Shasta County officials are disputing most of the grand jury’s findings in regards to how the county has spent some $39 million in AB109 funds designed to deal with an influx of state prison inmates returning to the area.
The county also does not plan to implement five out of six of the grand jury’s recommendations regarding how prison realignment funds are spent or programs are managed.
The proposed responses go to the county Board of Supervisors for possible approval Tuesday.
In the report released in June the grand jury recommended an audit to determine whether AB109 funds are being spent according to law.
The county has received $45.7 million in realignment funds, according to the grand jury. But the $39 million it has spent was not done according to the intent of the legislation, the grand jury contends.
“Budgets and minutes of the Board of Supervisors and Community Corrections Partnership indicate that Assembly Bill 109 funds have been used to replace rather than add to Shasta County general funds for public safety, indicating the need for such an audit,” the jury’s findings say.
But the the county “wholly disagrees” with the finding because the law does not require an audit, the proposed response says. Further, the county auditor-controller’s office allocates AB109 funds in compliance with the legislation, the reponse says.
The grand jury also found the county has not increased capacity in the county jail or in the Sheriff’s Office’s work release program above 2008 levels.
The county rejects that finding, noting that AB109 does not require the county to increase the number of beds at the county jail. The county’s response also says AB109 funds were used to prevent the closure of one floor in the jail.
The county has also spent about $2.5 million in AB109 funds on sending inmates to jails in other counties when the local jail cannot accept more prisoners, the response says.
The county also noted that over a seven-year period from 2010 to 2017, general fund spending on the county jail increased 14 percent.
The 21-page grand jury report included seven findings and six recommendations, faulting the county’s spending and management of the AB109 funds, which are supposed to reimburse counties for the influx of state prison inmates released under parole to county probation departments.
The intent of the funds is to create rehabilitation programs and services to ensure those released to county supervision go on to lead productive lives.
But the grand jury's report says some of the money has been used for programs previously funded by the county general funds instead of their intended purpose.
"This reduces the opportunities for new rehabilitative programs and services," it said.
The grand jury also said $39 million has been distributed without a standardized system to evaluate and approve funding requests.
The county, however, “wholly disagrees” with those findings. The county’s proposed response says the Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee evaluates all funding requests and compares them with previous year’s funding requests.
The county’s response did not mention a standardized format for funding requests for programs designed to reduce recidivism.
The grand jury also said the county does not collect data to ensure programs are effective in reducing recidivism. The county partially disagreed with that finding, noting that Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department staff have received training in evaluating the effectiveness of programs.
The Probation Department also reports on the benefits of programs, number of offenders served and “outcome measures” to the Board of Supervisors, the response says.
July 22, 2018
Redding Record Searchlight
By Damon Arthur
No comments:
Post a Comment