approved 16 of these 18 Recommendations.

On November 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved a work plan classifying the 16 approved Recommendations into: (1) those that could be implemented immediately; (2) those on which the relevant departments and agencies could begin implementation and report directly back to the Board; and (3) those which required further study by the BRWG prior to implementation.  On June 9, 2017, the BRWG met to consider the Recommendations in category (3), as well as some category (2) Recommendations.

This section provides detailed information about the BRWG’s recommended actions and estimated timelines for the category (3) Recommendations, and status updates and estimated timelines for the category (2) Recommendations.  The Recommendations falling into category (1) are listed, along with their current status, in the Background section of this document. 

Category 3 Recommendations

Category 3 Recommendations are those the Board referred to the BRWG for further detailed study.  A summary of recommended Board actions, targeted timelines, and projected fiscal impact for the Category 3 Recommendations is provided in Table 1 below, followed by more detailed information on each Recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Category 3 Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Recommended Board Action

Targeted Timeline

Projected
Fiscal Impact

2

Explore Feasibility of Public or Nonprofit Alternative to Commercial Bail Bonds

Direct Administration to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications from nonprofit organizations interested in operating a community bail fund in the County.

The RFP process could be completed by April 2018.  Thereafter, a community bail fund could be established by October 2018.

Potential funding by the County for administrative costs, seed funding for a revolving bail fund, and annual outcomes-based funding in amounts to be determined by the Board.  Minimal staffing implications for screening and referral of eligible defendants by the Office of Pretrial Services.

6

Institute a Community Release Project in Partnership with Community-Based Organizations

Direct Administration to issue an RFP to solicit applications from nonprofit organizations interested in providing community-based service to support pretrial defendants in making court appearances and avoiding new offenses.

The RFP process could be completed by April 2018.  Thereafter, a Community Release Project could be established by October 2018.

Funding by the County for services, possibly using an outcomes-based funding model, with amounts to be determined by the Board.  Minimal staffing implications for screening and referral of eligible defendants by the Office of Pretrial Services.

11

Implement a Release Program through DOC

Direct the Department of Correction (DOC), Administration, County Counsel, and request the District Attorney’s Office, to develop and report back on rules and regulations for a pilot electronic monitoring program for eligible inmates who have had a bail amount set by the court, but have been unable to pay. 

Direct DOC to report back on an annual basis to the Board regarding the rules and regulations.  

The initial report-back should occur by December 2017. A pilot program for misdemeanor cases can be implemented in January 2018. 

 

Subsequent annual report-backs should occur every December.

 

 

 

Significant increased staffing resources in Office of Pretrial Services, Sheriff’s Office, and DOC to re-screen cases for eligibility, process releases, and provide supervision to released individuals. 

 

If the program takes the form of electronic monitoring, the associated costs are likely to be significantly outweighed by savings from reduced jail time. 

14

Collect and Share Data on Bail Performance Outcomes

Direct Administration to collect and report bail performance outcomes data, including any data from the bail industry, to the Public Safety and Justice Committee (PSJC) on a biannual basis.

Reporting could begin in February 2018 and occur on a biannual basis (February and August) thereafter.

The Office of Pretrial Services reported to PSJC in August 2017 on available data regarding bail industry outcomes. Collecting and reporting on additional data would have moderate staffing impacts in the department directed to take on these functions.

16

Explore and Employ Domestic Violence-Specific Risk Assessment Tools that are Validated to Avoid Racial Bias

Direct Administration to monitor and validate the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) tool for racial bias and to report back to the Board on its findings.

Monitoring of the ODARA tool could begin immediately and results could be reported by October or November 2018.  Validation of ODARA for racial bias could take several years.

Technical assistance for enhancing and ensuring racial and ethnic equality in service provision by the Office of Pretrial Services is provided by the Pretrial Justice Institute Technical Assistance.

18

Explore Adoption of In-Field Pretrial Supervision to Provide Additional Safeguards and Protect the Community

Direct Administration to report back on the feasibility and desirability of in-field supervision based on lessons learned in implementing and evaluating other release options for lower-risk defendants.

Await implementation and evaluation of less supervision-intensive options for lower-risk clients, which will likely take several years.

Minimal staffing resources associated with monitoring and evaluating other release options.

 

Recommendation 2:              Explore Feasibility of Public or Nonprofit Alternative to Commercial Bail Bonds

Background: BRWG Recommendation 2 involves establishment of a public or nonprofit alternative to the private surety bail bonds industry—i.e., a community bail fund.  The goal of this recommendation is to enable low-risk indigent defendants to receive the assistance needed to pay monetary bail and obtain release from pretrial custody without being burdened by the non-refundable fees and collection efforts typically associated with surety bail bonds. 

Administration and County Counsel recommend that the County contract with a nonprofit organization to establish a community bail fund.  Specifically, the Board should adopt the approach modeled by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, which provides funding for a nonprofit bail fund.  Although representatives of the bail bonds industry have raised concerns about public funding of a community bail fund that would be in direct competition with the industry, County Counsel is not aware of any legal barriers to such an arrangement.   

A community bail fund raises money that can be used to post cash bail.  When a suitable defendant—for example, one who meets the income criteria to qualify for Public Defender services, has been charged with a misdemeanor, and has a low bail amount—is identified, he or she is referred to the community bail fund, which posts cash bail (rather than a surety bail bond) for the defendant without charging him or her any fees, and may also offer community-based services to support the defendant in making court appearances and avoiding re-arrest.  If the defendant makes all scheduled court appearances, bail is refunded by the court, and the full amount is paid back into the community bail fund to be used for other individuals in the future.  Community bail funds in other states have exhibited very high success rates, with close to 100% of defendants making all of their required court appearances and receiving refunds from the court that replenish the community bail fund.

Eligibility criteria for a community bail fund may include any number of factors, such as:

·        income level[1]

·        specific charge types, such as low-level, non-violent misdemeanors;

·        family circumstances, for instance new or single parents, or parents of children with special needs;

·        qualities creating a heightened risk of victimization in jail, such as LGBTQ individuals;

·        special health needs, including pregnancy, mental illness, or chronic disease;

·        job, school, or volunteer responsibilities;

·        legal risks, such as eviction; and

·        general risk level, both from a public safety and court appearance perspective.   

 

Community bail funds typically limit their provision of cash bail to individuals with misdemeanor charges, and with maximum bail amounts of $500 to $2,000.  The possibility of a higher threshold amount should be explored by a community bail fund operating in the County, given the high local bail schedule amounts here relative to other counties.[2]    

The community bail fund may also provide or refer to supportive services for individuals it sponsors.  These services range from routine court date reminders and assistance with transportation to referrals to social workers, housing assistance, public benefits, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, legal or immigration assistance, or community service projects.  If the defendant fails to make all court appearances, then the defendant may be charged a small fee to offset the loss of the cash bail payment, reimbursable through community service.  If the defendant fails to pay the amount owed or to perform the requisite community service, they may be prohibited from using the community bail fund in the future. 

Recommended action:  The BRWG recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct Administration to issue an RFP—either separately or combined with the RFP recommended for Recommendation 6 below—to solicit applications from nonprofits interested in developing and operating a community bail fund in the County.  Through the RFP process, the County could award a fixed amount to cover the community bail fund’s start-up costs, and potentially also ongoing yearly funding to cover a portion of administrative expenses.  The County could also provide initial seed funding for the establishment of the revolving bail fund; if it did, it would be the first public entity in the nation to do so.  Administration recommends that the Board provide $250,000 in seed money for the revolving bail fund, subject to a matching donation from private or philanthropic donors.

The nonprofit would be expected to engage in fundraising to sustain the revolving bail fund over the long term, and/or the County could also allocate an annual amount to pay into the bail fund that is made contingent upon raising matching funds from philanthropic organizations or other donors.  A non-monetary agreement with the Office of Pretrial Services would facilitate referrals of appropriate defendants to the community bail fund.

After the initial start-up costs, overhead, and seed funding for the revolving bail fund were allocated, additional annual funding for the community bail fund could be based on a Pay-for-Success-style, outcomes-based model that makes all or some of the ongoing funding contingent upon the nonprofit achieving a specified level of improvement over existing court appearance rates and recidivism rates for the population served. 

The community bail fund’s success would be increased through collaboration with the Superior Court to ensure judges’ acceptance of the community bail fund system, as well as by negotiating reduced or waived court costs, fees, and fines for individuals whose bail is paid for by the community bail fund.

Recommendation 6:                Institute a Community Release Project in Partnership with Community-Based Organizations

Background: This BRWG Recommendation is intended to bolster or serve as an alternative to the supervision services offered by the Office of Pretrial Services by involving community-based and faith-based organizations in the supervision process.  The goal is to capitalize on defendants’ existing community relationships to support them in making all court appearances, avoiding re-arrest, maintaining employment, and otherwise succeeding during the pretrial phase.  In this way, the Community Release Project would resemble services of the Reentry Resource Center. 

As discussed in the Final Consensus Report, the Office of Pretrial Services screens all criminal defendants booked into the jail and determines their risk of failing to appear in court and of engaging in new criminal activity using an empirically based, locally validated pretrial risk assessment tool.  Based on this risk assessment, Pretrial Services can recommend that a defendant be released on own recognizance (OR), released under supervision by Pretrial Services (Supervised OR), released under supervision of both Pretrial Services and electronic monitoring, or that the defendant be detained.  The Community Release Project would benefit individuals by providing an alternative or supplementary source of supervision that could facilitate release from custody for low- or moderate-risk individuals. 

The Community Release Project would ideally involve: (1) a centralized “home” for intake, referrals, and compliance monitoring; and (2) several participating community-based organizations to serve defendants who reside in different regions of the County, belong to different ethnic and/or faith groups, and have different community relationships so all eligible defendants could be served.  The project could take a number of different forms, but it would likely involve some variation of two basic elements.

First, a centralized Community Release Project office would work with the Office of Pretrial Services to ensure that eligible defendants are properly screened for participation.  The Office of Pretrial Services would recommend participation in the Community Release Project to the judge at arraignment as an alternative or supplement to Pretrial Services supervision.  The judge would then have the option of directing Community Release Project participation as a court-ordered condition of release.  Upon receiving a court-ordered referral, the Community Release Project central office would match an individual with a participating community-based organization. 

Second, the contracted community-based organizations would primarily be responsible for ensuring the defendant’s appearance at all court hearings, which they could do through a number of means, including tracking court dates; providing telephone or text message reminders; providing bus passes or other means of transportation to court; arranging for child care; and providing support with finding and/or maintaining employment.  In addition, they could provide referrals as appropriate to other services, such as social workers, housing assistance, public benefits, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, legal or immigration assistance, or community service projects. 

Collaboration with the Superior Court would be necessary to ensure acceptance by judges of the supervisory services provided by the contracted nonprofits, and a reporting mechanism would need to be developed to notify the court when individuals do not comply with court-ordered participation in the Community Release Project. 

The Community Release Project would ideally serve clients who fall into one or both of the following categories:

·        Low or low-moderate risk clients: for some low/low-moderate clients, Pretrial Services recommends OR release, but the client has a charge type or other factor that makes the court uncomfortable granting release with no supervision.  In these cases, the Community Release Project could provide support and community-based supervision to facilitate the court granting release rather than setting bail.

·        Moderate-risk clients: for some moderate-risk clients, Pretrial Services recommends Supervised OR release, but the court is hesitant to release even under supervision of a Pretrial Services Officer.  In these cases, the Community Release Project could supplement Pretrial Services supervision with additional community-based support.

Recommended action: The Board should direct Administration to issue an RFP—either separately or combined with the RFP for Recommendation 2 above—to solicit applications from nonprofit organizations interested in providing services for a Community Release Project.  The network of contracts would provide funding from the County for the administrative costs and services provided to clients, as well as a non-monetary agreement with the Office of Pretrial Services to facilitate referrals of appropriate defendants into community release services. 

As with Recommendation 2, the County could provide seed funding to one community-based organization to serve as the centralized Community Release Project facilitation office, and potentially also provide ongoing funding to cover a portion of administrative expenses, ideally on a matching basis.  Annual compensation to the Community Release Project central office and/or other participating nonprofits could be structured using a Pay-for-Success-style model that would make all or some of the ongoing funding contingent upon achievement of a specified appearance rate and/or reduced aggregate recidivism rates for the defendant population(s) served by the organization. 

Recommendation 11:                Implement a Release Program through DOC

Background: This Recommendation seeks to make use of the authority conferred upon the Chief of Correction by Penal Code § 1203.018 to release any inmate who has had a bail amount set by the court, but has been unable to pay bail, if the inmate has no holds or outstanding warrants and meets one of the following conditions: (1) has been in pretrial custody for 30 days or more on a misdemeanor charge; (2) has been in pretrial custody for 60 days or more on any charge; or (3) with no specific time limitation, if DOC determines the inmate’s release “would be consistent with the public safety interests of the community.” 

Development of a DOC release program would reduce the number of individuals who are detained solely due to inability to afford bail.  Inmates eligible for the program would be those determined to be low- or moderate-risk after re-screening by the Office Pretrial Services 30 or 60 days after the initial bail decision by the court.  As of September 1, 2017, there are approximately 178 inmates in the County jails who have been in pretrial custody for 30-59 days on a misdemeanor charge, and approximately 2,022 inmates who have been in pretrial custody for 60 days or more on any charge (81 of these on misdemeanor charges, and 1,941 on felony charges). 

The Penal Code authorizes DOC release programs to take various forms, including release on electronic monitoring, where the individual’s location is monitored by GPS tracker to help ensure that he or she complies with release conditions; work furlough or work release, where the individual is free to go to his or her job during the day, but returns to custody overnight; or home detention, where the individual is confined to his or her home in lieu of remaining in jail.  The Penal Code further allows DOC to contract with private or public agencies—such as the Office of Pretrial Services—to provide supervision services.  DOC maintains the power to retake the defendant into custody for failing to comply with release conditions.

Out of the available program options, Administration recommends that a DOC release program employ electronic monitoring.  The Office of Pretrial Services already administers a widespread electronic monitoring program to monitor appropriate individuals to whom the court grants Supervised OR release.  As reported in the BRWG’s Final Consensus Report, the cost of electronic monitoring is only about $15/day for supervision and $3/day for the ankle monitor, as opposed to $159/day or more for each day of detention in the jail.[3]  Thus, electronic monitoring would be a cost-effective and proven means of ensuring court appearances for the individuals who would participate in a DOC release program.  Although one of the bail bonds industry representatives on the BRWG expressed concern that electronic monitoring requires defendants to give up their civil liberties, this release option is for defendants who would otherwise be in jail.  No defendant would be forced to be released on electronic monitoring, but allowing appropriate defendants to choose this option would protect and enhance their civil liberties.

Although a DOC release program could involve work furlough instead of or in addition to electronic monitoring, electronic monitoring is recommended because of the heightened costs and supervision associated with work furlough.  Work furlough would provide pretrial defendants with the opportunity to retain or obtain employment while awaiting trial, and it has shown success in the post-sentencing context.  However, the significant time and expense associated with setting up work furlough programs makes them a poor match for pretrial inmates, whose length of detention is difficult to predict.  Work furlough also would not produce the cost savings associated with electronic monitoring, because individuals would only be released from custody during the work day and the County would be required to continue paying for detention at night.  Moreover, work furlough may actually be contrary to the best practice of imposing the least restrictive means available to protect public safety and ensure court appearances. 

The Office of Pretrial Services has been collaborating with jail administration staff to develop a workflow for screening and supervising inmates who satisfy the requirements of Penal Code § 1203.018 as part of an electronic monitoring program.  This would involve Pretrial Services Officers tracking individuals with misdemeanor charges who are not released, re-assessing them at the 30-day mark, and presenting appropriate cases to jail Classification staff for review.  The Sheriff’s Office and DOC are prepared to implement a pilot of this release option for misdemeanor cases a few months from now.   

Recommended action: The Board should direct DOC, in consultation with Administration and County Counsel, to develop an electronic monitoring program under Penal Code § 1203.018 and to offer such a program to eligible inmates.  The Board should also direct Administration and County Counsel to consult with the District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, and DOC regarding reasonable rules and regulations governing the program’s operation, and to report back in December 2017, prior to implementation of the pilot program in January 2018.  The Board should further direct DOC to report back to the Board regarding the rules and regulations on an annual basis for review.  

Recommendation 14:                Collect and Share Data on Bail Performance Outcomes

Background: Although the Office of Pretrial Services has long collected and presented data on outcomes for its clients to the Public Safety and Justice Committee, similar data has not been available to demonstrate outcomes achieved by the bail bonds industry for defendants released on money bail without Pretrial Services supervision.  This Recommendation is intended to facilitate a robust empirical analysis of the risk of pretrial failure across all release types.

The Office of Pretrial Services collected available data on bail performance outcomes for 2013-2016 and presented it to the Public Safety and Justice Committee this summer.  The report reviewed Superior Court data on court appearance rates for defendants who posted bail bonds, and CJIC data on safety rate, and analyzed these data sets together.  Although the National Institute of Corrections also recommends collecting data on rate of technical violations (i.e., violation of terms found in individual Pretrial Services release agreements and/or contracts with bail agents), this data is not currently available for defendants released on bail bonds.

At the June 9, 2017 BRWG meeting, both bail bonds industry representatives stated that they are willing to share data on bail performance outcomes to supplement the internal data collected by the Office of Pretrial Services.  Comprehensive data from the bail bonds industry would provide another source of information against which to compare data from the Superior Court and CJIC to accurately determine outcomes for bail bond industry clients.  The bail bond industry should provide the Office of Pretrial Services with biannual reports on the key bail performance outcomes identified by the National Institute of Corrections. 

Recommended action: The BRWG recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct Administration to collect bail performance outcomes data, including any data supplied by the bail bonds industry, and report to the Public Safety and Justice Committee on a biannual basis.  To the extent possible, these reports should include data on all release types, following a case through completion, identifying which supportive services were provided and in which languages, and tracking the involvement of different criminal justice institutions at different stages.  The data should also be disaggregated by offense type (including felony vs. misdemeanor and violent vs. non-violent).  To the extent collection is feasible and would not create privacy concerns, the data should be disaggregated by demographic categories, such as race, age, disability status, gender, and sexual orientation, to allow for validation of the pretrial risk assessment tool for bias along any of these categories.   

 

Recommendation 16:                Explore and Employ Domestic Violence-Specific Risk Assessment Tools that Are Validated to Avoid Racial Bias

Background:  Recommendation 16 directed the Office of Pretrial Services to explore and employ pretrial risk assessment tools specific to domestic violence cases, and ensure those tools are validated to avoid racial bias.  Pretrial Services Officers have been trained and certified to use the Ontario Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (ODARA) tool to facilitate release decision based on public safety in domestic violence cases.  In collaboration with the Superior Court, Pretrial Services Officers began using the tool on July 24, 2017. 

The ODARA tool is an evidence-based, validated actuarial tool that relies on criminal records and the results of investigative interviews to predict the likelihood of re-assault by a male defendant against a current or former female domestic or dating partner.  The ODARA tool is intended for use in the field by police, victim support services, healthcare services, and corrections personnel, and it does not require any clinical expertise, although training has been shown to improve scoring accuracy.  Through a 13-question interview conducted with the victim, the ODARA tool focuses on victim safety—a focus recommended by the bail bonds industry.  The Office of Pretrial Services is arranging meetings with the community-based organizations that primarily provide domestic violence services in the County to monitor whether the ODARA tool provides helpful and valid screening in the long-term, which in turn will help facilitate an evidence-based approach to domestic violence prevention.

Recommended action: The Board should direct the Office of Pretrial Services to continue to monitor and validate the ODARA tool for racial bias and to report back to the Public Safety and Justice Committee on its findings.  The ODARA tool has not yet been validated to ensure that it avoids racial bias, and the consensus among the BRWG, including the bail bonds industry representatives, is that the tool should be subjected to a validation study.  This may be possible now that the Office of Pretrial Services has been awarded Pretrial Justice Institute technical assistance services to enhance and ensure racial and ethnic equality in all aspects of its services.  Part of the work completed through this grant could include monitoring the ODARA tool for racial bias and unintended consequences for Santa Clara County’s uniquely diverse population. 

Recommendation 18:                Explore Adoption of In-Field Pretrial Supervision to Provide Additional Safeguards and Protect the Community

Background: Currently, defendants who are considered too high-risk to qualify for OR or Supervised OR either post bail and are released immediately—generally without any supervision—or remain in custody pending trial.  The purpose of this Recommendation is to create a new release option, known as in-field pretrial supervision, to support the national best practice of imposing the least restrictive pretrial conditions that will ensure court appearance and protect public safety.  In-field pretrial supervision would involve intensive forms of supervision not currently offered by the Office of Pretrial Services, such as home and work visits, contacts with victims, submission to search and seizure requirements, and/or in-field verification of compliance with court-ordered conditions.  This enhanced supervision would allow some defendants who are considered inappropriate for existing forms of pretrial release to be safely released.  The additional features offered by in-field pretrial supervision would be tailored to address each individual’s specific public safety concerns, as well as individual service needs.  However, an important consideration for in-field pretrial supervision is the avoidance of unnecessary or excessive supervisory conditions that could lead to worse outcomes. 

In-field pretrial supervision is preferable to either of the current alternatives for moderate or moderate-high risk defendants.  With in-field pretrial supervision, these defendants can avoid serious disruptions to family caregiving, work, school, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health counseling, doctor’s appointments, and other routines that promote pretrial success and reduce recidivism, while receiving supervision that protects public safety. 

Because court-ordered arrests following revocation of a release order, community contacts, and other forms of in-field supervision must be carried out by sworn peace officers, this program could not be provided by the Office of Pretrial Services.  Instead, in-field supervision could be provided by deputies of the Sheriff’s Custodial Alternative Supervision Unit, following training in providing supervision to a pretrial population.  This would require significant training and staffing investments.

Recommended action:  Because in-field supervision has not yet been tested in the pretrial context, further consideration of this release option should follow careful implementation and evaluation of less intensive release options for lower-risk defendants—including more comprehensive evaluation of existing release options using the data gathered through Recommendation 14, and evaluation of the new release options created under Recommendations 2 and 6.  The Board should direct Administration to report back on the feasibility and desirability of in-field pretrial supervision based on lessons learned in the implementation and evaluation of these other options. 

Category 2 Recommendations

Category 2 Recommendations are those for which staff has been moving forward with implementation plans to be reported back directly to the Board.

Table 2: Category 2 Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Status

Targeted Timeline

Staffing Impacts

1

Incorporate Pretrial Justice-Related Goals into Existing Reform Efforts

Ongoing through the Jail Diversion and Behavioral Health Subcommittee of the Reentry Network, Domestic Violence Council, and other groups.

Ongoing

Varied.

4

Encourage Increased Reliance on Pretrial Supervision and Discourage the Practice of Ordering Money Bail in Addition to Pretrial Supervision

In 2017, 78 pretrial defendants have been subject to orders involving both supervision and money bail.  The Office of Pretrial Services is continuing to work with the Superior Court to implement this recommendation

Ongoing

Moderate Office of Pretrial Services staffing required for additional clients.

7

Accept Credit/Debit Payments for Non-Felony Bail at the County Jail

DOC began exploring options in August 2017, including relying on the Department of Tax and Collections’ existing vendor contract to obtain a credit/debit machine for installation in the jail, or contracting with a different vendor that specializes in bail payment. Most other jurisdictions use a third-party vendor called GovPayNet that verifies custody, accepts online payment of bail, and forwards the bail to the court.     

After determination of the best vendor, payment system could be in place by spring 2018.

Minimal DOC staffing required for initial roll-out.  

8

Post Information about OR, Supervised OR, and other Alternatives to Bail Bonds in County Jails

The Office of Pretrial Services and Office of Reentry Services won a Macarthur Foundation grant to develop a video to inform arrestees about OR, Supervised OR, and other alternatives to bail bonds.  The video will be played in the jails, Reentry Center, and Pretrial Services and Public Defender facilities.  Posters will also be mounted in the jail booking areas.

Video and posters are currently being finalized and are expected to be posted by January 2018.

Grant funding received for development. Minimal DOC and Reentry staffing required to arrange for display of video and posters.

10

Expand and Formalize Pretrial Diversion

Pretrial Services took over the Community Accountability Program (CAP) from the District Attorney’s Office in July 2017.  CAP provides diversion opportunities for lower-level misdemeanors based on criminal history criteria.  A pilot program for a formalized pretrial diversion program is also underway, focused on driving with a suspended license. Finally, the Jail Diversion and Behavioral Health Subcommittee is developing a process for arresting officers to assess individuals at a pre-booking diversion station, so that in appropriate cases individuals need not even enter the system at all.

CAP and formalized diversion programs are ongoing.

 

Pre-booking diversion station could be in place by October 2018.

Significant Office of Pretrial Services staffing required for CAP. Significant Reentry Resource Center staffing required for pre-booking diversion station. 

12

Complete Targeted Periodic Re-Reviews of Pretrial Assessments

Currently, there are approximately 2,350 post-arraignment, pre-sentenced defendants; a subset of these may be eligible for re-review for pretrial release.  Pretrial Services has been developing a process for re-reviews and has requested additional positions.

Once new Pretrial Services Officer positions are approved, hiring and training would take approximately three months.

Significant Office of Pretrial Services staffing would be required to complete interviews with inmates regarding ongoing barriers to release. 

13

Incorporate Pretrial Justice Issues into CJIC Updates

Pretrial Services has been working with the Information Services Department (ISD) to develop a long-term plan to track pretrial justice data.

Temporary CJIC updates are expected to be implemented by December 2017.  Timeline for RFP for new data system to be determined at that time based on outcome of RFP evaluation process.

Minimal ISD and Office of Pretrial Services staffing required for design and implementation of CJIC updates and the new data system.

17

Explore Means of Notifying Victims when Domestic Violence Defendants are Released Pretrial

Ongoing efforts to improve victim notification through the VINE system, through manual updates from the District Attorney’s Victim Services Unit, and through Pretrial Services.

Domestic violence victims’ rights pamphlet was updated in 2017.

Maintenance of Victim Services Unit staffing required for ongoing efforts.

 

CHILD IMPACT

The recommended action would have a positive impact on children and youth with parents who are involved in the pretrial justice system by developing policies that promote prompt release in appropriate cases and by increasing the positive community impacts associated with a fair, evidence-based pretrial justice system.

SENIOR IMPACT

The recommended action would have a positive impact on seniors and/or their families or caretakers who are involved in the pretrial justice system by developing policies that promote prompt release in appropriate cases and by increasing the positive community impacts associated with a fair, evidence-based pretrial justice system.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

The recommended action would promote social equity by helping the County and its partners improve the administration of fair, evidence-based pretrial justice.

BACKGROUND

The Board of Supervisors created the BRWG in February 2014 to research, analyze, and recommend improvements to current policies and practices for incarceration, bail, screening, and supervision of criminal defendants, including those in domestic violence cases.  After its commencement, the BRWG held many public meetings over the course of two years to discuss its research and recommendations regarding pretrial adjudication practices.  In October 2016, the BRWG presented its Final Consensus Report on Optimal Pretrial Justice to the Board of Supervisors, which approved 16 of the BRWG’s 18 Recommendations for referral, implementation, and/or further study.   In November 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the addition of two members to the BRWG representing the bail bonds industry, which were filled for the June 30, 2017 BRWG meeting. 

At the June 30, 2017 BRWG meeting, the BRWG considered specific proposals for implementation.  The BRWG requested that staff report back to the Board in October 2017 regarding the recommendations that were further reviewed and implementation timelines for all the recommendations, as well as analysis of how the recommendations fit into the County’s public safety and justice work more broadly.

Category 1 Recommendations

The recommendations on which the Board directed the BRWG to engage in further study are detailed above.  The remaining recommendations are those that the Board deemed sufficiently straightforward and non-controversial to be implemented immediately.  These recommendations and their current status are listed below:

Recommendation 9.              Continue to Improve the Promptness of In-Custody Arraignments

The Superior Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, and Office of Pretrial Services are working on a pilot project to use electronic data-sharing to speed up arraignments in misdemeanor drug cases.  In addition, for in-custody cases in which the District Attorney decides not to file charges, the jail is alerted to authorize release as soon as the no-file decision has been made.  Thus, defendants do not remain in custody pending arraignment in cases in which the District Attorney knows it does not plan to file charges.

In addition to streamlining release authorizations, the District Attorney has been streamlining discovery procedures to expedite the handling of cases. In September 2016, the District Attorney began providing defense attorneys at arraignment with electronic versions of the police report, rap sheet, and criminal complaint; this procedure has been fully implemented since March 2017.  Since April 2017, the District Attorney has been rolling out electronic discovery, without waiting for requests from defense attorneys, for commonly requested evidence such as photos, 9-1-1 recordings, computer-aided dispatch print-outs, and recordings of witness statement.  Additionally, the District Attorney has engaged a non-profit consulting firm to advise on ways to improve efficiency in the processing and handling of cases internally and in the court system. 

Recommendation 15.                Improve Consistency of Citation and Release and Jail Citation Decisions

Development of an updated, consistent booking policy governing the offenses for which the citation and release process should be used by the Sheriff and DOC is currently well underway through the Jail Diversion and Behavioral Health Subcommittee of the Reentry Network, with collaboration from the Office of the County Executive, District Attorney, Public Defender, DOC, Sheriff’s Office, Office of Pretrial Services, and Reentry Resource Center.  Once the new citation and release policy is finalized, it will be presented to the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs’ Association, in approximately December 2017, for broader adoption.

Update Regarding SB 10

The Board has previously received updates on the status of SB 10, a pending statewide bail reform bill.  Since the latest update, SB 10 has been amended to specify that the Judicial Council will bear responsibility to establish statewide standards and rules for pretrial risk assessments.  The bill now calls for the Judicial Council to:

·        adopt a Rule of Court specifying the proper use, including necessity and frequency of validation, of risk assessment tools;

·        adopt a Rule of Court setting forth rules governing designations of risk levels;

·        train judges on the use of risk assessments when making pretrial release decisions;

·        compile and maintain a list of validated risk assessment tools;

·        collect data from courts statewide on:

o       number of individuals assessed with a risk assessment tool

o       number of individuals released on OR with no conditions

o       number of individuals released subject to court-ordered conditions

o       number of individuals detained pretrial

o       number of released individuals who fail to appear for court dates

o       demographics (race/ethnicity, gender) of those released and detained (if available)

o       “other data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of pretrial programs as identified by the Judicial Council” (if available)

CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION

Several of the BRWG’s recommendations would not be implemented, and the BRWG would not be able to report out on progress in a year’s time.

 


[1] The bail bonds industry’s preference is that the community bail fund be means-tested.

[2] Based on the high local bail schedule, the Sheriff’s Office recently changed its citation and release policy to provide that eligible misdemeanor arrestees with bail amounts up to $15,000—increased from the previous maximum amount of $5,000—shall be released upon signing a written promise to appear in court, rather than being booked into jail.

[3] Although the County could impose a fee for program participants, currently, the Office of Pretrial Services does not charge clients for electronic monitoring services for its clients, all of whom have not been convicted on their current charges.  Administration does not recommend that the County charge a fee to DOC release program participants, all of whom are in jail specifically because they could not afford to pay their court-ordered bail.

Meeting History

Oct 3, 2017 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Six individuals addressed the Board.

At the request of President Cortese, the Board directed Administration to report to the Board in January 2018 relating to an update regarding the Bail and Release Work Group recommendation 18, concurrently with Board review of responses to the Request for Proposals.

Further, at the request of President Cortese, the Board directed Administration to report to the Board on date uncertain relating to contracting for an independent study by an outside entity regarding demographic data and information concerning the cost of recidivism in terms of homelessness.

At the request of Vice President Simitian, the Board directed Administration to report to the Board relating to timelines, the process for reports to the Board, and the stakeholder involvement process concerning the Bail and Release Work Group recommendations.

At the request of Supervisor Chavez, the Board directed Administration to issue a Request for Qualifications for Category 3 Recommendation Nos. 2 and 6, with a focus on low level offenders regarding Category 3 Recommendation Nos. 2, 6, and 11; to report to the Board on date uncertain with explicit language to clarify that implementation of Category 3 Recommendation No. 11 is permitted by State law; to provide a framework for analysis for issuing the RFP for a third-party vendor to conduct research on data and performance outcomes per Category 3 Recommendation No. 14; to report to the Board relative to Category 3 Recommendation No. 16 to determine whether the domestic assault risk tool is working; to explicitly state in the report that Category 3 Recommendation No. 18 will be further considered upon successful implementation of the other recommendations; to imbed a work plan for each of the recommendations upon consideration by the Board; and, to address concerns relating to the protection of personal data and privacy within the report, for Board consideration on date uncertain.

RESULT:APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Cindy Chavez, Supervisor
SECONDER:Ken Yeager, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian

Transcript

Oct 3, 2017 9:30 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 
9:23 AMOf the bail industryrepresentatives on that groupsaid that they were willing toshare their outcomes data. The outcomes data is similar towhat the office of pre trialservices already reports out tops jc, the rates in which people are failing to appear for courtappearances and being rearrestedduring their pre trial period. Okay, number 16, the office of pre trial services recentlybegan using domestic violence ofspecific risk assessment tool asof June June of this year. This recommendation seeks tomonitor that tool for possibleracial bias to engage in avalidation for racial bias if possible, and then report backto the public safety and justicecommittee on those efforts. The final recommendation is number 18. We are seeking direction toreport back to the board onfeasibility of implementing this item, which concerns in-fieldpre trial supervision.

9:24 AMBased contacts at home, searchand seizure ability, things likethat. The recommendation is to report back on the feasibility of thiseffort after seeing somesuccesses or lessons that arelearned from the other less intensive options for lower riskdefendants.
Supv cortese: anything elseat this time?
No.we'll take any question you mayhave.>> supv cortese: I have some. i'll give the other boardmembers an opportunity.supervisor chavez.
9:25 AMSupv chavez: thank you. I was wondering if it would beokay if we took the publicspeakers and then went toquestion. I think there May be some issuesraised by the public that thestaff could help respond to. And then I would, after that i'd like to, if you wouldn't mindcoming to me for a motion.
Supv cortese: absolutely.>> supv chavez: thank you.
Supv cortese: let's go topublic speakers, um, and i'lljust telegraph that I have threefairly large questions i'll be asking at whatever point we getto questions. Supervisor chavez will bereturning for a motion on the item. Julie wood, trina maurine, jeffstanley will be the first threespeakers. We have a little more than halfa dozen speakers so i'll justcall names three or four at atime. You can come up in any order asready. I would ask that you try to comeup as close together, single file, as possible so we can keepthe meeting going.
9:26 AMGood morning.>> supv cortese: hi.
I'm trina - - I work here insk, santa clara county and i'm amember of local seiu local 251.our members are impacted directly and indirectly from atwo-tiered justice system wherefreedom depends on how muchmoney you have. When families can't afford moneybail, many people stay in jailfor weeks, months, or yearswhile their case moves forward. Many innocent people pleadguilty to a crime they May nothave committed. We commend the board for moving towards pre-trial justice. However, we would like to alsoencourage the board,administration, and county council to act as quickly aspossible on theserecommendations to insure ourjustice is delivered. According to the bail andrelease workgroup recommendationnumber 12, there are 2,350post-arraignment pre sentenced defendants and some May beeligible for re-review. This is too many. We are requesting the board to approve new pre-trial serviceofficer positions immediately sovital work can be done. These defendants shouldn't have to wait any longer, and neithershould their moms, dads,spouses, partners and childrenwho are waiting at home for them. Seiu local 521 is a committedpartner to ending the unjusttoll our current system takes on working families.thank you.
9:27 AMSupv cortese: okay, thank youfor being here. next speaker, please.
Good morning, my name isjulie wood I work for the officeof the assessor of santa clara county. I am here as a member of seiulocal 251 representing ourcommunity first commitment. Our members whether they workfor the county work daily toserve for the community. As the drivers of the mission of this county in the front line ofour community's safety net, ourmember support pre-trial justicethat focuses on prevention, community health and safety,intervention, rehabilitation,and good jobs rather thanincarceration. The surety bail system clearlyworks against the basic tenantof innocent until proven guilty. Within this framework we support moving forward with the of therecommendations. A non-profit alternative tosurety bail bondsis one step closer to a better justicesystem when a non-profitprovides high-quality servicesfrom a stable work force. Thank you.
9:28 AMSupv cortese: thank you forbeing here.jeff stanley, jose valle, and raj - - .
Good morning, supervisors.i first want to thank cindy forall the work that she's done on this program. I think there's lot of thingsthat we can work with. I kind of wish we were brought to the table not two yearsafter, um, they, uh, started,but we were able to attend thelast two meetings. We wish we were involved in thereport, um, as far as it beingput together, but it was alreadydone after the two years. I think we really need to take alook at this. Anything that is done by thisboard is going to have a devastating affect or affect onthis community so it reallyneeds to be looked at. I would love to see an independent study done on this. Um, somebody other thanpre-trial release who has astake in the interest or a union who has a stake interest inthis, we would love to see anindependent study done on bailand pre-trial services in this county. We've seen some devastatingeffects and what's happened atthe legislature with ab-109 and prop 47. We've seen a dramatic increasein crime. I know law enforcement has supported our industry. We've seen that with the twobills, the sb-10, and the ab-42. Um, ab-42 was killed, um, at the senate floor. This was a bill that haddevastating effects to the bailindustry. Like I say, law enforcement hassupported us. I want to jump around a littlebit so I can, um - - in this report I would - - I mean, inthe study I would have them takea look at also electronicmonitoring and bail, and pre-trial release and how itaffects, um - - I would alsowonder why we're looking atnon-profit and not private businesses, um, and to includethat in the proposal. We already have theinfrastructure, we already have the study, and my concern is thequalifications, um, of theseorganizations - - [ beep ]
9:31 AMThank you very much.
Supv cortese: thank you forbeing here.jose.raj. melissascott largent would be the nextfour.
Hi, my name is jose valle with silicon valley depot. The bail release group hasworked long and hard for what ithink is monumental in leading our state efforts in sb-10decreasing our county jailpopulation so that pre-trialdefendants can no longer be detained, have due process, andcan have a fair chance atfighting their case. Debug is in fully sowrpt support of the recommendations. We are excited about thecommunity release projectrecommendation, and that it enhances already existingcommunity-based and faith-basedreentry programs to preventrecidivism, rearrest, and securing resources to attendcourt, and possibly issues thatmay have lead to the arrestinitially. The only recommendation i'd becautious about is the infieldpre trial supervisionrecommendation. Uh, the last thing that we willwant is a sort of, uh, pretrial, um, a pre sentencingprobation officer for pre trial defendants.thank you.
9:32 AMThank you.next speaker, please.
Good morning.my name's melissa, i'm a localsecretary of seiu-521.and i've been up and down this state evangelizing the work ofpre-trial services and receivedso much support. It May not be under stood if you've never been impacted bythe criminal justice system howdifficult it is and howstigmatized it is to talk about the work, um, the work of pretrial services and howbeneficial it is. Um, but, so many families, my family, was faced with a lovedone in jail and I want to beclear it wasn't bad luck. It wasn't extenuating circumstances. Our system fails some of themost vulnerable people in ourcommunity and it's time to stop criminalizing people with mentalhealth challenges, orcommunities who haven't had thesame economic opportunities as maybe some of you guys have had. I am encouraged by the boardtaking these recommendations up,and I hope the recommendations are approved. I hope they're moved on quickly,and I hope the county continuesto lead the state on pre-trial justice.thank you.
9:33 AMSupv cortese: okay, thankyou, melissa. scott, come on up. Is raj still here?if he's outside, maybe someonecould get him. I think I saw him earlier.
Hi, uh, good morning, scottlargent.as far as bail, um, you know, with bad boys bail bonds I atleast consider i'm not realpolitical so they didn't reallyhave that long, long arm of the, uh, of the upper brass here. My example is what victorious isdealing with right now. The pre-trial services, although he cooperated with everything,he's shown up to every courtappearance he's ever had, um,because he upset all of you they ended up basically requestingthat he not be released. Not only do you have thedistrict attorney's office doing that you have pre trial servicesputting their hands up sayinghey, no, we don't want him out. At least with a money bail like that, we'd give bad boys bailbonds a call they're going towork with us to get him out. The current system right now would keep people in there, likemyself. I've kind of dealt with the samething. I'm kind of worried that putsanother tool, not necessarily inthe hands of the d-a, but putsanother political tool in your hands if you really don't likesomebody. You make that call, pre-trialservices, I don't want that guy getting out. I just don't like that. That's kind of scary right here. I understand the thing of people not being able to afford bailbut when I end up in there againfor my first amendment rightsbeing violated and somebody gets sick of and tired of hearing mecomplain, i'm going to gothrough that same thing thatvictorious is going through. His Judge Right now in the case,he realized what was going on. He said we're releasing you,bud. You're getting what you wantright here. But pre-trial services was suregoing to make sure he didn't get out of there, and so was thedistrict attorney's office. We've got some good judges thatare catching on to the scam, but I really am scared when bailbonds companies will be gone. We'll be stuck in there whenwe're out protesting so thank you.
9:36 AMSupv cortese: thanks for yourcomments. I don't see rajhearing this, he had to run off to another commitment. We'll come back to supervisorchavez I understand you want tomake a motion and deal with the questions on the motion.
Supv chavez: I think we cando the questions first and thatway - - what I really wanted to do was to be able to incorporatepeople's feedback into a motion.thank you.
Supv cortese: okay, great. um, did we have questions fromanyone other than...supervisor wasserman, go ahead.
Supv wasserman: the one question I have is when will thenext opportunity be forstakeholders, the public, boardof supervisors to weigh in on the pilot program as thisapparently moves forward?
Um, I believe we're going tobe scheduling it the next bail and release workgroup meeting. I don't have a date yet, butwe'll certainly make thatannouncement.
9:37 AMSupv wasserman: thank you.and more input will be takenand - - yeah.thank you.
Supv chavez: just forclarification - ->> supv cortese: I thought thequestion was when does the board get an opportunity to weigh in?it's one of my questions aswell.
Supv chavez: I think that would be based on each of theitems. So when you look at each of theitems and one of the points I was going to make is that I hadasked for a timeline which theytried to refine a little bit. But I think one of the next steps after this meeting andonce they get maybe 30 days inof looking at all of this basedon what direction we give, then I want them to come back, evenif it's off agenda, with atimeline of when, and what willbe coming to us. So for example the rfp's will becoming, you know, whether thatgoes to public safety andjustice first, which is what our objective is to get us all backthrough your committee. I think number of these itemswould go to you all before the final vote on a number of theseissues. But for each issue it's adifferent, um, it's got a different work plan to it.
9:38 AMSupv cortese: I wouldappreciate if you don't want todo it now you can wait until my question of you outlining thattimeline right now. I don't care if you wait to putit in writing until later, but if we're going to make adecision as to something of thisimportance, I think everybodywho's testified and listening, and the board itself should knowwhen the next deliberation foreach of these items is going to
9:39 AMSupv cortese: supervisoryeager?>> supv yeager: yes, I justwanted to say very much in support, um, of this, andappreciate all the hard workthat's, uh, that has gone intoit and maybe sort of related to the questions about thetimeline, and I know that in thereport itself there's, you know,a targeted timeline that you put in for each one. But what I - - and maybe this issomething you can get back to uslater, but i'm not sure how many of these pieces have to be putinto the puzzle before we canactually start the program. Are there certain things that we can do and then wait for otherthings to come on board, or isthis something that everythingneeds to be in place before we can move forward?
9:40 AMNo, there are certainly someof the items that can be donenow and there's implantation plans waiting to do that and getthe positions in place, andprocesses in place. We have conversations with the court as well. Obviously this is a big impact,but our plan - - i'm sorry imisinterpreted the initial question, our plan is to bringthese back when we're ready forimplementation and we canprovide our best-guess estimates of when these are all going tocome back in differenttimeframes. I will say theywon't all come back at the same time, but we can put somethingtogether, timeline like that.
I understand that theyweren't all going to happen together, it's just a matter ofwhat is it that we couldactually put in place and startas opposed to waiting for everything else to be complete. Only because you mentioned thecourts, um, and you certainlymentioned it in the report as well. Those discussions I know havebeen happening, are the courtsbeing supportive? Do you see any issue or if atsome point nay want to blocksomething where might - - whatdoes that do to the process?
9:41 AMI would say for the mostpart, they have been supportive,and actually working with us onsome of the, uh, barriers that we see or things that we can do. I just had a conversation with ajudge last week about some ofthe things in this report and how we can move them alongquicker, and provide those, um,resources to the court. There are actually many judges are extremely excited abouthaving additional options beforethem to release defendants. They continuously say if I had this option, I would do this. But I don't. So that's why we want toexpedite as many as possible. You see in the second half ofthe report, many have beenmoving forward or are in place. So, um, we do know there's going to be additional resourcescoming forward and we'recurrently analyzing based onhistorical data what that would look like.
9:42 AMGreat, thank you.>> supervisor cortese dp f icould follow up. I had an opportunity to meetwith the criminal reports acouple of days ago. One, they said what you just said about wanting the optionsand they were very open to it. The one thing that they wanted acouple of follow-ups - - one was they wanted to have an on goingset of discussions withpre-trial services in general,just to make sure that communications stayed reallyopen. Um, second, there was a requestfrom them that when we - - that we really work with them toevaluate - - to continue toevaluate the pre-trial tool andone example they gave was that sometimes when we make a - -when pre trial services makes arecommendation to them, it's nauclear to them that the current charge is being considered inthe, um, ultimate recommendationfrom pre trial. That's an example of a request that made that we that i, aftertalking to Dr. Smith, suggestedwe go back and haveconversations with them. I would summarize it the sameway. The other thing to remember isthat we had the court administrator and the presidingjudge as part of the, um, taskforce.
9:43 AMThank you for those clarifications. I, too, have heard from membersof the bench here in this countyindicate that, um, it's, um, it's their understanding thatpre-trial services is basing thebail recommendation on risk offlight, not risk of harm to others. Which, um, fromanintimate partner violence organg violence standpoint meansthat if pre trial figures there's low risk of flight fromthe county, bail is set lowdespite the fact that thatindividual be returned to the same neighborhood or maybe eventhe same house, where there's alikelihood of doing harm toothers. So I don't know, um, what thevoracity of those statements orperceptions are by, um, byjudges in this county, but, um, they seem pretty desperate for afix when they talked to me. My questions, um, start off withitem number two. I'm all for, um, trying to puttogether a community bail fundin the county, let me say that. I don't understand why we're not doing an rfq first and ittroubles me given that I thinkeven by virtue of your ownpresentation there is no community bail fund, eve thnstate of california. I saw it reference to what newyork city's done, and people have met with me and talked withme about that. But who's out there, um, thatwould respond to the rfp, um, what are their qualificationsand, um, and why aren't weproceeding down that path iguess is the question. Rfq first, and then follow withan rfp once we know we've had anopportunity to assess basicqualifications of community providers in the this community.
9:45 AMSo there are nationalorganizations, um, across thecountry that currently operate community bail funds and, um,that's one of the reasons wewent forward with our requestingan rfp because we know those foundations are interested inopening something in californiaand working strategically withthe community-based organization under their models and otherstates here. That's the reason we wentdirectly to the rfp at this time.
9:46 AMYou know, oftentimes myconcern with the rfp process isbasically we think we know who we want to respond to the rfpbefore we issue it, and peoplewho are local providers here inthe community, um, end up complaining later that somebodyfrom wherever, new york city ortennessee or somewhere elts, hascome in to take up this business locally and we could haveresponded had the rfp - - hadthere been an rfq process andhad the rfp taken into account the possibility of localexpertise here. So, um, i'm not comfortable withproceeding with an rfp. I also think it's the type ofthing that ends up getting thisboard in trouble and it has inthe past from a decision-making standpoint that we end up withfolks who are either underqualified or feel because ofdemographics they represent or other issues that tie them tothe community or just the factthat they're a non-profitorganization in the community that doesn't do this businessnow but they see a revenuestream from the county and theydecide they want to come in, and we end up with a board ofchambers full of people sayingbe a good guy and award this tothis wonderful community organization that's hennedpeople with turkeys onthanksgiving and they've helpedpeople with doing all kinds of charitable work and they can runthis operation and we haven'tsort of just bypassed thequalification process. I'm going into this motionuncomfortable with that. I think that piece is missing,and on something of this gravitas it shouldn't bemissing. The board review of each item,the response so far startling with supervisor wasserman'sqegdz it seems like there's allthis complexity and it needs tocome back in writing. I just wanted to go through thetargeted timeline here that waspresented starting with packetpage 46, which I think is deficient and I think youprobably know the answers andyou could just give them to us. For example on item 2, rfp process, it says could becompleted by April 2018. Sowhen does the rfp go out? Because that's the opportunity for - - that would be the nextopportunity if indeed we go withan rfp, not an rfq for thisboard to revisit the next step, when we get an rfp report we'reentitled to pull those rfp's andcertainly members of the publiccould pull that item and come in and ask questions about what'sgoing on with the rfp. What would that date be? If you know it's going to be completed by April 2018, youmust know what date you're goingto have one ready to issue.
9:49 AMWe're anticipating january.
So the target is January forthat rfp to pop up on the boardof supervisors agenda.then under institute community release project partnership withcbo's under 6 it says the samething, could be completed byapril 2018. Same target shts January forissuance?
Yes.>> okay, so we'll see on the board of supervisors agenda byjanuary, um - - the opportunityto review the rfp.
May I jump in for a second? these are soft dates andcertainly the concept of whetheror not we do an rfp or an rfq istotally up to the board. From an administrativeperspective, we think we couldmake the rfp's functional bythose dates. However, if the board todaydecides they would prefer to doan rfq or if you decide youprefer to do a different schedule now would be the timeto tell us and could go back andrework that information becausethese are really just sort of our estimates if the boarddecides to have a differentapproach or a differentcommunity impact or feedback or different timing, all of that isnow the time for us to knowabout that.
9:50 AMAppreciate the clarification. on those two items particularlyas well as whatever I ask on therest of these i'm trying to beclear as to when I tell my staff to flag on my calendar thelikelihood that we're going tohave an opportunity to review anrfp. I feel like if I have to askthat question being a 9-yearveteran of the board ofsupervisors and I don't know that it's coming out, themembers of the public can'tpossibly know either. If we're going to establish targets i'm just trying to makesthiewr the public understandswhen those board reviews willactually happen because it's a little misleading to say aprilif in fact it's going to pop upon our agenda in January more orless. The initial report on item 11which is implemented at leastprogram through doc would occurby December 2017. I think that's self explanatory. The pilot program needs to beimplemented by January 2018. We're saying by this december, which is a short month, we'regoing to get an initial report,we're going to be askedpresumably to move forward with that if we do then you would beimplementing the following mngtmonth the doc release program.
9:51 AMCorrect.
No other reports in betweennow and then?>> no.>> thank you. and then 14, collect and sharedata on bail performanceoutcomes, reporting could begin2018 thereafter. The framework for collectingthat data as of now, would thatcome back to the board or wouldwe just start getting reports in February of 2018?
9:52 AMThe framework was presentedby psjc in august.we certainly take any critique or that or if you wanted more orless of what was presented thenwe could bring it back.
Yeah, i'm not familiar with what was presented to psnj, i'mgoing to take someresponsibility for that. We do try to monitor that committee even though with idon't serve on it. I would suggest that theframework come back prior to February 2018 so the board hasan opportunity as a whole toindicate whether or not we'rehappy with, um, the method to the madness in terms ofcollecting that data before itactually comes on in the firstreport. Item 16 targeted timeline is onexplore and employ domesticviolence risk and assessmenttools to avoid racial bias. This is saying the monitor toolcould begin immediately andresults could be reported foroctober or November 2018. So we would start this risk withthese risk assessment toolsimmediately? Again, is everybody understanding what the frameworkfor that is?
9:53 AMYes, this is a result of agrant we just received from the pre trial justice center throughthe bureau of justice assistanceto receive technical assistance,um, and validation of local risk assessments as to, um, racialand ethnic disparities. So, um, we're tieing this in, itjust happens to coincide with the same time we received thegrant so I know the initialmeetings with the technicalassistance individuals has already taken place and we'reprogressing, doing theirassessments now. The reason it's a long invocation is we have to collectdata to evaluate theseassessments over a period oftime that's why you see the November 2018.
9:54 AMOkay, understood.thank you for clarifying that.then the last one, uh, 18, uh, exploring the options of infieldpre trial supervision andprovide additional safeguards toprotect the community, it says a target timeline awaitimplementation and evaluation ofless supervision intensiveoptions for low-risk clients which will likely take severalyears. So this is just often inthe ether at this point? We shouldn't expect anything back any time soon?
I don't think specificallyrelated to this, but we arehowever looking at other supervision programs mostrecently with the caps program. We have a proposal forelectronic monitoring enhancement that all ties intothis. We anticipate bringing thoseback to the board pretty quickly.
9:55 AMIf I could - - .>> next couple of months.>> supv chavez: if I could just follow up on this one, dave. Interestingly the question that,ken, you asked about what neededto be in place, the one that really has hinged on a bunch ofother activities happening ithink is 18. And so it appeared to me that there's some - - there aresignificant bodies of work thatwould need to be completedbefore we get to 18, and 18 would come back to us at somepoint based on the outcomes ofother activities; is thataccurate?
That's correct.>> supv cortese: can we just askfor an update on 18 in januarywhen the proposed rfp's come back?
Sure.>> supv cortese: just so there'ssomething a little bit, um, more definitive than a couple ofmonths. I think it gives you a couple ofmonths though.
9:56 AMThank you.>> supv cortese: my last, um, mylast cn concern here is, um, inone of the speakers I think representing the bail bondsindustry actually brought up asimilar concept. In looking at this, and studying my notes, my staff, um, my ownoffice district three stafffeedback on this item. It occurs to me that we've had a lot of trouble, you know, justin our office trying to get thekind of data in-house thatyou're looking for here, you know, on item 14. I've asked the da's office andi'd be happy to provide thosepublic records requests, those are all public documents, um,over and over and over again forinformation such as, um, howmuch recidivism there is, um, coming out of our d. A. Conviction, how many reoffensesthere are in the areas ofserious and violent felonies. This goes back to peoplereturned back to the communitywho, my constituents might thinkare unsafe to be returned. Again, serious violence. Whether my constituentsperceptions are correct or not,my question is simply for data. Can you tell me if we've - - iwas told general figures. I think it was a year beforelast that I asked the last series of questions. There were about 18,000, um,conviction by the d. A. 's office. How many of those reoffended after those conviction? How many of those convictionwere by virtue of plea bargaininstead of by trial? I can't get that information, soi have a great deal ofskepticism as to whether or notanyone on the administrative side is going to be able to getthat information and essentiallydo the kind of study that wouldbe considered independent, not a big debate over whether or notwe aggregated the data properly. And what i'd like to see issomething that supervisor wasserman, um, called on andended up being just I think awater shed moment for us interms of our homeless efforts. That was an independent studythat basically gets all thatdata, and divides it up bydemographics, um, and so forth. I don't think since thathomeless cost study - - and bythe way that was part of whatwas studied, what the cost of recidivism in terms ofhomelessness was costing us as acounty, it was eye opening - -521 million-dollars a year. I don't know what recidivism iscosting us in this area,. I don't know what, um, - - i'mquite sure that, um, having done criminal defense work for almostsix years in this countsy backin the day that, um, thatthere's a tremendous cost to families in terms of economicproductivity for people who arebeing held for less than seriousfelonies because they can't post bail. I think somebody should come inand do an equivalent cost studyand that should be contracted out with somebody outside who'sgot the credibility to do it andsomebody who will let us know ifthey're having trouble getting information from any of theresource centers here at thecounty where they would need tobe able to aggregate that kind of data. That is more of a request than aquestion. I guess the question would be is there any objection to doingthat, and if so, um, why?that's it. Supervisor chavez, you want to hear my questions, vicepresident samitian you havequestions and comments and thenwe'll get back to the motion.
10:00 AMI do, although if supervisorchavez wants to respond orinteract in realtime, I don'twant to cut that off so that she's coming back 10 minutesfrom now saying remember when wetalked about which sometimeshappens.
Supv cortese: we'll be fine.>> supv chavez: I think thatsupervisor cortese made somegood recommendations I can put 92 a motion so i'll wait until ihear your feedback.
Thank you.i've got some specific comments and an overarching theme i'dlike to layout with morespecific questions. Um,. We've had a lot of comments andquestions and you've shared someinformation about timeline, dr.smith, and also reporting to the board. At this point, and this is not acriticism, but at this pointwith all those comments and questions, it's not clier to mewhat the timeline is or how youwill report back to the boardbecause you've got - - I think you've got six sets ofdirections from the five of usat least some how. Let me just turn to Dr. Smith and say, um, you know what I dothink is going to be helpful andimportant, and i'll get to whyin a minute, is to have a, um, have a clear understanding aboutwhat's happening when, and bywhat process and by whatstakeholder involvement. A number of the responses havebeen well, at some point oreventually. Again, that's not a criticism. I think some of these are goingto be moving targets and, dr.smith, you said that some ofthese were might be targets but that they might not be firmtimelines. So I guess i'm even interestedin maybe getting some kind of a timeline with soft targets on itso that we know our target is toget something done by march, uh,but, you know, it could be three, four months longer. Having heard from all of us now,and having the feedback from theline staff who actually faced with the challenges of makingall this work, your thoughtsabout how we can - - is it justas simple as getting a report back that says now that we'vegot board feedback how we see itgoing over the next one, two,three years?
10:02 AMWell in trying to respond aseffectively as I can, maybe i'mapproaching this from anapproach that is not helpful for the board but the way thatadministration sees this item isit's a report back from the bailand release group about what they've been doing and whattheir recommendations are. It is now, therefore, at thistime the responsibility of the board to tell us which of thoserecommendations you would liketo implement, how you would liketo implement them, and in what time period you would like toimplement them. If, on the other hand, the boardwould like to refer the report to administration for us todevelop an implementation plan,we're certainly happy to dothat, too. But at this point what's beforeyou is a report from theworkgroup and and we're not - -it's not an administrative report.
10:03 AMGot it.then a couple of other specificconcerns. there was some discussion aboutdata collection and analysis. Let me just say as we've workedin the jail reform arena with the systems that are in place,and in some cases that are notin place there, and not just thejail reform area, I think this is issue with which our countystruggles, frankly. Y. I know we're taking steps to step up our game in terms ofdata collection analysis, but ithink we have to be realisticabout what we thus far demonstrated we can and can'tdo. If we're going to try to domore, we need to ask ourselves how that is going to bepossible. It's been an obvious struggle tome. It's a shortcoming in theorganization, candidly, in myobservation. Related to that is the issue of privacy. As you've talked a lot aboutsome of the data collectionissues, it won't surprise anyone in the room that i'm raisingthese concerns about datasecurity and privacy. I would hate to be in a position in an effort trying to help someof the folks we compromise theirprivacy and put them at risk insome other way. So i'm just going to ask thatthat one sort of stay at the topof your list of things thatyou're thinking about, even if it's only because you'rethinking samitian's going to askus a question about data andprivacy. I hope you'll do that. On this issue of implementation,which is where I think we sortof are today, um, let me start out with sort of a foundational,uh, observation about therecommendations that have comeback from the working group. I'm for it. Let me say that again. I'm for it. That being said, its an old planning maxim sometimes beforeyou can go fast, you have to goslow. I think this is one of those times. This is a, um, a groundbreakingeffort, really. People deserve recognition and acknowledgement. Thanks for that groundbreakingeffort. But it's going to be important because you're breaking newground you take the time to doit right, you take the time tolisten, that you take the time to include people, that you takethe time to bring people along. As someone who often sits inthis seat and expresses frustration that the countytakes so long, this is one ofthose times I think taking thetime. Would I rather that it tookthree years rather than two? Ifwe brought people along and didit right and could be proud of the result, and hold it up as amodel for other places in thestate, and the nation?i would. In my view, the cause is arighteous one which makes it allthe more important that we getit right. That's my exoration to thestaff. I hope that when the motion ismade that we go down that kind of a path and that there is animplementation plan. I take only slight exception towhat the county executive said, yes, it is our responsibility atthis point to, um, to provideboard direction with respect tothe report. But I don't think that thedetailed timeline andimplementation plan comes fromthis board. I think that's what we ask ourprofessional staff to do. And again, my thanks to thosewho have gotten us to this point. It's such a righteous cause itmakes it all the more importantthat we get it done right.
10:07 AMSupv cortese: supervisorchavez.>> supv chavez: thank you.let me just start by making a very broad comment, and say tomy colleagues that, you know,the fact of the matter is we'rehaving this conversation at a local level that couldn't bedone at the state level. And part of the reason we'rereacting and responding is that we didn't get - - we haven'tgotten the movement we've neededto get it to state level. The second is that local government is the best place tofigure out, um, what works. The third point I wanted tomake, I want to remind all of you, and I feel badly aboutthis, that we have been to theboard with this item - - withthese sets of items broadly, um, I think our first report backwas almost a year ago. On a lot of these issues. I only say that because I think here's where we made an error,and i'm just going to - - i'mnot putting this on you, i'mjust saying it's something that I thought about. Is that I think when we haveissues that take multiple yearsto come to us, not that it's worth us taking the time torefresh everybody on thehistory, what we brought when,the feedback we got, the feedback we got from the board,and how what is in front of youis what I think we - - i'll saythis as a chair of the committee, the committee and thestaff thought we were respondingto the requests of all of youhaving come and had a conversation with you a numberof times. So one thing i'll say istimeline, slides, I think are really, really import fnt. Um, second is, I want to justacknowledge I think the pointthat was raised around having the most refined work plans andtimelines, um, is really moreimportant than broad. And I think that's a very fair criticism. What I want to do is also justto make this point - - thecommittee members were, um, you know, we had the presidingjudge, the administrator of thecourts, the chief of probation,the district attorney's office, um, pre trial services, theaclu, um, immigrant rightsgroups, and, um, and then debug,and I know i'm forgetting a couple of key players. My point is is that you'reright, that we didn't have atthe table initially were the bail bonds companies. We didn't - - we did two specialmeetingswith them prior tobringing them on the committee. We've actually been havingcommunications with the bailbonds committee I think forabout a year also now. And it doesn't negate theirfeedback. I want to say I reallyappreciate, um, in particular jeff's just concrete feedback,and I mean that because thereare some improvements that weremade because of the involvement of the bail, um, industry. So all that being said, what iwant - - and I went and met withthe courts. Some of the issues supervisorcortese, that you raised, um, ijust want to reinforce wereissues that were raised with me as well. We walked through therecommendations with them andare including, um, their feedback in this motion. The - - in addition to that, wehad a brief conversationprobably about 30 minutes yesterday with threerepresentatives from the bailbonds industry in addition tomr. stanley, two others, who raised particular issues aroundthe alternative to commercialbail. They were very honest they thought it might be competitive. They wanted to make sure that wewere really going to befocusing, um, on indigent clients if we were going to makechanges to that we would ask thestaff to come back to the board. They asked very good questions about how we made sure we had astrong enough vendor, and theywanted to understand that the,um, benchmarks we would use to determine indigents. The. . . And then they talked a lot aboutthe third party analysis, which i'm going to come back to andwanted to make sure thatwhenever there was anopportunity there was, um, there was inclusion from the communityon - - from all sides, I think,on how we proceeded. So, um, here's what I want to recommend as a motion. And to remind you that some ofthese items came before usalready that you approved these were the items that were stillneeding to be, um, vetted alittle more fully. Um, so overall I think our objectives are we wanted to makesure that we're increasingpublic safety, that our justicesystem is fair to everybody who, um, encounters it, and thatwe're using public dollarsefficiently. Those were the guide posts for the recommendations that youhave in front of you. The - - and let me just starti'm going to go through them with peoples' feedback. On item two - - this May be, um,applicable to item six as well. I will recommend that we change the staff's recommendation thatwe start with rfq's for both ofthose. I think that's very thoughtful feedback and especially whenyou're doing something new, ithink that makes a lot of sense. On item 11, I want to reinforce that for - - for actually items2, 6, and 11, that we really arefocused on low risk folks. To start out with and on 11 in particular, I just wanted toreinforce that I believe thatthis is already state law, thatthe staff is already begun, um, moving on based on state law. So I think the report back onthis is going to be importantbecause we do have the legal framework to proceed. On the collecting and sharingdata, and performance outcomes,i really like the idea of a third party vendor, and wouldask when staff comes back thatwe make two requests. That we bring back the framework for analysis to the full board,and then at that time we, um,bring back and I would say thiswould be appropriate, dave, for an rfp unless you feel otherwise for a third party vendor tohelp us with an analysis so thatwe're prepared to look at the analysis, get that to the board,what the framework will be, andthen we make a determinationabout what kind of research partner we'll need. Um, on item 16, this is a tool -- you May recall that when webrought the bail release work group was formed because we werebeing asked by the districtattorney to reassess whether ornot we should be be detaining people for immigrations andcustoms. At that time, what the districtattorney was raising was a public safety issue I concurredwith him that I was worriedabout the public safety issue,not so much depending on someone's immigration status,but more whether or not theywere a danger to the public lk. One of the key outcomes of the committee was making sure we hadthis screening tool to determinewhether or not someone would bea risk to their families or to whoever they were havingconflict with, and even tothemselves if we needed to takea different action. But this tool is particularlyfocused on domestic violence. We added, um, based on feedbackfrom a number of different party ses, that we wanted to make surethat any tool we useed was notbias based on anything. And so it will take time to get that back, but as important asdetermineing whether or notwe're being, um, racially bias,i also want to make sure that the tool is working, that peepalare safe, and to me that'sanother, um, big point that iwant to call out for analysis. Not only bias, but whether ornot the tool is working. And then on item 18, I do agreewith my colleagues that this was by far the most ambiguous. The way the staff report reads,and tell me if this isdifferent, the way the staff report reads this, um, did nothave a timeline to it because ithink you would not be bringingthis back unless you are reaching benchmarks of successin other areas.is that accurate?
10:17 AMCorrect.
What I would ask is that whena full report back comes back tothe board, that that is morecritically spelled out because it was a little confusing to meas well. I sat on the committee and I wasstill looking at this last night thinking that maybe I didn'tunderstand that. I think it both addresses theissues that supervisor yeager raised and supervisor corteseraised. So I would make that. I would include all of those comments, um, from, um, mycolleagues and myself, as partof the motion and I would makeone addition. One wh any of these times comeback, they should come back witha work plan embedded in thestaff report. I think you did a good job ofseparateing it out in theseboxes which I always like and ithink supervisor wasserman appreciates charts. But I think if we can could havea little more vetted out makingit look a little more like a work plan I think would be asadvisable and that would be mymotion.
10:18 AMOkay, and, um - - .
Supv chavez: i'm sorry.he's trying to help me with mycomputer.>> supv cortese: get the electronics going here. I think, I suspect you're angacknowledge the motion,supervisor samitian's request that, um, issues of privacywould not be delineateed.
Supv chavez: yes theprotection of personal data, that's exactly right.thank you.
Supv cortese: there is amotion by supervisor chavez do we have a second?we do by supervisor yeager. Any comments on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and conclude the voting. Thank you for all of your workand the committee's work onthis, supervisor chavez, and the votes have been cast.your motion passes unanimously.
10:19 AMThank you.thank you for all the thoughtful feedback.
Supv cortese: item 14, uh,this is an item having to dowith the governance of the housing authority of the countyof santa clara. We have a few speakers on thisas well. I should note that we have, um,we have a letter from mayorwhich has been distributed tothe board of supervisors and the clerk so that's part of therecord as well as two lettersfrom, um, the housing authorityof santa clara either directly or by virtue of members of theirboard. I'll just reassure, um, anyoneelse who has submitted correspondents that it's beenreceived here, that it will bemade part of the record on thisitem. Sth the item is asking us justto be clear, um, to considerrecommendations as follows,possible action, receive the report from the administrationof the county council on optionsfor restructuring the governanceof the housing authority. Then b, uh, direct countycouncil return to the board oboctober 17 with implementingactions to designate the board of supervisor as a governingbody for the housing authorityof the county of santa clara. That's what's before us, receipt and direction, a and b. We'll go ahead and hear frommembers of the pun public first. Jackie morales, Commissioner Lawton, adrian lawton, ibelieve, scott largent, andvinsant rocha would be thespeakers we have thus far. If anyone else would like tospeak on the item, it would begreat if you could fill out ayellow card and get it to the clerk.
10:21 AMFirst, good morning,supervisors I am jackie moralesand I am the director of the city housing authority and i'malso the director of the housingdepartment for the city of sanjose. We also submitted a letter toyou all and it should beincluded in your packet.
Supv cortese: yes, I apologize we received it.
Okay, great, thanks.first I wanted to thank you foryour leadership in addressing the homeless crisis withmeasure-a funds and yourinvestment and services forsupportive housing. I also wanted to recognize andthank key lee who has beenworking in partnership with thecity staff. We're very exciteed to beopening our first permanentsupportive housing development,a new one, next year. Obviously we could not have donethat without your support andyour investment in the servicespiece. Another key partner in ourdevelopment of supportivehousing is the county housingauthority, and that brings me to today's action. The housing authority managesthe city's vouchers which makeup 40% of the total vouchers. And I believe the majority ofvoucher holders live in sanjose. We have discussed in the past with the housing authority andthe county, and, uh, ourselvesthe need to restructure thegovernance board. So while we're really happy thisis on your agenda, we felt likethe staff report needed toinclude additional options that include the city's housingauthority. We've been very concerned thatthe city housing authority has no representation on the overallstructure, and since you'reowning up this conversation torestruck structure the governance board we think thisis a perfect opportunity for usall to work together to figureout how to resolve the governance issues and that it beinclusive of the city's concernsand the city housing authority. So lastly, I do want to thank catherine, the executivedirector of the housingauthority board, for all herwork and her partnership. [ beep]
10:23 AMAs a team working on solveingthese issues.>> supv cortese: thank you for making the time to be heretoday. Sister adrian lawton, pleasecome on up. Scott largent and vince rocha.good morning.
Good morning.thank you for your time. president corte ese and board ofsupervisors mple. Stakeholders and guests with aspecial shoutout of love to the recent shooting victims and thehurricane victims. We live in perilous times withtoo many divisions and too many people trying to capitalize andamplify those divisions. Inside and outside of our greatnation now is not the time to take a step backwards. If you change the housing boaterboard of commissioners to anadvisory one, then our passion and opportunity to persuade isrelegated to a recommendation ona piece of paper. We are stripped from a seat at the table we've fought so longto vote. Especially the residentcommissioners. I've come here today torepresent and fight forapproximately 20,000 people. Physically challenged, mentally, veterans, infirmed, elderly,housed and unhoused, to give avoice to the voiceless. And I believe that you will remember my voice much longerthan you will remember arecommendation on a piece ofpaper when I say: [ singing ]my country tis of thee ? Sweet land of liberty ? Of thee I sing ? I'm singing for the land ? Where my fathers died ? I'm singing for the land ? Of the pilgrim's pride ? I'm singing for the land ? From every mountain side ? Let freedom ring ? [applause]
10:25 AMSupv cortese: thank you forbeing here.scott, come on up, and vincerocha if you're still here.
Good luck with followingthat, scott.[laughter]>> I was about red tee say that, I can't sing a t all. Okay, but I can try if youreally want, mike. I read over some of the information in the report in theback. I mean, i'm not too familiarwith jackie from the housing authority. I've gone to some of the citycouncil meetings. I do bring up that I just don't think the county and the cityare kind of on the same page. I brought it up with stuff ofthe jail di vrs, behavioral health sub committee. It's nice to see somebody fromthe city of san hoiz jose josein here. I know people watch stuffonline, but kind of politickingover there, talk withing peoplethey say hey, look, it's somebody from the county. I don't see that a lot. You know, I know this is a isthe last item for today and i'm not trying to get off-topic, weare on the city and the county,um, article in here in themercury about the new response for the mentally ill. Okay? And cindy, you know, this is abig issue with me about the san jose police departmentparticipating in that group ofbehavioral end of things. We see a picture of a san jose police car and get statementsabout this article in here fromour police chief, yet they'renever at any of those meetings. So it's kind of the same thing ibring up. Hopefully with the housing endof things you guys get together and get on the same page. You know, maybe you guys couldgo to one of those retreats italked about, you let the mayor fall down, mike catches him, youdo all the little rope things. You know, if it gets you guystogether you can taze me in the parking lot, just get somethinggoing. I think you guys need to workthose things out.

10:27 AMI went through coffee with a copthis last weekend with san josepd, and guess who showed up?the sheriff's department. Three deputies showed up there,they ran invited him over. It was really neat to see bothof those agencies together so hopefully you guys can work thisthing out.so thank you.
Supv cortese: thanks for being here.vincent rocha.
Hi, santa clara countyassociation of realtors, we would like to share some of theconcerns that, uh, werementioned by san jose housingdirector is that a lot of the vouchers are san jose'svouchers. Looking at the governancestructure hof the housing authority is actually a reallygood thing to do, but in doingso I think we should incorporateall the stakeholders as we do it. Certainly bringing in the cityhousing department wouldactually be a great idea.