Updated: Jan 27
Sacramento County’s Community Corrections Partnership Committee is meeting on December 3 starting at 8:30 a.m. to decide how Sacramento County is going to spend $47million of their AB109/Realignment funding from the state.
Send an email comment to BoardClerk@saccounty.net Re:item #1
Dial (916) 875-2500 and follow the prompts to be placed in queue for item #1
AB109, also known as Public Safety Realignment, was passed by the state legislature in 2011 and shifted thousands of individuals from state prisons to county jails. Every county in California receives funding from AB109, which can and should be used for reentry services, decreasing recidivism and community-based alternatives to incarceration. But here in Sac County it has basically become another pot of funding for the Probation and Sheriff Department.
Our county’s committee has not included community stakeholders at all in their decision-making process.
The County still lacks several key strategic planning documents:
a comprehensive jail system management plan
An alternatives to incarceration plan
regular reporting and monitoring of jail and probation populations with outcomes, disaggregated by demographics
On December 3, call-in and demand that:
1) AB109 funds should go directly to community-based organizations that are providing essential reentry and care services that keep people out of jail
In Alameda County, 50% of AB109 funds are earmarked for community-based re-entry services and managed by the Department of Health
2) What is the membership make-up of the Statistical Working Group, how long will they serve for, how will the membership be appointed, and what authority will they have?
3) Who determines whose voices of “formerly incarcerated individuals” are included and how?
Reference the County of LA’s Alternatives to Incarceration workgroup membership selection process.
4) AB109 funds should be used for the primary purposes of reducing Sacramento County jail populations
No public, real-time dashboard exists to indicate how many total incarcerated persons there are, why they’re in jail, what neighborhoods they’re from, and what their recidivism outcomes are. How does the entire criminal legal system (policing, incarceration, adjudication, probation, etc.) increase a family’s dependency on public assistance, city/county services, etc.?
5) All fund decisions need to be vetted by community advisory boards with significant input from directly-impacted and previously incarcerated people
Add 2 community members onto the current Executive CCP Team
Create a Community Advisory Board as appointed by the Board of Supervisors
6) The Public Defender’s Office should be included in the decision-making process and should be funded more significantly for innovations like the evidence-based Pretrial Support Program
7) Probation should be fully accountable for their lack of transparency and reporting of outcomes related to the SB10 Pretrial Pilot Program. In addition, account for the $150,000 of funds that was supposed to be used for community groups to improve pre-trial outcomes.
How much of the total Pre-trial pilot budget has been spent? What are the outcomes?
What is the plan for pre-trial services given that Prop 25 did not pass?