Z Community Safety and Justice One Table Logos

Document Sample
Z Community Safety and Justice One Table Logos Powered By Docstoc
					                                 ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                      COORDINATING COUNCIL

                            COORDINATING COUNCIL
                         November 18, 2010; 1:00pm-3:00pm
 TCE Conference Center, 7th floor conference room, 1111 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94607

NEXT MEETING: December 16, 2010 @ TCE Conference Center, 7th floor conference
room, 1111 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94607

 1. Network has agreed to put together a PACT Improvement Team to help improve the quality
    of PACT meeting in Alameda County.

1. Reentry Court Update
2. CDCR Data Sharing Update
3. How Network will impact the PACT meetings

Steve Spiker
    1. At next Coordinating Council meeting will address the Network on the usefulness of the
       data from CDCR.

Rodney Brooks
   2. Will talk with Sheriff Ahern at Santa Rita County Jail to find out where their data sharing
      agreement stands with CDCR.

PACT Improvement Team members: Manuel LaFontaine, Jerry Elster, Steve Christian,
Charles Turner, Iris Merriouns, Martha Toscana-Perez, Barbara Quintero and Wayne Mirikitani.

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

   Kenyatta Arnold
   Rodney Brooks
   Bernadette Brown
   Steven Christian
   Davida Coady
   Jerry Elster
   Angela Gums
   Manuel LaFontaine
   Catherine McKee
   Iris Merriouns
   Wayne Mirikitani
   Kevin Morgan
   Olugbemiga Oluwole Sr.
   Barbara Quintero
   Dan Simmons
   Rosa Squillacote
   Martha Toscano-Perez
   Charles Turner
   Terri Waller
   Jessie Warner

      1. Update on Reentry Courts (Item I)
      2. Update on CDCR data sharing (Item II)
      3. Agree to next steps on CDCR data sharing (Item IV)

AGENDA ITEMS                                                                        Facilitators
                                                                                    / Presenters
UPDATES                                                                             Judge
    1. Reentry Courts                                                               Barranco

Judge Barranco: Thanks for having me. Today is Thursday, today is parolee
reentry court day. At 9:30a our team met at the parole office to screen cases
for acceptance into parolee reentry court. And at 11:30a at the parole office all
the parole agents from Alameda County was there. Today in the afternoon is
when we actually have the court session, it normally begins at 2p but it’s
beginning at 2:30p today because our team and the parole agents were all
having lunch today. We had a very fruitful meeting today. At 4p today I’m

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

participating in a statewide conference call with all the judges that are reentry
court judges. I gave everyone handouts today and what’s missing from the
handouts is our contact phone number which is 510-272-1216. This is the
phone number to our coordinator’s office, his name is Ken Stewart – many of
you know Ken from the drug court. I am physically located at the Wiley
Manuel Courthouse at 661 Washington, Department 106. At the beginning of
this year federal stimulus money was given to establish up to 7 parolee reentry
courts. I think it was 9 ½ million dollars that was allocated for this. There is
legislation dealing with this and the legislation say to reduce recidivism,
protect public safety and have individuals take responsibility for their actions.
The stated purpose of the legislation is that you have to have violated parole to
be eligible for this court, this may change later. It’s a partnership between the
administrator office of the courts and CDCR. A number of counties applied, 7
counties received grants. Those counties are: San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles,
Alameda, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara. Santa Clara and Los
Angeles already had their own parolee reentry court, although Los Angeles
reentry court was strictly women, the Santa Clara reentry was not restricted.
Orange County reentry court has already dropped out. In September after the
grants had been awarded we all participated in a national conference on
parolee reentry courts at Stanford. It dealt with federal courts, that are by the
way, far behind the curb. The 7 state courts were there also and their teams.
By the way, I was born and raised in Oakland, went to public schools in
Oakland also. I was originally appointed by Jerry Brown to the municipal
courts then by Deukmejian to the superior court. Orange County had only one
person of color on their team and it just didn’t work. There are certain rating
for people released on parole which is a 1 thru 5 scales. The number 5 would
represent the people most at risk and the number 1 would be folks the least at
risk. Our program is suppose to accept people 3 and above. We are dealing
with people who have been to prison more than once. Orange County was
debating on whether they should accept people in the 1 category or not – what
they concluded was since the legislation does not include people on what’s
called non-revocable parole they were not going to participate. So the only
ones they decided to participate with were the ones that were those that were
eligible for non-revocable parole. In San Joaquin the district attorney has
refused to participate. In San Diego County they have not yet started their
program without going into political science. The district attorney who is a
formerly judge basically has a lot of power, and their court has to be on her
terms and conditions, making them the last court to start. In the middle of this
year we set a target date to start our court, no matter what. The first in

                                    ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                         COORDINATING COUNCIL

Thursday in October was our start date. Our grant was about 1 ½ millions
dollars; we have awarded a little over a million dollars worth of contracts. We
also hired 2 people that were called parolee reentry specialist; they basically
are the case managers who report to me. We also have a mental health
component for screening on that. Generally, we are talking about folks with
substance abuse problems and mental health problems that have extensive
criminal records. These are the people eligible according to the legislation. At
4p today CDCR and all of us will be on this phone today to discuss this. So far
we have had 46 referrals within one month. They are projecting 3 to 4 new
people in the program per week. As of today we have acted on 25 to 30 of
those referrals – we are behind what we had projected because we aren’t as
efficient as we have needed to be. We do have a very committed team, our
team consists of: a representative from the public defender’s office, a
representative from the district attorney office, myself, our 2 case managers,
county criminal justice, mental health and our coordinator who is Ken Stewart.
We have also hired a consultant Shirley Poe, who uses to be the regional head
of parole. She’s so good, so totally committed. Then we employed Faith
Fuller, who handles all our fiscal matters. The contracts were awarded in the
following areas: vocational training (we have contracted with St. Vincent de
Paul & OPIC (Oakland Private Industry Council), advocacy for SSI (we have
contracted with Bay Area Legal Aid), for family counseling/unification (we
have contracted with East Bay Community Recovery Project, for outpatient
services that deal sometimes with housing & anger management (we
contracted with Allied Fellowship, Ron Owens is the anger management
person). Now that Orange County has dropped out, when I told my staff they
want to know what are they going to do with their 1 ½ million dollars? We will
find out today at 4p conference call meeting. My team and I are looking for
addition money to assist with beds; when we tried to include that into our
budget that was going to take up the whole budget. I will bring this up at our
meeting today. When we hold the reentry court I do wear my robe and we all
sit at a table with the entire team to discuss the matter. I make it a point to
always sit next to the parolee. We always start off being affirming. What we
see most in these courts is theft and drugs. We have people on parole, felony
probation and misdemeanor probation. This is an opportunity to get parole and
probation to start talking to each other and working with each other. In parolee
reentry court you have to have violated your parole and the parole agent has to
make the referral. Our case managers then look over the referrals and get all
the information we then have a team meeting as to whether we are going to
accept the person into the program. So far we have only rejected one case.

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

We are currently using CDCR programs which mean that we didn’t have to do
a lot of contracting out. Some of the parole agents were worried about a turf
war – once a person gets into the court they are still the parole agent but I make
the decision, including the decision for them to get out of the courts. Shelter,
substance abuse and anger management is what we focus on - also all the
family issues.

BQ: I just got a client 3 days ago that was referred by her parole agent to our
program she has a reentry court data for the 23rd but she is already in Women
On The Way.

Judge Barranco: I think we might have handled her this morning – she will
remain in your program.

DC: Will we continue to get referrals from the parole agents?

Judge Barranco: Yes, but if they have already been referred to you and they
end up in the courts then we will not refer them to you again. The case
managers will contact you when we do send people to you to see if that person
is in your program. Israel and Jennifer Richardson is our case managers. I am
very pleased with both of them so far. We have a hiring policy that I’m
involved with and then I interview the finalist myself.

OO: Is the family unification a collaboration of family members?

Judge Barranco: Yes, I certain it is. Before January 1st, 2011 I want to make
sure that I have personally visited all these programs. Out of the 46 referrals
that we’ve had so far, my estimate would be that 30 to 35 are African
American, less than 5 have been White and the rest have been Hispanic. Even
at the PACT meetings looking at a crowd of 60 to 70 people, 55 out of the 70
are African American.

TW: Since these are one time funds is there a plan for future funding?

Judge Barranco: No. We do have the money now; most importantly we do
have the collaboration and the opportunity to work together. You can see from
the handout that if the statistics show what we want them to show that they
have succeeded along with all the other collaborative justice initiatives that we
have had even the local agencies will figure out some way to continue this. I
have been the judge in our homeless court since December of 2004 – we have
a drug court we have a mental health court and a behavior healthcare court we
started about a year ago. We are trying to sell collaborative justice to people

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

because it works.

TW: Is there an evaluation piece to this?

Judge Barranco: Yes. That deals with the AOC and all of our financial and
technical people and I have nothing to do with this. Our financial people are
Faith Fuller, with our court Robert Quinlan.

TW: What about programmatic evaluations as well?

Judge Barranco: Ken would have more information on that. Stimulus money
has all these requirements.

KM: What do I say to the parole officers to get them to buy into this new
reentry court instead of the system they’ve been using for years?

Judge Barranco: First of all, they may not have a choice. Secondly, the old
system doesn’t work. We are actually going to relieve their case load because
when they refer someone to us and we accept them into our courts they still
have to report to their parole officer but we do all the rest of the work. We use
the programs that are already in existence and then we use our programs. Once
they are accepted into the courts essentially I’m the parole officer. The parole
officer becomes more involved when he or she leaves our program because he
or she hasn’t succeeded or have succeeded.

KM: We do a year review to say yes or no they should get off parole and if
they are in reentry court how will you be a part of that process so that we will
know if we should say this person should remain on parole or should be taken
off early?

Judge Barranco: The parole agents have to communicate with our case
managers and send copies of documents to our case managers so everyone
knows how well that person is doing. If a person gets arrested we need to hear
about this from the parole agent right away. This legislation says that no
matter what the parole hold is once that person is accepted into parolee reentry
court, the parolee reentry court judge has the final authority.

OO: One of the 3 outcomes is to reduce recidivism, right? Housing seems to
be something that will be very challenging.

Judge Barranco: We realize that housing is difficult and the most expensive.
We know that housing is crucial and we know that is so important.

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

RB: Is there one or two more burning questions for the judge because he has to
go and so does Steve Spiker.

ML: The case manager that you have are any of formerly incarcerated?

Judge Barranco: That question was not asked of them by me. I did not ask
that but I know both of them have a lot of experience.

DS: That is an important piece that guys share the same experience. I have a
question what is the ultimate sanctions about?

Judge Barranco: The ultimate sanction is incarceration. That’s not the first
alternative, the second, third or fourth. If there is a person who has a substance
abuse problem and that leads to him or her taking someone’s property and it
always kick in on a particular day of the month, and we keep having repeated
violations then maybe on that day they need to spend a night in jail. The
ultimate is that you get thrown out of the program. When it comes to the
incarceration piece it is not for a substantial amount of time. The recognition
is that people fall down and need help getting back up. The groups whom we
have contracted with for services I’m 99% sure that people who work with
them have previously been incarcerated. I not sure about our case managers.

RB: Thank you for coming.

Judge Barranco: The parolee reentry court is public court – department 106,
every Thursday at Wiley Manuel Courthouse.

UPDATES                                                                              Steve Spiker
    2. CDCR data sharing

RB: At our last couple of meetings we have been talking about the potential
agreement between CDCR and the Network. Last time we talked about the
data and what we would want. I’ve asked Steve Spiker to come who works for
Urban Strategies Council, and he is the one who will be receiving the data.
The floor is yours.

SS: Today CDCR actually delivered the first data set – I’m a little ignorant of
the end use of this data since I haven’t been to any of the prior meeting
concerning this data. I’ve only been a part of this process on the Urban
Strategies Council side of it for 2 or 3 weeks. I don’t have a perfect idea of
what you want with the data and what you plan on doing with the data and how
are you going to use it. CDCR delivered the data in a form that was a little less

                                      ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                           COORDINATING COUNCIL

than helpful. We have individual record level data for all of parolees active in
Alameda County. For every person we don’t have an address or name we have
their age ethnicity their gender and the zip codes and city they live in. They
just gave us the data before I got here so I haven’t had the opportunity to really
look through the data. I do know that there is an educational and stability need,
there is a there is a substance abuse measure, there too was a measure of
violence in the data around the sentence they received the assessor impression
of a c certain set of questions to see what their level of violence is. They also
said the agreement is about to be signed by CDCR. Personally what they have
given us I’m not satisfied with it is ideal. Our CEO is out of state right now, I
have to sit down with him and go back on this process to see what you all
wanted. The data CDCR has sent is useable and I have asked them to combine
the data into one file instead of these split files. Quickly I would like to know
what people’s expectations of this data are.

ML: Will the prisoners getting out have a copy of this data that we’re talking

SS: I don’t think anyone get a copy of this assessment.

RB: For the folks that weren't here in last month meeting the way we ended the
meeting was the service providers said a name connected to the person was not
really that helpful for them. On a more macro level Urban Strategies said that
if we have this type of understanding then we can say these are the type of
programs that we need. What it really comes down to if someone just walks in
and you do not know was this person and this is their issue then how are you
going to plan for that person? That is where we left it last time. If anyone
wants to add anything, please do so. Do remember we have not signed the
agreement yet.

BQ: So they would not be able to put CDC the number with the assessment?
And that assessment is that in Detail as to how long the person has served?
What age do they start at? Because when a client walks in to us we need to
know where the client’s bottom is. What I got out 15 years ago my bottom
was different I had an education, I graduated high school. Under the SASCA
program, what is doing right now is they sent a questionnaire that the parolee
we herself fills out about her and her life. They fax that, with the fact sheet of
her charges. Because we can accept arsonists or to 290's.

SS: Let me just cover the conversation we had last time -at the start of the call
they agree to give us what we needed. We got on the phone and ended up
talking to lawyers instead of the research staff. And the lawyers basically shut
everything down. There has been some big realignment at CDCR in the last

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

five years. They had some very, very paranoid approaches to the discussion.
After we told them what we really wanted they turn around and say we cannot
really give you that. There is no way that we would ever release that
information. And my response to that was we have already got that
information from you five years ago. We have 20 years of criminal history on
everyone on parole in five counties in the year 2005. Their lawyers turn
around and say that's illegal, you do not have that. The lawyers even tried to
block us from getting the age. We have two options on the table right now.
One is we say, this is not working. This is not what we need it does not really
do anything at all other than to allow us to make a few maps. Or we say we
are not willing to sign a contract because the information is not useful. One
thing that can be done, if we were to say we are going to sign this agreement,
we are going to take the little data that they give us right now, and use it the
best we can to build on the work that has already been done in the country.
We have partners that are in Rhode Island and him Cleveland that have est.
amazing data sharing agreements with their local CDCR, parole and probation
departments, including the police department. They have been able to get the
data sharing agreements where a nonprofit like us has access to the record level
data of all the departments and can publish all information the aggregate
information. These models have been set up where they have very secure with
the data; the health departments are connected also. Agencies are making their
information available to all agencies across the board. Hopefully we can start
to educate CDCR lawyers and research teams about what can be shared. This
of course will take time. We do need to Get this done in California.

CM: Are the lawyers saying that it is a liability issue?

SS: They say it is partly a confidential issue. UC Irvine has got all of this data
and we have got all this data from the past. It is also a privacy issue.
Numerous universities have the data already, which goes to prove that the
liability issue is not the overarching issue. Is more of an inability to share
information and data? We asked the data on the people getting release within
the next 3 to 6 months and they said we can give you data only on who is out

JessieW: Are they closing down the possibility of something that we talked
about in a couple of meetings ago - some sort of authorization of us being the
individuals who receive the Compass report.

SS: That was the tenure we got from their lawyers. They sounded like they
were shutting down any conversation of any individual level data, which was
very shocking to be honest.

RB: Was there any conversation in the phone call about the signing of the
waiver for the individual?

                                      ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                           COORDINATING COUNCIL

SS: No.

RB: It may be helpful if we were to discuss that with them.

CM: Is there a possibility that the laws of different in different states?

SS: There are different laws in different states. The reality is that the laws
have not changed in the last five years. San Diego attorneys have got this data
and use it for research. Within the state the laws do not prohibit us from what
we are trying to do it is an interpretation issue and we run into this a lot.
Generally, aren’t trained in data and what it means to release confidential data.

BB: Is there an appellate process within the department when there is a refusal
to turn over information?

SS: It has to go to the PRA. We are going to start talking more with the
research division again; the staff that we used to know there has been moved.
So the connections that we had are not as strong.

RB: And by the time of the next meeting would you be able to bring us
something back to show us the usefulness of the data?

SS: Yes.

JessieW: I know there is a lot of benefit that we are getting from this MOU -
that the services providers feel are more important than just the data alone.

CM: With the amount of lawsuits I think that the attorneys want to make sure
that the data does not get into the wrong hands.

SS: I apologize that I have to leave, feel free to contact me, Bernadette or
Kenyatta. We will have something for you, by the next meeting, now that we
have some data.

WELCOME & INTRODUCTION                                                              Rodney
  A. Welcome                                                                        Brooks
  B. Introductions
  C. Agenda review
  D. Announcement

DISCUSS CDCR DATA SHARING                                                           Rodney
  A. Do we move forward with CDCR data agreement                                    Brooks
  B. BOS presentation (PowerPoint handouts)

                                    ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                         COORDINATING COUNCIL

   C. How will the Network impact the PACT meetings

RB: I now will it take time to talk about section 4A and section 4C, you should
all have handout. These handouts are power points that were presented at the
last public protection agency meeting. The handout talks about our discussions
that have been with CDCR. I like to before jumping towards the data piece-
Jessie, you brought up some really good points, and we did talk about some of
the things besides the data sharing agreement. Jessie, can you refresh everyone
on some of the other things that people thought was important, besides data
sharing agreements.

JessieW: What I remember is that we will get the opportunity to be the first
pilot innovative program. And hopefully create better relationships between
parole and probation. And even the relationships between service providers
and parole agents. There was no funding attached to this MOU -

RB: Some of the things we talked about along those lines, the fact that in grant
proposals, etc. we could say that we have the signature of CDCR or are in
collaboration with them. That will be beneficial to us any time that this
network wanted to try to secure a grant proposal like we did with the Second
Chance funding would you be able to say CDCR is with us. That proved to be
very helpful. If there was money to come forward, we will be the first in line
to receive it through our partnership with CDCR. Those of the other pieces
other than the data that we can benefit from. I like to open this for discussion
to see if anyone else has any ideas.

BQ: No offense to CDCR I think we need to stand our ground and say this is
what we need to help our parolees coming back to Alameda County to be
successful. We are tired of the high recidivism rates. We are the ones have to
have to deal with it in our cities and communities.

RB: My last e-mail exchange with the Sheriff last week, the request was data
sharing. However I do not know what they are in their discussion or what they
might have accomplished with CDCR. The last thing the Sheriff told me is
that there any discussion with their attorneys, which is pretty much the same
place that we are. I can easily inquire about this.

IM: CDCR may not have the capacity to give us the data that we want. I know
of a similar situation that happened with OPD and them not having the
capacity to give certain data.

TW: When a person comes out on parole then the parole officer does have
some data/information on that individual. Is it possible to take better
advantage of that system since we are all working together as a team?

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

SC: We are talking about the same information that UCLA is doing studies on
about parolees.

TW: Could those being released sign a waiver to have their information

SC: If you go the same route that UCLA did then you could probably get the
same results. The COMPASS information may not be as accurate as you may
think. Because it’s based on information that the person is giving to the person
asking the question for the assessment it may not be all that accurate.

RB: The COMPASS is done once you come in right?

SC: Yes. I think you would get more information from the guy just before he
comes home rather than looking for the assessment information from the
COMPASS. My recommendation is to get information from these guys right
before they come home through the groups that are already going inside. I
think this approach would work best for the network. Even parole officer go to
San Quentin to see guys coming back to Oakland/Alameda County, someone
could go up there on that day and talk with the guys coming home to see what
their needs are and when they’ll be paroled.

RB: You mentioned more accurate data – I do think if we get someone to sign
a waiver that opens a lot of things for us. So what is out there that is more

SC: When talking to the individual you can find out where that person wants
to do when he or she is released, where they want to go. You need to know if
that person has a girl friend who has recently moved, if they have family still
in this county, are they a gang member and don’t want to parole back to the
area they came from. This is what you need to know in order they help them
with services. Is that person really viable for rehabilitation, you want to know

RB: Where does this more accurate information exist? Does the person tell

SC: Yes.

RB: But if it’s self reported it may not be the most substantiated information.

SC: I’ve worked as a deputy sheriff, marshal service, probation and parole –
all the information that we get is the information that they tell us. Now when
you do a background check you go out and knock on doors, other than that it’s
about what they tell you. At the time of arrest these folks really don’t want to

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

answer any questions so they will sometimes say anything just to hurry up and
get out of the room. That’s why on the COMPASS assessment a lot of the
information is not accurate or very much out dated.

BQ: When we do our ASI’s (Addiction Severity Index) which covers lot
things it covers employment, medical and mental health. During this
assessment the last question ask do you think the person being interviewed is
being honest. When you have been in this business for a while you know
when someone is being forthcoming and when they are holding back. And you
can answer that question honestly at the end. You go back 60 days later and
you have a one on one and try to get that information out of them. You never
stop trying to get this information so that you can give them the best services
and referrals that you can.

ML: I’m going to say something that Fredrick Douglas said so eloquently –
Power concedes nothing without the demand. Until we start demanding
collectively…are we talking to other reentry courts throughout the state?
CDCR is not going to give up something that will undermine their payroll.
I’m frustrated because I don’t think everyone here wants the same thing.
Personally, a lot of people in prison should be in rehabilitation centers. Until
we demand something fundamentally we may not get too much of anything at
all. How many people incarcerated have PhD’s or masters degrees or even
GED’s so when they talk about cutting they aren’t cutting correctional officers
payroll they are cutting programs for those who already don’t have anything.
I’m speaking as a formerly convict and not an inmate and I’m frustrated. We
need to find ways to get education programs in prison since so many folks
don’t have a lot of education. We need to invest in vocational programs.
Masters programs and Bachelors programs were cut from prison in back in the

BQ: My husband got trained in vocation to do auto body and repair work and
when he got out he was able to get a job. They just cut all the services in the
women’s prison.

CT: When the clients come through our program we get people that want

RB: One thing that we did agree upon in the MOU which was put in the last
version was looking for ways to make the plans laid out by parole agents and
those lay out by the service center interface and not be contradictory. Some
service providers said that parole officers just come and disrupt their class and
pull guys out rather than getting in touch with the executive director and
saying, hey we need to talk to this individual can you pull him out and bring
him to this room. Who do we go from the broad understanding of what we are
trying to do to the understanding of the parole officer and the executive

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

director of one of these programs? How do we get them in sync with each

BQ: At Women on The Way we do team meeting where we include the parole
agent. Whether they show up or not we extend them an invitation. If they
don’t show up we send them a report or if they come to the facility we give
them a report of that team meeting. We have been working in South County
for 15 years and the parole agents have been good in our dealings with them.
The Hayward parole office is more engaged then the Oakland parole officers.
My facility has 50/50 even though it’s more convenient for the Hayward parole
officers since we are in Hayward.

BB: I’m new here and this is for my own clarification – I was going through
the notes and I wanted to know what the real purpose of the MOU is? I’m
hearing two different things I’m hearing a funder aspect which is why they
need specific data. Steve and I have had a conversation about what this means
to funders, the objectives and deliverables. It was mentioned earlier about the
collaboration which is something funders like to see. Then there is the aspect
of providing services which is what the gentleman over there spoke about in
terms of them filing out their own data, self reporting and figuring out what the
services are. These to me are two separate prongs in one agreement.

RB: Your analysis is dead on. Different entities really need different things –
CDCR approach us and said we want to have these working agreements with
networks and counties that are trying to do a lot around reentry. They heard
about some of the work that we’re doing and said that we want to make
Alameda County first. Different things benefit different people if you are
going after data and tracking is great if you are going after money.
Information about the client before they get to the front door helps the service

BB: What I’m also hearing is getting the parolees to engage in the services.
What about the mandate issue?

BQ: Some parolees are mandated by their parole officer or by the prison

BB: I’m a former public defender from New York state and there the judge
has to mandate the conditions.

CM: I just want us to realize that CDCR changes according to what society
wants. When Jerry Brown comes in next CDCR is going to change. We also
need to realize that when CDCR gives out information to law enforcement, if
law enforcement violates the conditions under which they got the
information/data they could lose their jobs and possibly go to jail I don’t know

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

if Urban Strategies is under that same decree.

ML: I agree with everything stated and we also have to include that CCPOA
have some of the strongest lobbyist in Sacramento who is protecting their

CM: They are weak now we haven’t had an agreement in ten years, and we
lost 15%.

SC: My main interest is providing services for guys coming home throughout
our region.

JE: I agree with a lot of stuff that was said earlier – especially with Steve from
Urban Strategies. I think to say that we don’t want to utilize what CDCR
brings to the table would be crazy on our part. This first year of being out on
parole. I paroled from San Quentin and that prison is unique in the fact that it
has a lot of programs for those who want to take advantage of those programs.
We should be demanding that CDCR be more forthcoming – especially since
CDCR house over 70,000 prisoners, and on top of that they are talking about
mass releases into the community, they should be more forthcoming. The
PACT meetings are a joke, the reason why people show up to those meetings is
because it they don’t then they will be violated. If you start mandating things
and then expect to get information from formerly incarcerated folks it’s not
going to happen. They are not at that point going to trust you with their
personal information. I believe we can get CDCR to give us more information.
We need to know what percentage of folks we are dealing with – substance
abuse providers need to know that there may be 30% of folks paroling with
substance abuse problems. CDCR has to work with parole in order to keep the
information accurate that coming from the guys. In order to improve the
PACT meetings we need to bring some real resources to the meetings.

SC: Yes, we do have to have a lot more providers from this county – we need
people who can get jobs for those coming out. We have same providers at the
PACT meetings but we need new providers offering services. The services
that we are supposed to be providing aren’t good services right now.

JE: The real issue is we need service providers; CDCR and parole have to
work in conjunction with each other. We are spending millions of dollars on
gang injunctions, why aren’t we spending the money on resources, education,
and gang intervention.

TW: I think there is a common ground and the common ground is what the
judge said to get probation and parole to have conversations with each other.
How do they provide the mechanism needed to meet the needs of those getting
out? Our discussion should not just be addressing data but there are other

                                     ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                          COORDINATING COUNCIL

areas we should concentrate on as well. I think we should take advantage of
this opportunity. The political will of the state does redefine policy. What will
happen at the state level we are facing another 25 plus growing million dollar
deficit therefore there is going to be even less money to make things happen.
How do we run smarter and leaner? This is what this governor is going to be
about – running smarter and leaner. So we need to figure out how we do
things with less money and less resources.

JessieW: I do think the data is important – it is an important part of this
agreement. I think if we can take it back to Bernadette, Kenyatta and Steve –
the pre release data is more important than knowing someone’s name.

RB: Different entities need different things from the MOU. So if it’s about
research planning, data collection, what we might try to do to get money then
you don’t need the names. If someone is walking through the door of service
provider aggregate information is not helping me.

BQ: We could run leaner and cheaper if we were to send folks to programs.
Send them to programs rather than jail.

IM: I was under the assumption that part of the information that we are
receiving is to make sure that educational programs continue in prisons. We
should be data driven in our resources, it’s important to understand a person
education level.

RB: I’ve been listening and I have some ideas on how we can move forward.
The first thing I’m hearing is we don’t want to lose the opportunity to get
something with CDCR by getting hung up with this stuff on the data. The
second piece is that we can offer some strategy’s in the negotiations. Can
Urban Strategies be the one to collect and assemble the data for you if you can
really put it forward? Can you help us when folks get out and want to sign a
waiver to release information? The third thing is we have some service
providers here but I want to have a very thorough discussion with the folks
providing the services so that I can say if you get this is this really useful and
how will this affect your program. If not, what else are you looking for? I
think there is a little disconnect between us and what we are asking from

CT: Is there something we can do to make a person go to classes or to see
service providers so that they can get what they really need?

BQ: I’m not for pulling out of the relationship because this is the farthest
we’ve got with CDCR so far.

RB: The second piece is that we talked about doing something better with the

                                      ALAMEDA COUNTY REENTRY NETWORK:
                                           COORDINATING COUNCIL

PACT meetings. I would like to have a working group to help work on that.
Who wants to be on the PACT Improvement Team? Those on the PACT
Improvement Team are: Manuel LaFontaine, Jerry Elster, Steve Christian,
Charles Turner, Iris Merriouns, Martha Toscana-Perez, Barbara Quintero and
Wayne M.

ML: Since I’ve been coming to these meetings for the last 2 years nothing has
changed much fundamentally. One strategy is to get parole agents and elected
officials to accept our mission because when ideas and strategies come from
them people listen and publish what they say. Much quicker than they would
if it was coming from me.

OO: If I know as a provider who people are coming to me then I know how to
best help them.

RB: Do anyone have any announcements that they want to make?

DISCUSS HOW TO ENGAGE NETWORK AND REENTRY COURTS                                   All
   B. Brainstorm Ideas

NEXT STEPS                                                                         Rodney
  A. Review next steps                                                             Brooks
  B. Final comments

ML: I just passed out something – this is a donation plead that we do every
year to try to get folks connected with their children inside. This is the tenth
year that we’ve been doing this. It’s going to happen in East Palo Alto, in
memory of Robert Moody, Community Organizer who got killed and David
Lewis who got killed shot in the back and his killer has not been found.